The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Was 1960s Feminism a Front?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

An NYT obituary:

Rosalyn Baxandall, Feminist Historian and Activist, Dies at 76
By WILLIAM GRIMES OCT. 14, 2015

Rosalyn Baxandall, a feminist historian who was among the first to bring scholarly attention to the historical role of women in the workplace and to expand the meaning of “women’s work,” died on Tuesday night at her home in Manhattan. She was 76. …

Ms. Baxandall served on the front lines of the feminist movement in New York in the late 1960s.

She helped create Liberation Nursery, the first feminist day care center in New York. As an early member of New York Radical Women and Redstockings, she picketed the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City, one of the most visible of the feminist protests of the ’60s, forever associated with a symbolic burning of restrictive women’s clothes that mainstream publications referred to as a “bra burning.” …

Rosalyn Fraad, known as Ros, was born on June 12, 1939, in Manhattan into a radical household. Her father, Lewis M. Fraad, was a Communist who worked for the Communist International, or Comintern, in Vienna in the 1930s and later became the chief of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. Her mother, the former Irma London, was a Communist lawyer and the niece of Meyer London, who was elected to Congress on the Socialist Party ticket in 1914.

“We threw Tampax at the F.B.I. agents who parked outside of our home for two days after my father refused to speak with them,” Ms. Baxandall and her sister Harriet wrote in an essay for “Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left” (1998), edited by Judy Kaplan and Linn Shapiro. “We giggled dirty words into the phone when told that it was tapped.”

Her mother’s deep unhappiness at suspending her career to raise children made a profound impression on her.

If you look closely enough, you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole. (Society as a whole, of course, never figures out what’s really going on). The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters), and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City.

Similarly, the social divide between German Jews and Eastern European Jews in America (which was exemplified by problems the Eastern Jews had in getting into German Jews’ country clubs) has been forgotten due to American Jews adopting the myth that their great-grandfathers really wanted to get into gentile country clubs.

Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other. Considering the horrific toll taken by civil wars in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, this strategy of redirecting animosities outward seems prudent.

 
Hide 259 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I think second wave feminism was just a corporate front to increase the supply of labor just to decrease the cost of labor.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Deduction

    I think second wave feminism was just a corporate front to increase the supply of labor just to decrease the cost of labor.
     
    Or rather, people's crude self-interest as high level corporateers incentivised them to often support it?
    , @namae nanka
    Anthony Ludovici chided the first wavers for not focusing on the lack of good wages for working class men which tended to turn their wives out from their homes.

    And the wage gap hysteria has its roots in first wave itself.

    To the party that will, as a preliminary, pledge itself to level male and female wages in government employ, will be given the Feminist vote; and if no party will bid, then it is the Feminist intention to run special candidates for all offices, to split the male parties, and to involve them in consecutive disasters such as the one which befell the Republican party in the last presidential election in the United States.


    Is this 2012 we're talking of?

    Nope, it's from Feminist Intentions by WL George. Printed way back in 1913.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. WhatEvvs [AKA "Anonymuss Annie"] says:

    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @peterike
    The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion.

    Yup, that conservative, backward, patriarchal Communist International in Vienna, that well known religious backwater.

    Jews brought their radicalism with them. They learned nothing new in America, other than how easy it is to roll a high-trust, goy society.
    , @Calogero
    Did they also learn about Bolshevism from those Puritan New England Yankees?
    , @johnny memeonic
    But wasn't the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement while jewish feminism gave us the bra burning 60s sexual revolution, a very liberal and progressive movement. It's almost as if they were two very different feminist movements supported by two very different ethnic groups, but hey that would be noticing, and as we all know noticing is a crime.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Paging Morris Dees of the SPLC, this commenter is trying out to be your new official representative for policing various websites. How did the person do, Mr. Dees?

    Because after all, everyone knows that Susan B. Anthony and Karl were thick as thieves politically, the Seneca Falls in upstate NY was interconnected to the German 1848 Revolution that Marx championed, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton led marches for women to burn their bras back in the Victorian days.

    Everyone knows these things; just follow the online links so you can learn the rest of the story.

    , @gruff

    garbage things like this, with no basis in reality
     
    Not so my friend. There is basis in reality. For example, the story of Hannukah is traditionally a tale of noble Jews throwing off the irrational, antisemitic hatred and oppression of the Greek Seleucids and re-establishing their religion. However modern scholarship is revealing that the real story was almost certainly a conflict between Hellenizing urban Jews and conservative rural Jews, with the Seleucid powers intervening to stop the bloodshed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Academic_sources

    This sort of internecine Jewish warfare is more clearly recorded in Josephus's Jewish War, which describes the various factions within Jerusalem literally slaughtering one another while the Romans waited outside to take the city.

    There is indeed a strong element of ideological purity, fanaticism and intolerance in the Old Testament. It was transmitted to Christianity and Islam, giving rise to crusaders and jihadis, and perhaps even to the disease of ideology itself.

    So no, Sailer is not making things up.

    Jews have given a lot of great things to the world, but nobody bats a thousand all the time. There are elements of Jewish culture that bear investigation.


    Feminism is as American as apple pie.
     
    Sailer clearly stated his subject as 1960s feminism, which would have disgusted and horrified Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
    , @Eric
    Nice try, but the only odd allergy on display is you hysteria over any mention of Jewish behavior that Jews (like David Brooks) don't want discussed.
    Nowhere did Sailer say that Jewish women invented feminism, but they were central in the 60s second wave, but of course evil goyim like Stanton are clearly responsible for that. After all, wealthy Jewish doctors and lawyers and their daughters have always been oppressed minorities in the the U.S. and had no agency of their own.
    , @Anonymous
    Nailed it! Steve is always conspicuously omitting reference to the fact that WASPs are responsible for Marxism!
    , @Joe Walker
    This is why you will never be respectable

    Apparently, the only way to be "respectable" is to never offend the Jews.
    , @Joe Walker
    Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Yet you apparently have no problem with all the negative things that Steve says about other groups.
    , @Dennis Dale
    Because earning the validation of David Brooks is everything.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Yes, Jews are the impressionable sheep of humanity, always shucking off their religion to fall under the sway of the crafty Gentile's ideas (look how little Judaism is left after a mere 4000 years!).
    Just who is the anti-Semite here, anyway?

    , @anon
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable.

    I hate to say it, and it pains me deeply to know it, but I think Steve has already given up on that.

    So if the David Brookses of the world aren't going to respect him anyway, he might as well go there.
    , @Hail
    A case makes itself that the USA has a "hostile elite" with Jews being the most significant subgroup thereof. Aggression, ethnocentricism, and talent, combined with their influence within the elite, should make Jewish power a subject of discussion, at least.

    The thing is, it's not at all. Nary a peep. No one, but no one, talks about it in a respectable medium, despite its obvious importance. If you've ever had the opportunity to talk to a politically-aware non-Westerner (not just Muslims), many will mention Jewish power when discussing America readily.

    (On CNN, only one person, a host, has ever implied anything near the above and he was promptly fired. He was a Cuban-American whose name I've forgotten.)

    The Jewish issue is the Great Taboo in the USA, and political taboos are a form of lying. "Live not by lies," as Steve's original blog said proudly at the top.

    , @Hail
    Anyway, Brooks would not admit to reading Sailer because Sailer is un-PC across a wide spectrum, on race and so on. Who knows what names the SPLC and that sort are now calling him.

    Anonymuss Annie's premise is just wrong all around. I suspect an ulterior motive.

    , @Father O'Hara
    Annie I have a great guy for you! His name is whiskey...
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Feminism is as American as apple pie.
     
    A better simile would be "as American as nuclear warfare".

    Leave apple pie out of this!
    , @Gunnar von Cowtown
    The Junior Auxiliary Thought Police strike again.

    Did you seriously just log on here and try to shame Steve for noticing? LOL!

    Who bitch this is???

    , @namae nanka

    Agitation for equal suffrage was carried on by only a few individuals. The first of these was Frances Wright, a Scottish woman who came to the country in 1826 and advocated women's suffrage in an extensive series of lectures. In 1836 Ernestine Rose, a Polish woman, came to the country and carried on a different campaign so effectively that she obtained a personal hearing before the New York Legislature, though her petition bore only five signatures.


    Polish woman?

    Ernestine Louise Rose (January 13, 1810 – August 4, 1892) was an atheist feminist, individualist feminist, and abolitionist. She was one of the major intellectual forces behind the women's rights movement in nineteenth-century America. [. . .]

    She was born on January 13, 1810, in Piotrków Trybunalski, Russia-Poland, as Ernestine Louise Polowsky. Her father was a wealthy rabbi and her mother the daughter of a wealthy businessman.

     
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/yankees-and-womens-suffrage.html

    So physician, heal thyself.
    , @William BadWhite
    "This is why you will never be respectable."

    I think Steve is pretty respectable.
    , @n/a
    While you're at it, Google and read about Ernestine Rose, daughter of a rabbi, immigrant from Poland, and one of the two or so earliest feminist activists in America (the earliest being Scottish immigrant Frances Wright):

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/yankees-and-womens-suffrage.html


    It took this immigrant from a "a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion" 5 months to get 5 signatures on a petition to grant married women property rights in New York.

    After a good deal of trouble I obtained five signatures. Some of the ladies said the gentlemen would laugh at them; others, that they had rights enough; and the men said the women had too many rights already. . . . I continued sending petitions with increased numbers of signatures until 1848 and '49, when the Legistlature enacted the Law which granted woman the right to keep what was her own. But no sooner did it become legal than all the women said: "Oh! that is right! We ought always have had that!" (Stanton, 1:99)


    On Stanton and Rose:

    Stanton's anti-immigrant speeches in the mid-1860s suggest that, like so many others in the mid-nineteenth century, she probably harbored unconscious biases against foreigners, and, perhaps, Jews that may have rendered Rose's words and deeds invisible to her. Yet, Stanton certainly learned from Rose, who was five years her senior. Many of Stanton's most effective speeches and best ideas of the 1850s were predicted by Rose's talks in the 1840s. Rose and Stanton, the two most brilliant and forceful orators of the movement, were, perhaps, in some ways too much alike in personality and too different in background and manner to ever become close friends. [Carol A. Kolmerten. The American Life of Ernestine L. Rose.]
    , @Chrisnonymous
    The really weak point of iSteve and the comments section is the lack of data. I started reading iSteve regularly after GNXP, and I have to say that Razib's focus on data in social sciences is spot-on.

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it's all meaningless.
    , @ben tillman

    When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.
     
    No way.

    First, the Puritans were heavily influenced by the Dutch Jewish community; in other words, THEY picked up the ideas around them.

    Second, abolitionism doesn't even fit into the discussion. It's an anachronism, as it predated the wave of Jewish immigration you're talking about.

    Third, the Puritans were extremely intolerant, and it's ludicrous to ascribe some sort of pathological altruism to them.

    Fourth, the *alleged* ideology that you're pretending Jews assimilated into was one of self-sacrifice, not one of self-interest. Yet Jews somehow did not adopt an anti-Jewish attitude.

    Fifth, Jews were always more enthusiastic and more likely to support the alleged ideology you refer to. In other words, Jews were always more hostile to Anglo-Americans than Anglo-Americans themselves were.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. If you look closely enough, you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole. (Society as a whole, of course, never figures out what’s really going on). The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters), and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman.

    Assuming that she hasn’t twisted her perceptions of her mother’s experience to fit her own ideology, I’d argue that there’s nothing particularly unique about individuals starting from their own personal gripes and rationalising them into a critique of society.

    I think that the best counter to this is to point out that her personal experiences make her biased and ill-equipped to dispassionately evaluate our society on this issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @countenance
    I think second wave feminism was just a corporate front to increase the supply of labor just to decrease the cost of labor.

    I think second wave feminism was just a corporate front to increase the supply of labor just to decrease the cost of labor.

    Or rather, people’s crude self-interest as high level corporateers incentivised them to often support it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion.

    Yup, that conservative, backward, patriarchal Communist International in Vienna, that well known religious backwater.

    Jews brought their radicalism with them. They learned nothing new in America, other than how easy it is to roll a high-trust, goy society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    It must have been just a coincidence that almost all the communist party higher-ups in the US, South Africa, and Europe were jews....maybe they were "conservative" communists...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. “We threw Tampax at the F.B.I. agents who parked outside of our home for two days after my father refused to speak with them,” Ms. Baxandall and her sister Harriet wrote in an essay for “Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left” (1998), edited by Judy Kaplan and Linn Shapiro. “We giggled dirty words into the phone when told that it was tapped.”

    Feminism: the modern day ideology of the girl who refuses to grow up.

    Of course women never used to be forced to fully grow up. They used to move from children’s things when they were children straight to children’s things when they were full time mothers, except the rich who were waited on hand and foot anyway.

    It’s obvious that girls reach maturity much earlier than boys, but organisms that reach maturity quicker tend to end up less mature once all growth is done.

    After all, girls get taller quicker but end up signficantly less tall in the end.

    Perhaps there’s a naturally large fraction of women for whom the modern day requirement to act in a certain adult manner is an unfair modern imposition that they’re unsuited for? And feminism is a coping mechanism against this trauma.

    It certainly explains a lot of the actions of feminists, their high incidence of mental illness, odd sexual attitudes and tendency towards pre-adolescent attention seeking behaviour.

    Read More
    • Replies: @boogerbently
    In "As Good as it Gets" Jack Nicholson's character describes women this way:

    "First, I think of a man, then remove reason and accountability."
    , @Mr. Anon
    An interesting thesis. Good post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. According to her Wikipedia page, Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause. I guess you can praise Baxandall for being consistent, unlike Susan Sontag, who was a cheerleader for Israel during the ’67 War, while opposing the Vietnam War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause.

    Define "the Palestine cause." If it is--as it should be--to roll back the Zionists and not live in a Jewish supremacist state, then I'll eat my hat if she was an advocate.
    , @josh
    The Zionist Jews and the International Communist Jews have not always seen eye to eye. Incidentally, wasn't Sontag CIA? or am I thinking of someone else?
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I guess you can praise Baxandall for being consistent, unlike Susan Sontag, who was a cheerleader for Israel during the ’67 War, while opposing the Vietnam War."

    There is no hypocrisy in that, as those were not the same kinds of war. In the '67 war, Israel waged war against nations that were, potentially, existential threats to it. Vietnam was an entirely discretionary war that the U.S. did not have to fight, and it shouldn't have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Did they also learn about Bolshevism from those Puritan New England Yankees?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe they learned about Bolshevism from folks like Jack Reed, Louise Bryant, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    supposedly Gloria Steinem was funded at least in part by the FBI.

    My theory is that the powers that be (basically comprised of the large nonprofit foundations combined with the US Govt agencies) did here in america what they did overseas after WW2 to stop communism–in the words of richard bissell, who worked for both the ford foundation and one of the American spy agencies, they diverted leftist energies to areas that were “less harmful.” Less harmful from the perspective of the rich and powerful, no doubt.

    In fact one of the occasional columnists here at unz wrote a review of saunders’ book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR that details some of this.

    So the theory goes that feminism was a “proper” diversion for leftist activist energies–away from economic leftism (tax the heck out of the rich and give the $ to the people) and toward areas that would not hurt the plutocrats and the big corporations. In fact feminism as a substitute form of Leftism benefited the big corporations because it expanded the pool of labor. It’s all about propaganda. Of course the govt explored the use of propaganda to pump up female egos so they could compete in the workforce during WW2, when male labor was not as available (Rosie the Riveter, we can do it, etc).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    You are terribly in error.

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,

    , @unpc downunder
    Makes a lot of sense. There's certainly evidence that lage non-profit organisations like the Ford Foundation have donated to feminist causes.

    Another issue is that the traditional nuclear family that had its hayday in the 1950s was in part a product of indirect and direct government welfare - protectionism in the early 20th Century and Keynsian infrastructure spending and paternalistic welfare in the depression /WW II era.

    By the 1960s the nuclear family was starting to become an obstacle to big business since it depended on paying high wages to males and mainstaining low levels of labour market flexibility. Hence, business stood to benefit from a return to the loser family structures of the early industrial revolution.

    The potential problem for big business is that feminism, open borders and the breakdown of the traditional family are now creating an anti-capitalist populus that want higher taxes, a less competitive corporate environment, and more welfare.

    It's a bit like 9/11 with the Taliban attacking the US after the US supported it against the Russians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. IMO a secondary motivation, after “screwing the goyim,” was ugly Jewish women not wanting their men to chase shiksas.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    How would inspiring more shiksas to move into the workforce, alongside Jewish men, help with that goal?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    But wasn’t the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement while jewish feminism gave us the bra burning 60s sexual revolution, a very liberal and progressive movement. It’s almost as if they were two very different feminist movements supported by two very different ethnic groups, but hey that would be noticing, and as we all know noticing is a crime.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    Anglo feminism had a huge component of free love. Mary Wollstonecroft, mother of Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley, was a strong advocate of free love, abolition of marriage, and no social controls on women's sexuality (mens sexuality was another thing). The Oneida Community, and various other Free Love Advocates coming out of the Burnt Over District in Upstate New York were a part of that. One Nathaniel Hawthorne, you may have heard of him, wrote extensively about how women were oppressed by outmoded sexual standards. One Henrik Ibsen, you may also have heard of this man, also wrote extensively on this theme.

    Jews, some from radical Vienna, most of them from backwater Poland, picked up on this and as they ascended society from outsider businessmen (The Warners, Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwynn) to insider lawyers and politicians and inherited wealth, adopted Anglo-Scandinavian views on women and feminism.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement …
     
    I'll ignore the cheap Chicano insult "Anglo" long enough to remind you that Prohibition was anything but conservative. Christians had served wine in Mass since the very beginning, and now these hatchet-faced hatchet wielders made it a crime.

    If anything, Prohibition was Islamic, not Christian. I suppose in that sense it was "reactionary".
    , @International Jew

    But wasn’t the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?
     
    Sure, but Anglo Puritan feminism also changed oh, just a bit, between the 1870s and the 1960s.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality.”

    Actually a universal trait but more amplified among Jews because of their power and personality.

    We can see it in Coates whose main troubles growing up were black bullies but who turned it into a case of black ‘bodies’ being violated by the Eternal White Man(or, to put it more brilliantly, a man who thinks he is white).

    We also see it among Hispanics. There are lots of tensions among various groups in Mexico, but they channel their frustrations out on the yanqui. So, white Hispanics turn into people of color, and non-white Hispanics project their resentment of white elite Hispanics onto gringos.

    We also see it among American conservatives. They feel a lot of repressed rage about other Americans but dare not say anything lest they be accused of bad thoughts. So, their rage is directed outwardly at foreign nations.

    Read More
    • Agree: International Jew
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Paging Morris Dees of the SPLC, this commenter is trying out to be your new official representative for policing various websites. How did the person do, Mr. Dees?

    Because after all, everyone knows that Susan B. Anthony and Karl were thick as thieves politically, the Seneca Falls in upstate NY was interconnected to the German 1848 Revolution that Marx championed, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton led marches for women to burn their bras back in the Victorian days.

    Everyone knows these things; just follow the online links so you can learn the rest of the story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. She helped create Liberation Nursery, the first feminist daycare center in New York.

    Up until then, patriarchal day care centers were the only option.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    garbage things like this, with no basis in reality

    Not so my friend. There is basis in reality. For example, the story of Hannukah is traditionally a tale of noble Jews throwing off the irrational, antisemitic hatred and oppression of the Greek Seleucids and re-establishing their religion. However modern scholarship is revealing that the real story was almost certainly a conflict between Hellenizing urban Jews and conservative rural Jews, with the Seleucid powers intervening to stop the bloodshed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Academic_sources

    This sort of internecine Jewish warfare is more clearly recorded in Josephus’s Jewish War, which describes the various factions within Jerusalem literally slaughtering one another while the Romans waited outside to take the city.

    There is indeed a strong element of ideological purity, fanaticism and intolerance in the Old Testament. It was transmitted to Christianity and Islam, giving rise to crusaders and jihadis, and perhaps even to the disease of ideology itself.

    So no, Sailer is not making things up.

    Jews have given a lot of great things to the world, but nobody bats a thousand all the time. There are elements of Jewish culture that bear investigation.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie.

    Sailer clearly stated his subject as 1960s feminism, which would have disgusted and horrified Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    Not so my friend. There is basis in reality. For example, the story of Hannukah is traditionally a tale of noble Jews throwing off the irrational, antisemitic hatred and oppression of the Greek Seleucids and re-establishing their religion. However modern scholarship is revealing that the real story was almost certainly a conflict between Hellenizing urban Jews and conservative rural Jews, with the Seleucid powers intervening to stop the bloodshed.
     
    That's an apt comparison. Commenters here blame Jews when they should be blaming multikultising gentiles equally and as part of the same category.

    Of course there are plenty of multikultising Jews too, and, ironically, Hassidic type Jews actually blame multikultising gentiles!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Hi Steve. This is a very daring post and a very good one.

    I can’t say that I’m shocked (but it is telling) that the usual suspects are in a tizzy over your train of thought here.

    But needless to say, Jews were way over-represented among the ranks of early 20th-century communists as well as radical feminists. Jewish radicalism is as kosher as matzoh ball soup.

    I think that communism and feminism were, in part, crypto-Jewish movements (like today’s neo-conservativism) that were designed (perhaps subconsciously) to upset the staid, Christian status quo while they provided entry and influence for Jews in cultures where Jews were excluded. And it worked!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    It only 'worked' in the short run. The forces they have enabled have already turned on them. The Revolution always eats its own, because it is a vice-based Revolution. And Revolution is the often the opiate of the masses, but always the opiate of the privileged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Anonymuss Annie
    So Steve should suck up to Jews specifically? I don’t see why. And Steve’s writings are always based in reality. Even Murray Rothbard pointed similar things out about the Jewish leftists he grew up with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    I thought that was pretty good, Steve, but it’s obvious that some people can’t take criticism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Nice try, but the only odd allergy on display is you hysteria over any mention of Jewish behavior that Jews (like David Brooks) don’t want discussed.
    Nowhere did Sailer say that Jewish women invented feminism, but they were central in the 60s second wave, but of course evil goyim like Stanton are clearly responsible for that. After all, wealthy Jewish doctors and lawyers and their daughters have always been oppressed minorities in the the U.S. and had no agency of their own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @David Bruce
    According to her Wikipedia page, Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause. I guess you can praise Baxandall for being consistent, unlike Susan Sontag, who was a cheerleader for Israel during the '67 War, while opposing the Vietnam War.

    Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause.

    Define “the Palestine cause.” If it is–as it should be–to roll back the Zionists and not live in a Jewish supremacist state, then I’ll eat my hat if she was an advocate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Define “the Palestine cause.” If it is–as it should be–to roll back the Zionists and not live in a Jewish supremacist state…
     
    And what would you call the attempt to roll back the Mohammedans and not live in an Arab supremacist state? You know, that other Semitic plot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Interestingly enough Gloria Steinem was a director of the Independent Research Service in the late 50′s which was actually a CIA front. She was also in their empty as a delegate to the 1959 World Youth Festival. Rather suspicious, much like the CIA being exposed as having secretly promoted the modern art movement. Betty Friedan, in turn, had a strong communist past. Some conspiracy minded people have claimed that feminism was really a capitalist trick to harness and tax twice the number of people as was previously possible as well as lowering wages overall. Lots of strange ducks seem to have gathered together in the early days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. “We threw Tampax at the FBI agents”

    A situation in which the new vs. used distinction is paramount.

    Peter

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neuday

    “We threw Tampax at the FBI agents”

    A situation in which the new vs. used distinction is paramount.
     
    Communist Tampax, the color is implied.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Thus feminism goes into the books as one of the top three Soviet espionage initiatives against the United States, the other two, of course, being convincing the world JFK was killed by right wingers and waging (successfully) the anti-Vietnam war campaign. I suppose that the civil rights movement ought to be put in there somewhere,, maybe moving Operation JFK down to No. 4.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.

    I’m not defending feminism–I hate them more than anyone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    My mother's housekeeping workload declined significantly over the course of my childhood due to new appliances: buying a dryer in the mid-1960s was a huge step up from hauling loads of wet laundry outside to put on the line. I don't think dishwashers or microwaves were quite as big of a boost in productivity as a dryer (and decades before that the huge one: the washing machine), but each one helped.

    And then there were smaller boosts, such as better detergents and the like. Procter & Gamble and other CPG firms enjoyed a golden age after WWII in which they were constantly improving their products to work better. That's why so many brand names like Tide remain immensely valuable intellectual property today: women were genuinely grateful that Tide kept getting better and making their lives easier.

    It's why there really wasn't much controversy over women pouring into the workforce from about 1970 onward. Being a homemaker was no longer the huge amount of work it had been just 25 years before.

    The middle of the 20th Century was unusual in that middle class women were expected to take care of their houses without servants. It was part of the egalitarianism of the age. That was an awful lot of work at first, but by the 1970s was less daunting once all the kids were of school age.
    , @JSM
    What do women want? Good part-time jobs.

    What did women get for all their marchin' and demandin'? Full-time, crappy jobs and missed babyhoods.
    , @Tracy

    Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.
     
    I think it was less the labor-saving devices as it was the destruction of ethnic-based neighborhoods and the move toward the suburbs. Women had always had other women around, including extended family. Being stuck in a house alone all day, in terms of adult company, with no one to talk to but kids -- that's what caused a fire in the belly.

    For an interesting book about the intentional destruction of those old neighborhoods, see this book by E Michael Jones of Culture Wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I would add to the above comment (and tried to but was too late) that it’s not the Jews per se. They were only the instruments, and then only some of them. In fact the Master Puppeteer behind it all is the author of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”–Red Intelligence, Tsarist or Commie (it doesn’t matter!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. If you look closely enough, you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole. (Society as a whole, of course, never figures out what’s really going on).

    It is not that gentiles don’t figure out what is really going on, but that most gentiles are smart enough to realize that if they admit they know the truth then they are going to get into serious trouble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Nailed it! Steve is always conspicuously omitting reference to the fact that WASPs are responsible for Marxism!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other

    Interesting. I wonder if this explains the Jewish obsession with anti-Semitism?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. @Mark Green
    Hi Steve. This is a very daring post and a very good one.

    I can't say that I'm shocked (but it is telling) that the usual suspects are in a tizzy over your train of thought here.

    But needless to say, Jews were way over-represented among the ranks of early 20th-century communists as well as radical feminists. Jewish radicalism is as kosher as matzoh ball soup.

    I think that communism and feminism were, in part, crypto-Jewish movements (like today's neo-conservativism) that were designed (perhaps subconsciously) to upset the staid, Christian status quo while they provided entry and influence for Jews in cultures where Jews were excluded. And it worked!

    It only ‘worked’ in the short run. The forces they have enabled have already turned on them. The Revolution always eats its own, because it is a vice-based Revolution. And Revolution is the often the opiate of the masses, but always the opiate of the privileged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Jennifer Lawrence just came out as a feminist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. A Jewish historian made the comment that many Jews – like Einstein – retained their sympathy for Soviet communism after WW 2, primarily because it was seen as a “punishment” for the Germans and Eastern European antisemitism.

    Certainly, many Jews became Communist during the 1933-1945 period because Stalin and the Communist Internationale were seen as the most reliable anti-Nazi in politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    They didn't seem that reliable from, say, August 1939 to June 1941.
    , @Joe Walker
    If gentile nations are so anti-Semitic why don't Jews just leave? It seems that even when the Jews get their own country - Israel - they still prefer to live in the "anti-Semitic" gentile nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    This is why you will never be respectable

    Apparently, the only way to be “respectable” is to never offend the Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Yet you apparently have no problem with all the negative things that Steve says about other groups.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    Reminds me of a former commenter here. The guy seemed quite knowledgeable and erudite and he had not the slightest problem skewering the aggregate behavior of countless human groups. Except when it came to jews, though. It's almost as if the fanatical anti-antisemites think that jews are of a wholly different nature than other humans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. More dangerous is Jewish tendency to Germanize or Nazify all their rivals, enemies, and perceived enemies.

    So, whenever they hear criticism of Jews or Israel, it’s WW II and Holocaust all over again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:

    Why do you make Pastor John Hagee cry with your hate speech, Steve? Wow, just wow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ABN
    I can't even!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. I’ve never heard of Rosalyn Baxandall but its amazing that her family and the New York Times thought throwing menstrual pads at FBI agents was a high point in her life.

    “Amazing” from an American Gentile perspective.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ogunsiron
    As far as I know, orthodox judaism is quite preoccupied with the menses of women. I don't think we appreciate enough that even atheistic secular jewish culture is deeply rooted in the religion that's been central to that people's identity for the past 2500 years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Because earning the validation of David Brooks is everything.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Yes, Jews are the impressionable sheep of humanity, always shucking off their religion to fall under the sway of the crafty Gentile’s ideas (look how little Judaism is left after a mere 4000 years!).
    Just who is the anti-Semite here, anyway?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. From his biography on The Einstein College of Medicine web site. The pediatric department is named after him, Lewis M Fraad Depart of Pediatrics. The notable fragment from the bio:

    “Dr. Fraad collaborated on Dr. Spock’s landmark book “Baby and Child Care”

    I like to look at feminism from a biological perspective. I do this because I want to and not out of any particular data patterns other than my own particularly biased viewpoint.

    To me, the driving aspect of feminism is “Keep those creepy betas away from me.” Cisheteropatriarchal hegemonic monogamy has this particular rule that bugs the crap out of 80% of the women, “For every boy there is a girl”. Since Pareto’s rule says about 80% of men will not be desirable alpha-ish fellows, then 80% of the women would have to “settle” for them.

    The issue for Jewish Women is their men. Most of them will fall outside of that 20% when compared to the global population of men. Jewish female sexual dysfunction is famous, noteworthy, the subject of jokes, a cliche: Jewish Bed Death. “What is Jewish Doggy Style?” “He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead.” It is the stuff that the manosphere, particularly Roissy and Rollo write about: Loss of Genuine Desire leading to Dry Vag condition and hence, Bed Death.

    And this is egregious for many Jewish women. Biologists note that female offspring will assume the traits of the males that are reasonably sexually successful. In most Jewish groups over the past 2000 years or so, Jews were somewhat cut off from the greater population. And the traits imposed on the Jewish women by family driven matches were toward the more cerebrally suited matches and less on the physical. Take this trend for many many generations, smart men over attractive men, and Jewish women are often considered less attractive then their Gentile counterparts. Especially on the fringes given the standard distribution of “Jewish Beauty”. A Jewish 6.5 is a Gentile 4.9. Yes, there are many attractive Jewish women for sure, but drop down into the bottom 80% and you start to have a sort of “bell curve” comparison with Gentile females that rivals the White IQ curve with blacks. Then combine this with the intelligence of the males inherited by daughters. Lots of Smart, ugly daughters compared to the general population. Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women. Not always so, among the Jews.

    And you have the core of feminists, ugly smart angry women, angry that the hot guys ignore them, angry that the men that will go with them, in very short order, will look like Louie De Palma from the sit-com Taxi or or some nebbish like Woody Allen.

    And Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single). But when they marry, they historically marry Jewish due to family pressure and habit of choice. And then the Bed Death sets in and thus, another old Jewish Joke:”How do you keep a Jewish girl from having sex?” “You marry her.” And Jewish women have much disdain over the sexual nature of the Jewish men. The Yiddish name for a penis? “Schmeckel”. “Schmeckel”, not exactly a reverent term, one of the words from Yiddish beginning with “Schm”, all derogatory: Schmoo, Schmooze, and one of everyone’s favorites, Schmegma.

    I could only find two photos of Louis M. Fraad online.

    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ60qfSdFg2Lsw1ijt2n-T5sS_eCh7i6ZH-hmTDHFtzGEDOvcorqA

    In the second, he looks like some sort of burn victim years after recovery. He is liver spotted, blotchy, bald, with a seagull chin. Hard to say, but toss in a Jewish doctor body from “back in the day”, and it is easy for me to see that the former Irma London probably deeply resented being stuck with him, cloistered away from the sexy alphas she wanted but was denied. My wife once made a comment on some women’s site about women getting abortions when the father was a beta; their attitude towards the baby was entirely different than when the father was that hot alpha. Also my wife says, “A woman that loves her husband is never out past 8 pm.” And also “If a woman is out at all, other than what is absolutely necessary, she is probably ovulating.”

    So I agree with the prime assertion of this post, that Jews are genius at foisting intra-Jewish conflict out onto the rest of the world. In this case, its Jewish women hating Jewish men and forcing feminism down the throats of normal men and women, all because they are ugly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women.
     
    About 1/2 the time the baby girl resembles her father, which is not attractive on a girl.
    , @nickels
    Interesting theory/perspective. I hadn't heard that one previously.

    I often wonder with the Feminist and other Marxists intellectuals (critical race theorists, etc) if it isn't about having a massive chip on one's shoulder and seeking IMPORTANCE. The stupidity of the gentile when it comes to the various revolutionary causes (race baiting, feminism, class struggle) makes it easy for the intellectual to sidle in and become very influential and IMPORTANT (and rich) by pushing their revolutionary agenda's.

    JI:"You are being oppressed"
    G: "I am? Oh my God, I am, thank you."
    JI: "No prob, buy my book."

    Time Wise being a perfect example.
    , @MQ
    This is hilarious. Kirk Douglas, Harrison Ford, David Duchovny, and lots of others create some problems for your 'ugly Jewish male' theory, as do Bar Rafaeli, Scarlett Johannson, and lots of others for your 'ugly Jewish woman' theory. The notion of frigid Jewish women definitely flies in the face of some other anti-semitic stereotypes, you guys should get your stories straight.
    , @Mike Sylwester

    .... To me, the driving aspect of feminism is “Keep those creepy betas away from me ....”
     
    Very amusing comment, Mark.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    I'm curious about the abortion comment. Do women only get abortions when the father is someone she doesn't really admire much? Then why would a woman have unprotected sex with a guy she doesn't admire? Drugs and alcohol?

    Maybe the solution to the abortion question is sobriety.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Serena Williams is now big and strong, but it’s possible that one of the reasons she was afraid and quiet as a child was because she was intimidated by bigger black women.

    But the recent NYT went Coates on the subject.

    From personal experience, I’ve seen black mothers terrorizing their daughters, though not to this extent:

    But the black narrative is that the black soul and narrative were always battered by whites or people who think they are white.
    I haven’t read or seen Color Purple, but it did take issue with black-on-black violence, especially that of black men on black women.

    But then, mother Walker wasn’t all that nice to her daughter either.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1021293/How-mothers-fanatical-feminist-views-tore-apart-daughter-The-Color-Purple-author.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Leftist conservative
    supposedly Gloria Steinem was funded at least in part by the FBI.

    My theory is that the powers that be (basically comprised of the large nonprofit foundations combined with the US Govt agencies) did here in america what they did overseas after WW2 to stop communism--in the words of richard bissell, who worked for both the ford foundation and one of the American spy agencies, they diverted leftist energies to areas that were "less harmful." Less harmful from the perspective of the rich and powerful, no doubt.

    In fact one of the occasional columnists here at unz wrote a review of saunders' book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR that details some of this.

    So the theory goes that feminism was a "proper" diversion for leftist activist energies--away from economic leftism (tax the heck out of the rich and give the $ to the people) and toward areas that would not hurt the plutocrats and the big corporations. In fact feminism as a substitute form of Leftism benefited the big corporations because it expanded the pool of labor. It's all about propaganda. Of course the govt explored the use of propaganda to pump up female egos so they could compete in the workforce during WW2, when male labor was not as available (Rosie the Riveter, we can do it, etc).

    You are terribly in error.

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,
     
    Ah, the Chestertonian perspective. How refreshing to see it here.
    , @Bettega
    Actually, the bulkwark against the power of the State is the clan. The nuclear family is a result of it's weakening.
    , @AndrewR
    How. Would the nuclear family be better able to fight the state than extended family? Nuclear families were just the first step towards the complete familial breakdown we see today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. In general, WASP leftism and Jewish leftism aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re complementary. The WASP Puritan says, “We are all sinners!” while the Jewish leftist says, “You are all sinners!” Two very different philosophies, same result.

    That’s not to say that WASP liberals’ schoolmarm piety is always a high-minded thing. There’s a strong element of passive-aggressive status-signalling, same as in the days when Calvinists strove to demonstrate their electness. Meanwhile, Jewish anxiety about the gentile majority’s ethno-cultural norms is as natural and understandable as it is anachronistic and obnoxious.

    I think Steve is less interested in casting blame on this or that group than he is in understanding how things work and offering constructive criticism where it’s due. I don’t see why a group as culturally important as the Jews should be exempt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hail

    The WASP Puritan says, “We are all sinners!” while the Jewish leftist says, “You are all sinners!” Two very different philosophies, same result.
     
    The former is generally a positive thing for society. If no one pushed along these lines, we'd all be stuck in something like feudalism.

    The latter, though, is always poisonous, always destructive to the host society, and can even lead to Scorpion-and-Frog scenarios (as arguably we see today with the medium-term prospect of an Islamic Europe).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable.

    I hate to say it, and it pains me deeply to know it, but I think Steve has already given up on that.

    So if the David Brookses of the world aren’t going to respect him anyway, he might as well go there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I suspect that the question that troubles David Brooks while he's reading me is not whether he respects me, but whether he respects himself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @WGG
    Why do you make Pastor John Hagee cry with your hate speech, Steve? Wow, just wow.

    I can’t even!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Calogero
    Did they also learn about Bolshevism from those Puritan New England Yankees?

    Maybe they learned about Bolshevism from folks like Jack Reed, Louise Bryant, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @n/a
    "Maybe they learned about Bolshevism from folks like Jack Reed,"

    Yes, maybe the hordes of Yiddish-speaking socialists and communists that started forming in New York City around the time Reed was born in Oregon learned about Bolshevism from him or people like him. Maybe the Jewish communists back in Europe did as well. Or maybe you need to work on training yourself to pause long enough before posting to try to come up with at least vaguely plausible angles when you get the urge to reflexively defend Jews.

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_%28journalist%29
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Marcus
    IMO a secondary motivation, after "screwing the goyim," was ugly Jewish women not wanting their men to chase shiksas.

    How would inspiring more shiksas to move into the workforce, alongside Jewish men, help with that goal?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    A major goal of feminism is to limit men's sexual options or even criminalize male sexuality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. The fact that there were once German Jewish clubs that excluded Russian Jews does not mean that there were not ALSO Christian clubs that excluded all Jews. The two are not mutually exclusive and anti-Semitism was not some imaginary displacement of intra-group Jewish rivalry. If you think that anti-Semitism is imaginary just read the comments at iSteve and you’ll see that it is alive and well today.

    Anti-semitism was not an American tradition but grew when the American Jewish community switched from being a handful of cultured German Jews to the “huddled masses” of E. European Jews. According to Wikipedia ” The …. august California Club was founded in Los Angeles in 1888 when “at least 12 of the 125 founding members were Jews.” But “as the original Jewish members died off, this power center became off limits to Jews.” This discrimination reached a peak in perhaps the 1920s where Jews became persona non-grata at an increasing # of American institutions (clubs, hotels, universities). This discrimination was not something imaginary that Jews made up – it was very real and lasted in some cases into the 1980s if not longer.

    Of course Jews excluded from the other clubs sometimes formed clubs of their own, but not out of choice – either they had to form their own clubs or not play golf at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    The fact that there were once German Jewish clubs that excluded Russian Jews does not mean that there were not ALSO Christian clubs that excluded all Jews. The two are not mutually exclusive and anti-Semitism was not some imaginary displacement of intra-group Jewish rivalry. If you think that anti-Semitism is imaginary just read the comments at iSteve and you’ll see that it is alive and well today."

    Anti-semitism was aapparently also alive and well among those german Jews who excluded eastern-european Jews. If they felt the need to exclude their own co-religionists, is it any wonder that some gentiles did so as well? Chinese were excluded too. Why is it regarded as so strange that immigrants to a nation would be excluded by the people who are already there, and who might feel some resentment at the intrustion into their own country? That isn't anti-semitism, it's simply human nature.

    And by the way, despite your ethnically self-interested contentions, the offense of noticing things is not the same thing as anti-semitism.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Honesthughgrant
    A Jewish historian made the comment that many Jews - like Einstein - retained their sympathy for Soviet communism after WW 2, primarily because it was seen as a "punishment" for the Germans and Eastern European antisemitism.

    Certainly, many Jews became Communist during the 1933-1945 period because Stalin and the Communist Internationale were seen as the most reliable anti-Nazi in politics.

    They didn’t seem that reliable from, say, August 1939 to June 1941.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    This woman's father, the high-ranking doctor, didn't resign from the Communist Party until a year after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" in 1956 denouncing Stalin. Whether he left the CP in 1957 because he'd finally seen the light, or he quit because Nikita K. was too moderate a Communist for him, I don't know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @anon
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable.

    I hate to say it, and it pains me deeply to know it, but I think Steve has already given up on that.

    So if the David Brookses of the world aren't going to respect him anyway, he might as well go there.

    I suspect that the question that troubles David Brooks while he’s reading me is not whether he respects me, but whether he respects himself.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dave Pinsen
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Oh, that is good. That is very good. Because we know the answer to that question. And so does David Brooks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @johnny memeonic
    But wasn't the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement while jewish feminism gave us the bra burning 60s sexual revolution, a very liberal and progressive movement. It's almost as if they were two very different feminist movements supported by two very different ethnic groups, but hey that would be noticing, and as we all know noticing is a crime.

    Anglo feminism had a huge component of free love. Mary Wollstonecroft, mother of Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley, was a strong advocate of free love, abolition of marriage, and no social controls on women’s sexuality (mens sexuality was another thing). The Oneida Community, and various other Free Love Advocates coming out of the Burnt Over District in Upstate New York were a part of that. One Nathaniel Hawthorne, you may have heard of him, wrote extensively about how women were oppressed by outmoded sexual standards. One Henrik Ibsen, you may also have heard of this man, also wrote extensively on this theme.

    Jews, some from radical Vienna, most of them from backwater Poland, picked up on this and as they ascended society from outsider businessmen (The Warners, Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwynn) to insider lawyers and politicians and inherited wealth, adopted Anglo-Scandinavian views on women and feminism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @johnny memeonic
    Yet you leave out the obvious, that it was the Anglo feminists who were the conservatives behind prohibition, banning sexual licentiousness in media, and banning other "liberal" practices that they felt were threatening the current Anglo American culture and family structure. But this period of time has always been an inconvenience for feminists and liberal historians which is why these details are typically ignored or glossed over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Dave Pinsen
    They didn't seem that reliable from, say, August 1939 to June 1941.

    This woman’s father, the high-ranking doctor, didn’t resign from the Communist Party until a year after Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” in 1956 denouncing Stalin. Whether he left the CP in 1957 because he’d finally seen the light, or he quit because Nikita K. was too moderate a Communist for him, I don’t know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant
    The important thing is the "High ranking Doctor" was allowed to come to the USA and enrich us with German Communism and Rosalyn. Without them, we'd be eating white bread mayo sandwiches made by our barefoot and pregnant wives.

    Diversity at its finest.
    , @gcochran
    Nasser and Suez, possibly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    A case makes itself that the USA has a “hostile elite” with Jews being the most significant subgroup thereof. Aggression, ethnocentricism, and talent, combined with their influence within the elite, should make Jewish power a subject of discussion, at least.

    The thing is, it’s not at all. Nary a peep. No one, but no one, talks about it in a respectable medium, despite its obvious importance. If you’ve ever had the opportunity to talk to a politically-aware non-Westerner (not just Muslims), many will mention Jewish power when discussing America readily.

    (On CNN, only one person, a host, has ever implied anything near the above and he was promptly fired. He was a Cuban-American whose name I’ve forgotten.)

    The Jewish issue is the Great Taboo in the USA, and political taboos are a form of lying. “Live not by lies,” as Steve’s original blog said proudly at the top.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cwhatfuture
    Pretend the subject is discussed as much as you like and everyone agrees with you. Now, what do you want to do about those Jews?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Steve, wrong again. While there is no question that high IQ Ashkenazi Jews are as over-represented in Radicalism and Feminism as they are every other High IQ endeavor, including nobel prizes for science and writing Hollywood movies and TV shows, they certainly did not start, or even become even minor players in feminism, until very, very late in the game. When their feminist radicalism was a FUNCTION of INHERITED WEALTH.

    Steve you look for radicalism and see Jews. I see INHERITED WEALTH. Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don’t have time for utopian radicalism. It takes either a flock of believers to fleece (Karl Marx, Morris Dees) or mostly, INHERITED WEALTH. Wow big surprise 1960s Jewish feminists NEVER HAD TO WORK and INHERITED or MARRIED Wealth!

    In that, they were no different from the vastly larger number of non Jewish feminists. It is worthy to note that Jews were completely absent from the Seneca Falls movement, the Oneida movement, the Suffragette Movement, and other 19th Century feminist movements. While they certainly were active in socialism and communism in the 19th Century, but even there were overshadowed by non-Jewish violent radicals who were much, MUCH better at killing than they were. [Eric Ambler's "Care of Time" focuses on a MacGuffin fake biography of one such Russian, non Jewish radical under the Czar, a notorious killer.]

    Indeed Marx and the 1848 Movement were part and parcel of the greater Christian and Scientific Christian movements to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote (done in Wyoming and New Zealand in the 1860s), reform marriage laws, liberalize divorce, and generally abolish the old way of doing things PARTICULARLY the Nuclear Family which was considered since the 1780s by Mary Wollstonecroft and that most Christian of Poets, William Blake, to be a prison. Why, Blake even wrote an epic poem about how marriage was a prison!

    Ashkenazi Jews are highly intelligent, and like most highly intelligent Europeans fall prey to:

    *Status mongering.
    *Radical, universal, utopianism.
    *Social engineering and hubris.
    *Exalting women above all else.

    I’ll remind you that the SPARTANS did in fact, long before Jews came on the scene, radically re-order the nuclear family to avoid domestic tyranny and create an elite fighting force. Some guy named PLATO wrote extensively on the above themes particularly about “noble lies” and the need for elite rule of the masses in some obscure treatise no one ever read called “the Republic.”

    Feminism was on the face of it, bad and very bad for Jews, by reducing the birth rate, availability of young women for Jewish men, and population inside the United States at a time when increased third world immigration made Jewish survival a numbers game, and most of European Jewry had been wiped out by some German guy.

    However, like most High IQ groups, Ashkenazi Jews are suckers for radical universal utopianism of any variety, just like Scandinavians and Germans (see Frau Merkel’s tingles and Merkel Youth) and ENArchs in France. Or the Oxbridge group in Britain.

    Any street hustler could see that the USSR was nothing but a gangster regime run by brutal con men, with nothing but Capone-style grandeur and often not even that. But the “Apostles” like Kim Philby and Guy Burgess and Anthony MacLean fell for it like rubes. Because they were smart, they “wanted to believe.”

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism. That there can be heaven on earth. But they are no different from say, Germans embracing half of Africa and the ME.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rifleman
    Wrong again Whiskey. As usual with you it's Whiskey's Razor -"Excuse the Jews and Blame the White women".

    It never, never , never changes with you!

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism.
     
    Their fatal flaw is pathological racist ethnocentrism mixed with the strategic self deception of disinterested universalism.

    People begin to notice the agenda and the hypocrisy and .....well, bad stuff starts to happen in reaction.

    Dishonest people like you have a deep seated need NOT to notice.

    Hence "Whiskey's Razor".
    , @n/a
    "Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don’t have time for utopian radicalism."


    Jewish Socialism in the United States, 1880-1920
    The birth and growth of American Jewish Socialism.
    By Daniel Soyer

    American Jewish Socialism arose in the 1880s with mass Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, but it was not simply a Russian import. Jewish American immigrants turned to Socialism in response to their experiences on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Many Jews in late 19th-century Eastern Europe had endured downward socio-economic mobility as traditional Jewish economic niches were undermined by the expanding industrial capitalist system. This experience, combined with persecution under the Tsars and encounters with poverty and factory labor in America, inspired many Jews to look for radical social change.

    Jews as Proletarians

    The influx of Jewish immigrants from Russia in the 1880s brought with it a small but vocal number of intellectuals, many of whom had had a Russian-language education and some of whom had been active in the early Russian revolutionary movement. In America, they took manual jobs, especially in the fledgling garment industry, and began to see themselves for the first time as proletarians, members of the industrial working class.

    Meanwhile, they aligned themselves with either Anarchist or Marxian Socialist ideologies: Anarchists favored direct action and stressed the inherently oppressive class nature of the state, while Socialists (Social Democrats, as they were called) sought to capture control of the state for the working class. In the early years, though, the line between the factions was blurry, and both sides worked together in a number of short-lived organizations and institutions, including the Propaganda Association and the Russian Labor Lyceum.

    At first, the Socialist intellectuals found it difficult to influence the much larger community of Jewish immigrant workers, who spoke only Yiddish and had not had the same experiences of the revolutionary movement in Russia. These intellectuals preferred to carry out their activities in Russian, and doubted that serious political ideas could be expressed in Yiddish, which they viewed as an inferior dialect of German. Gradually, however, the radicals began to give speeches and issue publications in Yiddish.

    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-socialism-in-the-united-states-1880-1920/

     

    , @Mr. Anon
    Whiskey, that proud son of Caldedonia (quick, Whiskey, who is thier patron saint - no googling), that defiant scotch(sic)-irish lad who is yet unaware that the "scots-irish" were not irish, or perhaps he's a son of Erin (who however doesn't know how to spell the name Buchanan), must have posted tens of thousands of words on this blog, perhaps more than a hundred-thousand. And yet, I am unaware of him once posting anything - even a single post - on any topic pertaining to Scotland, Ireland, or their respective diaspora populations.

    And why is that, Jock?
    , @tbraton
    "However, like most High IQ groups, Ashkenazi Jews are suckers for radical universal utopianism of any variety, just like Scandinavians and Germans (see Frau Merkel’s tingles and Merkel Youth) and ENArchs in France. Or the Oxbridge group in Britain.

    Any street hustler could see that the USSR was nothing but a gangster regime run by brutal con men, with nothing but Capone-style grandeur and often not even that. But the “Apostles” like Kim Philby and Guy Burgess and Anthony MacLean fell for it like rubes. Because they were smart, they “wanted to believe.”

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism. That there can be heaven on earth. But they are no different from say, Germans embracing half of Africa and the ME."

    That's a very interesting observation and a possible explanation for what has to be a mysterious phenomenon. (Spot on about the USSR.) English actress Olivia de Havilland, who played Melanie in "Gone With the Wind" and was a liberal Democrat who backed Ronald Reagan's fight against Communist infiltration of Hollywood back in the late 40's, observed in the Wall Street Journal in 2006 that she was still puzzled by the mystery of how so many brilliant people in Hollywood got seduced by Communism. So, I guess, not all English (in fact, not even a majority) fell into the delusions of the "Oxbridge group," which, after all, was a rather small, albeit well-placed and influential, group.

    You draw a parallell between the Jewish obsession with Communism and the recent German infatuation with third-world migrants, especially Muslim migrants. But I would point out that there was a gentleman in Germany back in the 30's who fought wars supposedly in order to provide "lebensraum" for Germans. In other words, he wanted to open up other countries' borders to provide space for the German people to expand. That is a far cry from today's actions, a mere 70 years after the end of WWII, by Frau Merkel and like minded Germans who want to open up Germany's borders to provide living space in Germany for an endless stream of third-world migrants. I believe the Jewish obsession with "universal utopianism" extends much further back than Karl Marx in the 19th century. After all, Jesus Christ, if he existed at all, grew up a Jewish lad about 2000 years ago, and Christianity, which is an offshoot of Judaism, can easily be characterized as a doctrine of "universal utopianism."

    I long thought the attraction of Jews to Communism was a result of Lenin's amendment of Karl Marx's doctrine by calling for a "vanguard party" to lead the proletariate. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Who else to comprise the "vanguard" but the brilliant Jews, who view themselves as "the Chosen," by G_d no less? That's one reason why you find so many Jewish leaders of labor unions. And, of course, it is only natural for the leaders of labor unions to be much more richly remunerated than the workers they lead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Anyway, Brooks would not admit to reading Sailer because Sailer is un-PC across a wide spectrum, on race and so on. Who knows what names the SPLC and that sort are now calling him.

    Anonymuss Annie’s premise is just wrong all around. I suspect an ulterior motive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Steve Sailer
    This woman's father, the high-ranking doctor, didn't resign from the Communist Party until a year after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" in 1956 denouncing Stalin. Whether he left the CP in 1957 because he'd finally seen the light, or he quit because Nikita K. was too moderate a Communist for him, I don't know.

    The important thing is the “High ranking Doctor” was allowed to come to the USA and enrich us with German Communism and Rosalyn. Without them, we’d be eating white bread mayo sandwiches made by our barefoot and pregnant wives.

    Diversity at its finest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Steve Sailer
    I suspect that the question that troubles David Brooks while he's reading me is not whether he respects me, but whether he respects himself.

    Oh, that is good. That is very good. Because we know the answer to that question. And so does David Brooks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @ABN
    In general, WASP leftism and Jewish leftism aren't mutually exclusive. They're complementary. The WASP Puritan says, "We are all sinners!" while the Jewish leftist says, "You are all sinners!" Two very different philosophies, same result.

    That's not to say that WASP liberals' schoolmarm piety is always a high-minded thing. There's a strong element of passive-aggressive status-signalling, same as in the days when Calvinists strove to demonstrate their electness. Meanwhile, Jewish anxiety about the gentile majority's ethno-cultural norms is as natural and understandable as it is anachronistic and obnoxious.

    I think Steve is less interested in casting blame on this or that group than he is in understanding how things work and offering constructive criticism where it's due. I don't see why a group as culturally important as the Jews should be exempt.

    The WASP Puritan says, “We are all sinners!” while the Jewish leftist says, “You are all sinners!” Two very different philosophies, same result.

    The former is generally a positive thing for society. If no one pushed along these lines, we’d all be stuck in something like feudalism.

    The latter, though, is always poisonous, always destructive to the host society, and can even lead to Scorpion-and-Frog scenarios (as arguably we see today with the medium-term prospect of an Islamic Europe).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Whiskey
    Anglo feminism had a huge component of free love. Mary Wollstonecroft, mother of Mary Wollstonecroft Shelley, was a strong advocate of free love, abolition of marriage, and no social controls on women's sexuality (mens sexuality was another thing). The Oneida Community, and various other Free Love Advocates coming out of the Burnt Over District in Upstate New York were a part of that. One Nathaniel Hawthorne, you may have heard of him, wrote extensively about how women were oppressed by outmoded sexual standards. One Henrik Ibsen, you may also have heard of this man, also wrote extensively on this theme.

    Jews, some from radical Vienna, most of them from backwater Poland, picked up on this and as they ascended society from outsider businessmen (The Warners, Louis B. Mayer, Sam Goldwynn) to insider lawyers and politicians and inherited wealth, adopted Anglo-Scandinavian views on women and feminism.

    Yet you leave out the obvious, that it was the Anglo feminists who were the conservatives behind prohibition, banning sexual licentiousness in media, and banning other “liberal” practices that they felt were threatening the current Anglo American culture and family structure. But this period of time has always been an inconvenience for feminists and liberal historians which is why these details are typically ignored or glossed over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Steve Sailer
    This woman's father, the high-ranking doctor, didn't resign from the Communist Party until a year after Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" in 1956 denouncing Stalin. Whether he left the CP in 1957 because he'd finally seen the light, or he quit because Nikita K. was too moderate a Communist for him, I don't know.

    Nasser and Suez, possibly.

    Read More
    • Agree: Steve Sailer
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Yes, some New Yorkers didn't quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956. Or maybe you could attribute the timing to disillusion due to Hungary. Hard to guess ... A lot of stuff happened in 1956.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Steve, just come out and say it or dont even go there. I cant tell if you are trying to blame Jews or not, or even if you are implying its just a Jew thing or a human thing and not a Jewish conspiracy.

    This reminds me of a jpost article that argued anti-Israel sentiment in the world was “a front” for local insecurities. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=177889

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant
    Blame the Jews? Heavens no. While we can all take pride in the American Jews winning multiple Nobel Prizes, representing 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives, we have to agree that if there's anything wrong in the USA they are completely blameless and powerless.
    , @Steve Sailer
    The Assad dynasty always tried to hold Syria together via hostility to Israel as a unifying emotion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Dave Pinsen
    How would inspiring more shiksas to move into the workforce, alongside Jewish men, help with that goal?

    A major goal of feminism is to limit men’s sexual options or even criminalize male sexuality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    A major goal of feminism is to limit men’s sexual options or even criminalize male sexuality
     
    That's also a major goal of anti-feminism. In other words, a major goal of women.

    They just disagree on the means to bring it about. Thus, the intra-sex catfights, which can get pretty nasty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Her uncle was Lenny Bruce’s lawyer for a time. Ephraim London.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Her uncle was Lenny Bruce’s lawyer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim_London

    Read More
    • Replies: @Honesthughgrant

    Her uncle was Lenny Bruce’s lawyer.
     
    I don't blame him for being Lenny's lawyer. Bruce was the wisest, funniest, comic ever.

    Until he died of drug abuse - in obscurity and poverty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Abby Rockefeller went RadFem for a while. Her relative David Rockefeller backed a population control campaign that backed feminism on anti-natalist grounds.

    Early postwar feminism piggybacked on efforts to ban race/religious discrimination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  65. @johnny memeonic
    But wasn't the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement while jewish feminism gave us the bra burning 60s sexual revolution, a very liberal and progressive movement. It's almost as if they were two very different feminist movements supported by two very different ethnic groups, but hey that would be noticing, and as we all know noticing is a crime.

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement …

    I’ll ignore the cheap Chicano insult “Anglo” long enough to remind you that Prohibition was anything but conservative. Christians had served wine in Mass since the very beginning, and now these hatchet-faced hatchet wielders made it a crime.

    If anything, Prohibition was Islamic, not Christian. I suppose in that sense it was “reactionary”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If anything, Prohibition was Islamic, not Christian.
     
    I always thought Prohibition was the brainchild of the Progressives, in other words it was essentially leftist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Marcus
    A major goal of feminism is to limit men's sexual options or even criminalize male sexuality.

    A major goal of feminism is to limit men’s sexual options or even criminalize male sexuality

    That’s also a major goal of anti-feminism. In other words, a major goal of women.

    They just disagree on the means to bring it about. Thus, the intra-sex catfights, which can get pretty nasty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Bob123
    Her uncle was Lenny Bruce's lawyer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim_London

    Her uncle was Lenny Bruce’s lawyer.

    I don’t blame him for being Lenny’s lawyer. Bruce was the wisest, funniest, comic ever.

    Until he died of drug abuse – in obscurity and poverty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Bill Jones
    You are terribly in error.

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,

    Ah, the Chestertonian perspective. How refreshing to see it here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @zaqan
    Steve, just come out and say it or dont even go there. I cant tell if you are trying to blame Jews or not, or even if you are implying its just a Jew thing or a human thing and not a Jewish conspiracy.

    This reminds me of a jpost article that argued anti-Israel sentiment in the world was "a front" for local insecurities. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=177889

    Blame the Jews? Heavens no. While we can all take pride in the American Jews winning multiple Nobel Prizes, representing 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives, we have to agree that if there’s anything wrong in the USA they are completely blameless and powerless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    Forget that. 4 out of 5 of our last presidents were left-handed. The Jewish problem's peanuts compared to the left-handed one.

    I've never heard a single person claim, as your straw man implies, that any person with Jewish ancestry should be totally exempt from any and all criticism. But it's moronic, ill-informed, and brutish to say that the action of any Jew in any position of power is the collective responsibility of all Jews. Bernie Sanders is a moron, who's trying to destroy America. Great, I definitely agree. But if you say Bernie Sanders is trying to destroy America, and that's evidence that Larry Page is too, that's total lunacy. It's like the same difference between saying Obama sucks, and Obama sucks therefore we should never elect a left-handed man president again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Annie I have a great guy for you! His name is whiskey…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. If you look closely enough, you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole.

    Astute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. @Anonymous
    Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause.

    Define "the Palestine cause." If it is--as it should be--to roll back the Zionists and not live in a Jewish supremacist state, then I'll eat my hat if she was an advocate.

    Define “the Palestine cause.” If it is–as it should be–to roll back the Zionists and not live in a Jewish supremacist state…

    And what would you call the attempt to roll back the Mohammedans and not live in an Arab supremacist state? You know, that other Semitic plot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Reg Cæsar

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement …
     
    I'll ignore the cheap Chicano insult "Anglo" long enough to remind you that Prohibition was anything but conservative. Christians had served wine in Mass since the very beginning, and now these hatchet-faced hatchet wielders made it a crime.

    If anything, Prohibition was Islamic, not Christian. I suppose in that sense it was "reactionary".

    If anything, Prohibition was Islamic, not Christian.

    I always thought Prohibition was the brainchild of the Progressives, in other words it was essentially leftist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. This post from Sailer is total garbage. The quality of “argument” in it resembles the old joke:

    Step 1: Quadruple our ad spend!

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: PROFIT!!

    So the New York Times runs an obituary on an obscure feminist. Nobody reads the obit except her family and friends… and Steve Sailer. Here is his logic:

    Step 1: The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters),

    Step 3: and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve’s Step 2. But yeah, that’s it. That’s the entire argument. Pathetic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It's natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It's like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame "men." But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame "society."

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman's -- her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago -- had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women's independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne's joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. "My son, the doctor"

    2. "My daughter drove me"

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there's no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.
    , @Harold
    Examples of step 2 are in the obituary.

    Step 2: Bring “scholarly” attention to the historical role of women in the workplace. Serve on the front lines of the feminist movement in New York in the late 1960s. Create Liberation Nursery, the first feminist day care center in New York. Picket the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City.

    , @Mr. Anon
    Stubborn is not the same thing as smart. Apparently.
    , @Tracy

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve’s Step 2. But yeah, that’s it. That’s the entire argument. Pathetic.
     
    He wasn't making an argument; he was making observations. Pretty pathetic of you to not pick up on that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie.

    A better simile would be “as American as nuclear warfare”.

    Leave apple pie out of this!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Nobody’s mentioned that her first husband, Lee Baxandall, was perhaps the primary figure (pardon the expression) in second-wave nudism.

    He published a major, very glossy guide to free beaches. Of course, it ascribed Yugoslavia’s leadership in the movement to its common-sense socialist beliefs, rather than to a crafty marketing strategy in a crowded beach tourism industry.

    Isn’t Baxandall the perfect name for a free-beach pioneer? A euonym!

    I remember an old Commie professor ruing in print that his best students ended up disappointing him. One, whose name he didn’t supply, had been distracted by the nudist cause. That had to be Baxandall he was talking about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything. Seriously, this stuff reads like some David Icke material.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Leftist conservative

    The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything. Seriously, this stuff reads like some David Icke material.
     
    yeah, it's sad....how poorly they see the world. But then the other side is also twisted and delusional. There is likely no hope for us. Both left and right have good aspects, but both sides have been poisoned and crippled by propaganda. The Left has been turned against the majority white working class, and the Right either cannot see how the rich and powerful control us, or if they can see, they blame it on the jews.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything."

    You are quite wrong. While some people on the alt-right are obsessed with Jews, not everyone is - probably not most of them. You may simply percieve that to be the case because you are used to the status-quo; in which Jews are never blamed (as a group) in the way that white gentiles are, and in which it is never pointed out how prominent Jews are among those who have undermined white gentile society.

    Even David Horowitz admitted that the second-wave feminism of Betty Friedan and her allies was in fact largely a left-wing project. The fact that Friedan, Abzug, Steinem and many others of that movement all happened to be from one particular ethnic group was a further admission he was unwilling or unable to make. Steve isn't so unwilling or unable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @SFG
    Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.

    I'm not defending feminism--I hate them more than anyone.

    My mother’s housekeeping workload declined significantly over the course of my childhood due to new appliances: buying a dryer in the mid-1960s was a huge step up from hauling loads of wet laundry outside to put on the line. I don’t think dishwashers or microwaves were quite as big of a boost in productivity as a dryer (and decades before that the huge one: the washing machine), but each one helped.

    And then there were smaller boosts, such as better detergents and the like. Procter & Gamble and other CPG firms enjoyed a golden age after WWII in which they were constantly improving their products to work better. That’s why so many brand names like Tide remain immensely valuable intellectual property today: women were genuinely grateful that Tide kept getting better and making their lives easier.

    It’s why there really wasn’t much controversy over women pouring into the workforce from about 1970 onward. Being a homemaker was no longer the huge amount of work it had been just 25 years before.

    The middle of the 20th Century was unusual in that middle class women were expected to take care of their houses without servants. It was part of the egalitarianism of the age. That was an awful lot of work at first, but by the 1970s was less daunting once all the kids were of school age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @gcochran
    Nasser and Suez, possibly.

    Yes, some New Yorkers didn’t quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956. Or maybe you could attribute the timing to disillusion due to Hungary. Hard to guess … A lot of stuff happened in 1956.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Yes, some New Yorkers didn’t quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956
     
    To bring this back to feminism, it was during a debate on this general subject that Churchill uttered his great quip about pronouns, "The masculine embraces the feminine." This off-the-cuff remark outweighs the entire works of Rosalie Maggio.
    , @Lot

    Yes, some New Yorkers didn’t quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956.
     
    This Suez Crisis theory requires both that (1) Jewish American communists cared much about Israel (2) they had a reasonable expectation that the USSR would side with two imperial powers against a former British colony that was sliding toward one-party socialism. I don't think requirement here is met.

    By contrast, the Hungarian invasion damaged the image of the USSR and communism generally in most every Western country.

    In France, the communist party held 150 seats in the national assembly during the January 2, 1956 election, and that fell to 10 in the 1958 election.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @zaqan
    Steve, just come out and say it or dont even go there. I cant tell if you are trying to blame Jews or not, or even if you are implying its just a Jew thing or a human thing and not a Jewish conspiracy.

    This reminds me of a jpost article that argued anti-Israel sentiment in the world was "a front" for local insecurities. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=177889

    The Assad dynasty always tried to hold Syria together via hostility to Israel as a unifying emotion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Steve Sailer
    Yes, some New Yorkers didn't quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956. Or maybe you could attribute the timing to disillusion due to Hungary. Hard to guess ... A lot of stuff happened in 1956.

    Yes, some New Yorkers didn’t quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956

    To bring this back to feminism, it was during a debate on this general subject that Churchill uttered his great quip about pronouns, “The masculine embraces the feminine.” This off-the-cuff remark outweighs the entire works of Rosalie Maggio.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website
    @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything. Seriously, this stuff reads like some David Icke material.

    The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything. Seriously, this stuff reads like some David Icke material.

    yeah, it’s sad….how poorly they see the world. But then the other side is also twisted and delusional. There is likely no hope for us. Both left and right have good aspects, but both sides have been poisoned and crippled by propaganda. The Left has been turned against the majority white working class, and the Right either cannot see how the rich and powerful control us, or if they can see, they blame it on the jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Stubborn in Germany
    This post from Sailer is total garbage. The quality of "argument" in it resembles the old joke:

    Step 1: Quadruple our ad spend!

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: PROFIT!!

    So the New York Times runs an obituary on an obscure feminist. Nobody reads the obit except her family and friends... and Steve Sailer. Here is his logic:

    Step 1: The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters),

    Step 3: and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve's Step 2. But yeah, that's it. That's the entire argument. Pathetic.

    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It’s natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It’s like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame “men.” But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame “society.”

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman’s — her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago — had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women’s independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne’s joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. “My son, the doctor”

    2. “My daughter drove me”

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there’s no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    "In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity."

    The genius of Christianity being that it directs them to God in Christ on the cross, who bears them for us and our salvation. Thus is He rightly called the Prince of Peace.
    , @Deduction
    While a siege mentality is a proven way to successfully bind together everything from a football club to a country, that is not what she is doing.

    On the simplest level, she is just drawing a political lesson from her personal experience.

    The fact that the lesson is about her whole society and not its Jewish subset is indicative of the way she sees herself and family - as part of that whole mostly gentile society.

    For your point to be true she would have to either explicitly exclude Jewish men from her critique or single out gentile men.

    Or I suppose, as you are sort of implying but no doubt would never actually try to argue, as it is obviously false, a husband expecting his wife to keep an elegant house could have been a specifically Jewish thing.

    If Jews are signficantly more patriarchal I don't see it. Your rough anecdotes do not really convince me, and even if they were, the Jewish feminist doesn't seem to have seen things that way.

    If you want an example of the process you are talking about with Jews then you're better off looking at the type of Jews who actually have asabiyah, the Hassidics and such. I have no doubt that they solely blame gentile society for non hasid Jewish licentiousness.

    , @Dave Pinsen
    This comment is more nuanced than your post.
    , @km
    I don't know a single person who has read any of the Jewish feminists you mention here, whatever the name recognition. Is Jewish feminism a front for intra-Jewish tensions? Maybe. But feminism as a whole isn't really a particularly Jewish phenomenon, even if a disproportionate number of intellectual harridans emerged from certain ghettoes in mid-20C America. The link to communism is even more tenuous and probably unfair. A good Marxist would scorn our contemporary gender fixations as so much bourgeois decadence and corporate manipulation, which is probably closer to the truth anyway. The Soviet Union may have put women to work to increase productivity, but it did not, to my knowledge, maintain that women were 'oppressed' by marriage or maternal obligations. Eventually, it imposed a childlessness tax. Russia doesn't have more traditional gender norms today because old-school leftists sought to destroy them. Quite the opposite! It was a shield against far more socially corrosive market forces.
    , @Olorin
    "Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing."

    Sorta like...Yentl meets The Jazz Singer?

    There's something so very Hollywood about it all, isn't there? Marching, rebelling, throwing tampons--simply made for the age of visual/sound recording in marketing, advertising, and propaganda.

    And later broadcast/network news, and now Twitter and Facebook.

    Reminds me of the old joke about Moses at the edge of the Red Sea.

    Sea in front, the children of Israel all around screaming, Pharoah's chariots bearing down. Moses turns to his publicity agent Manny and says, "Manny, oy, what a day I'm having. Any ideas how we can get out of this one?"

    Manny replies, "Not one, but if you can pull off an escape, I can get you ten pages in the Old Testament."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Stubborn in Germany
    This post from Sailer is total garbage. The quality of "argument" in it resembles the old joke:

    Step 1: Quadruple our ad spend!

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: PROFIT!!

    So the New York Times runs an obituary on an obscure feminist. Nobody reads the obit except her family and friends... and Steve Sailer. Here is his logic:

    Step 1: The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters),

    Step 3: and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve's Step 2. But yeah, that's it. That's the entire argument. Pathetic.

    Examples of step 2 are in the obituary.

    Step 2: Bring “scholarly” attention to the historical role of women in the workplace. Serve on the front lines of the feminist movement in New York in the late 1960s. Create Liberation Nursery, the first feminist day care center in New York. Picket the 1968 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Steve Sailer
    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It's natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It's like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame "men." But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame "society."

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman's -- her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago -- had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women's independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne's joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. "My son, the doctor"

    2. "My daughter drove me"

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there's no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.

    “In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity.”

    The genius of Christianity being that it directs them to God in Christ on the cross, who bears them for us and our salvation. Thus is He rightly called the Prince of Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Classic Rene Girard. Although I'm not sure what the West needs now is a turn the other cheek prince of peace type. We seem to have them by the bucketload. I think that we could do with a few more Conans instead.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    Amen, brother or sister.

    I just got home from a memorial for a dear, departed brother in Christ. He endured much suffering and discord in this life, but in the arms of Jesus he finds peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Steve: “…you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole.”

    Shulamith Firestone likewise comes to mind.

    My father threw his rage at Shulie.

    Laya Firestone remembered an ugly fight when Shulamith was sixteen. Father and daughter grappled on the stairs, with Sol shouting, “I’ll kill you!,” and Shulamith yelling back, “I’ll kill you first!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. @gruff

    garbage things like this, with no basis in reality
     
    Not so my friend. There is basis in reality. For example, the story of Hannukah is traditionally a tale of noble Jews throwing off the irrational, antisemitic hatred and oppression of the Greek Seleucids and re-establishing their religion. However modern scholarship is revealing that the real story was almost certainly a conflict between Hellenizing urban Jews and conservative rural Jews, with the Seleucid powers intervening to stop the bloodshed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah#Academic_sources

    This sort of internecine Jewish warfare is more clearly recorded in Josephus's Jewish War, which describes the various factions within Jerusalem literally slaughtering one another while the Romans waited outside to take the city.

    There is indeed a strong element of ideological purity, fanaticism and intolerance in the Old Testament. It was transmitted to Christianity and Islam, giving rise to crusaders and jihadis, and perhaps even to the disease of ideology itself.

    So no, Sailer is not making things up.

    Jews have given a lot of great things to the world, but nobody bats a thousand all the time. There are elements of Jewish culture that bear investigation.


    Feminism is as American as apple pie.
     
    Sailer clearly stated his subject as 1960s feminism, which would have disgusted and horrified Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

    Not so my friend. There is basis in reality. For example, the story of Hannukah is traditionally a tale of noble Jews throwing off the irrational, antisemitic hatred and oppression of the Greek Seleucids and re-establishing their religion. However modern scholarship is revealing that the real story was almost certainly a conflict between Hellenizing urban Jews and conservative rural Jews, with the Seleucid powers intervening to stop the bloodshed.

    That’s an apt comparison. Commenters here blame Jews when they should be blaming multikultising gentiles equally and as part of the same category.

    Of course there are plenty of multikultising Jews too, and, ironically, Hassidic type Jews actually blame multikultising gentiles!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Big Bill
    Once upon a time the Jewish Civil War (the Haskala) was openly recognized as a titanic battle. In recent years it has been suppressed and (as Steve notes) has been projected on goyim.

    It is very hard, emotionally and psychologically, for Jews to even notice the daily oppression of Jewish women by Jewish men, Jewish law, and Jewish culture. It is doubly hard for them to say anything about it where the goyim can hear.

    Tens of thousands of Jewish children are denied an education in NYC in violation of the law, Jewish girls suffering worst of all, yet the "Annies" and other Jewish feminists have never made an issue of this. These poor girls are brainwashed and grow up in utter isolation from the greater culture. They bear 6-10 kids apiece and live in poverty their whole lives.

    But racial solidarity trumps everything. No mention of these poor Jewish children. It is the happy Utahn wives and Duggars who are oppressed by Evil Goy Patriarchy that must be "liberated".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Desiderius:
    Well said.

    Steve Sailer cf.. redirecting resentments outward:
    I learned about this at first from ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who in the end of his book “On Aggression” (1966 = “Das sogenannte Böse” 1963) used a married couple as example: they are bonding by redirecting anger (which stems from conflicts inside) to other humans outside.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Which is why cops hate responding to domestic disputes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Steve Sailer
    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It's natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It's like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame "men." But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame "society."

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman's -- her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago -- had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women's independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne's joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. "My son, the doctor"

    2. "My daughter drove me"

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there's no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.

    While a siege mentality is a proven way to successfully bind together everything from a football club to a country, that is not what she is doing.

    On the simplest level, she is just drawing a political lesson from her personal experience.

    The fact that the lesson is about her whole society and not its Jewish subset is indicative of the way she sees herself and family – as part of that whole mostly gentile society.

    For your point to be true she would have to either explicitly exclude Jewish men from her critique or single out gentile men.

    Or I suppose, as you are sort of implying but no doubt would never actually try to argue, as it is obviously false, a husband expecting his wife to keep an elegant house could have been a specifically Jewish thing.

    If Jews are signficantly more patriarchal I don’t see it. Your rough anecdotes do not really convince me, and even if they were, the Jewish feminist doesn’t seem to have seen things that way.

    If you want an example of the process you are talking about with Jews then you’re better off looking at the type of Jews who actually have asabiyah, the Hassidics and such. I have no doubt that they solely blame gentile society for non hasid Jewish licentiousness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @a reader
    "If Jews are signficantly more patriarchal I don’t see it."

    Neither do I.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. > Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other. Considering the horrific toll taken by civil wars in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, this strategy of redirecting animosities outward seems prudent.

    I think anybody who knows even the slightest bit of HBD, should know that Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are dumps because they’re filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. The only difference if the State of Israel was never formed would be Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would also be dumps because they’d be currently filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. In fact we don’t even need to imagine a historical counterfactual. Just look at all the other places, far out of reach of Israel, but still filled with Muslim Arabs. Yemen: dump. Sudan: dump. Algeria: dump.

    Surprise, surprise! Everywhere (with the exception of the places where you can hit the ground with a stick and have trillions in fossil fuels burst out) is a wretched wasteland. Heck, even the small pockets of Muslim Arabs in magnanimous, highly efficient Western democracies are also hyper-violent dumps! So when Muslim Arabs live next to Israelis they don’t get along. When Muslim Arabs live next to Swedes they also don’t get along. Israelis and Swedes, when in proximity, seem to live, work and mingle together just fine. But then Muslim Arabs also don’t get along when they live next to Christian Arabs, black animists, Hindus, Kurdish Muslims or for that matter really even other Muslim Arabs. Theres seems to be a common denominator here…

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @a reader
    ...and who is working hard to transform every European country into similar dumps?

    ...while in the same time being shielded from such dump?

    , @tbraton
    "Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other."

    Kissinger was not saying anything different from what Steve Sailer said earlier and from what I learned so long ago in college that I can't exactly remember who first said it. Perhaps Machiavelli has something to say, but I believe the thought must have occurred to one of ancient Greeks or ancient Romans who knew an awful lot about politics. Perhaps it was something I picked up from Kissinger's writings, but they weren't as prolific when I was taking a course in international relations as they are now. In all likelihood, it was such a basic concept that I might have picked it up in a textbook. The concept has been around for a very long time. But, based simply on what I read about Israel, I concluded many years ago that was one reason Israel had such an aggressive foreign policy, to serve as a distraction from internal divisions by uniting the domestic population against an external enemy. One of the divisions is the obvious one between the secular Israelis who tend to congregate around Tel Aviv and the extremely religious Israelis who tend to dominate Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements. I gather those two sides can't stand each other. As I recall, it was the divisions among the ancient Israelis which caused the downfall of ancient Israel after they threw off Seleucid rule.

    BTW, fwiw, I dated a Jewish American woman back in the 90's, who was an atheist, and she couldn't stand the Israelis she had encountered. She thought they were too arrogant. The Swedish woman whom I have mentioned several times and whom I have known for 25+ years was married once to a Sephardic Jew from Cuba. Once, when we were talking, I made a reference to Sephardic Jews, and she quickly retorted that they think they are the best of the best, based on her experience with her ex-husband (with whom she maintained friendly relations after their divorce). I detected no animosity in her comment. She was just stating a fact based on the years she had been married to and friendly with a Sephardic Jew from Cuba.
    , @TBA

    Theres seems to be a common denominator here…
     
    Duh. Islamophobia. It's the oldest hatred; didn't you know?
    , @Former Darfur
    I'm told that Beirut was a pretty nice place at one time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Honesthughgrant
    Blame the Jews? Heavens no. While we can all take pride in the American Jews winning multiple Nobel Prizes, representing 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives, we have to agree that if there's anything wrong in the USA they are completely blameless and powerless.

    Forget that. 4 out of 5 of our last presidents were left-handed. The Jewish problem’s peanuts compared to the left-handed one.

    I’ve never heard a single person claim, as your straw man implies, that any person with Jewish ancestry should be totally exempt from any and all criticism. But it’s moronic, ill-informed, and brutish to say that the action of any Jew in any position of power is the collective responsibility of all Jews. Bernie Sanders is a moron, who’s trying to destroy America. Great, I definitely agree. But if you say Bernie Sanders is trying to destroy America, and that’s evidence that Larry Page is too, that’s total lunacy. It’s like the same difference between saying Obama sucks, and Obama sucks therefore we should never elect a left-handed man president again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Steve Sailer
    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It's natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It's like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame "men." But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame "society."

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman's -- her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago -- had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women's independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne's joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. "My son, the doctor"

    2. "My daughter drove me"

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there's no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.

    This comment is more nuanced than your post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Stogumber
    Desiderius:
    Well said.

    Steve Sailer cf.. redirecting resentments outward:
    I learned about this at first from ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who in the end of his book "On Aggression" (1966 = "Das sogenannte Böse" 1963) used a married couple as example: they are bonding by redirecting anger (which stems from conflicts inside) to other humans outside.

    Which is why cops hate responding to domestic disputes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Deduction
    While a siege mentality is a proven way to successfully bind together everything from a football club to a country, that is not what she is doing.

    On the simplest level, she is just drawing a political lesson from her personal experience.

    The fact that the lesson is about her whole society and not its Jewish subset is indicative of the way she sees herself and family - as part of that whole mostly gentile society.

    For your point to be true she would have to either explicitly exclude Jewish men from her critique or single out gentile men.

    Or I suppose, as you are sort of implying but no doubt would never actually try to argue, as it is obviously false, a husband expecting his wife to keep an elegant house could have been a specifically Jewish thing.

    If Jews are signficantly more patriarchal I don't see it. Your rough anecdotes do not really convince me, and even if they were, the Jewish feminist doesn't seem to have seen things that way.

    If you want an example of the process you are talking about with Jews then you're better off looking at the type of Jews who actually have asabiyah, the Hassidics and such. I have no doubt that they solely blame gentile society for non hasid Jewish licentiousness.

    “If Jews are signficantly more patriarchal I don’t see it.”

    Neither do I.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    That's funny but both irrelevant and preempted in my previous post. Unless you want to argue that the feminist in this article was brought up in anything resembling the culture you show in the photo?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @David Bruce
    According to her Wikipedia page, Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause. I guess you can praise Baxandall for being consistent, unlike Susan Sontag, who was a cheerleader for Israel during the '67 War, while opposing the Vietnam War.

    The Zionist Jews and the International Communist Jews have not always seen eye to eye. Incidentally, wasn’t Sontag CIA? or am I thinking of someone else?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @a reader
    "If Jews are signficantly more patriarchal I don’t see it."

    Neither do I.

    That’s funny but both irrelevant and preempted in my previous post. Unless you want to argue that the feminist in this article was brought up in anything resembling the culture you show in the photo?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The feminist complained that her Communist doctor father stifled her mother's law career because of his sexism.

    Americans don't have categories like "Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault" in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.

    But they're pretty funny to notice once you get the hang of it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Desiderius
    "In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity."

    The genius of Christianity being that it directs them to God in Christ on the cross, who bears them for us and our salvation. Thus is He rightly called the Prince of Peace.

    Classic Rene Girard. Although I’m not sure what the West needs now is a turn the other cheek prince of peace type. We seem to have them by the bucketload. I think that we could do with a few more Conans instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    I think that we could do with a few more Conans instead.
     
    Even Conan wouldn't crush many enemies with his hands tied behind his back and more fifth columns than first, second or third in his army. A house divided against itself, hanging separately, ad nauseum.

    It's about where and how we direct our resentments, not about what we do with the resentments of others. More than conquerors, not less.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Deduction
    That's funny but both irrelevant and preempted in my previous post. Unless you want to argue that the feminist in this article was brought up in anything resembling the culture you show in the photo?

    The feminist complained that her Communist doctor father stifled her mother’s law career because of his sexism.

    Americans don’t have categories like “Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault” in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.

    But they’re pretty funny to notice once you get the hang of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    Americans don’t have categories like “Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault” in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.
     
    But the most appropriate category is 'daughter mad at father: Society at Fault.'

    Or do you think the fact that they were Jews is more pertinent to their dispute than was their fillial connection?

    I'm pretty sure a lot of daughters never grow up and love to blame society for their familial issues so that they don't have to cooly evaluate the pros and cons of their own fathers; which is why I identify this as the defining characteristic of the phenomena you have posted on, not their ethnicity.

    Or to put it another way: if you omitted the fact that they were father and daughter would your post make any sense at all? And if you omitted the fact that they were Jews would it make any difference at all?

    , @Deduction
    I have another category to introduce specifically for commenters at this site.

    'Gentiles mad at Whites: only Jews at Fault.'

    Interestingly it can also work for the Middle East.

    'Middle Easterners mad at Middle Easterners: only Jews at Fault.'

    Which really highlights the complex nature of Judaism. It was the belief system of a people but then parts of it were almost universalised under German Protestant influence and then parts were turned into just a culture or even a weakly associated club under American progressive influence.

    It now spans these three points and everything in between, and that complexity does have some advantages to the individual Jew as he can claim affiliation to any of these parts; which means that he might avoid accusations of being a white racist by claiming to be from a different people, or he might avoid accusations of disloyalty to an implicitly white country by claiming that it's just a set of weakly held traditions.

    These possibilities are what I believe send many of the commenters here crazy. But few people are able to be as cynical as the Jew in my example and in the end it's my experience that they identify mostly with one part of the spectrum and then stay fairly coherent from there.

    What it really does is give Jewish journalists and public figures a lot of room for tactically manoeuvring their personal story to allow them to best sell their opinion and themselves.

    I guess a Jewish Arab Israeli girl I met in a bar used this quite effectively when she heinously insulted all Arabs and then claimed innocence of racism by stating that she was Arab. I am sure that in other contexts, such as when mixing with other hard right Israelis she rarely claims Arab blood.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Whiskey
    Steve, wrong again. While there is no question that high IQ Ashkenazi Jews are as over-represented in Radicalism and Feminism as they are every other High IQ endeavor, including nobel prizes for science and writing Hollywood movies and TV shows, they certainly did not start, or even become even minor players in feminism, until very, very late in the game. When their feminist radicalism was a FUNCTION of INHERITED WEALTH.

    Steve you look for radicalism and see Jews. I see INHERITED WEALTH. Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don't have time for utopian radicalism. It takes either a flock of believers to fleece (Karl Marx, Morris Dees) or mostly, INHERITED WEALTH. Wow big surprise 1960s Jewish feminists NEVER HAD TO WORK and INHERITED or MARRIED Wealth!

    In that, they were no different from the vastly larger number of non Jewish feminists. It is worthy to note that Jews were completely absent from the Seneca Falls movement, the Oneida movement, the Suffragette Movement, and other 19th Century feminist movements. While they certainly were active in socialism and communism in the 19th Century, but even there were overshadowed by non-Jewish violent radicals who were much, MUCH better at killing than they were. [Eric Ambler's "Care of Time" focuses on a MacGuffin fake biography of one such Russian, non Jewish radical under the Czar, a notorious killer.]

    Indeed Marx and the 1848 Movement were part and parcel of the greater Christian and Scientific Christian movements to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote (done in Wyoming and New Zealand in the 1860s), reform marriage laws, liberalize divorce, and generally abolish the old way of doing things PARTICULARLY the Nuclear Family which was considered since the 1780s by Mary Wollstonecroft and that most Christian of Poets, William Blake, to be a prison. Why, Blake even wrote an epic poem about how marriage was a prison!

    Ashkenazi Jews are highly intelligent, and like most highly intelligent Europeans fall prey to:

    *Status mongering.
    *Radical, universal, utopianism.
    *Social engineering and hubris.
    *Exalting women above all else.

    I'll remind you that the SPARTANS did in fact, long before Jews came on the scene, radically re-order the nuclear family to avoid domestic tyranny and create an elite fighting force. Some guy named PLATO wrote extensively on the above themes particularly about "noble lies" and the need for elite rule of the masses in some obscure treatise no one ever read called "the Republic."

    Feminism was on the face of it, bad and very bad for Jews, by reducing the birth rate, availability of young women for Jewish men, and population inside the United States at a time when increased third world immigration made Jewish survival a numbers game, and most of European Jewry had been wiped out by some German guy.

    However, like most High IQ groups, Ashkenazi Jews are suckers for radical universal utopianism of any variety, just like Scandinavians and Germans (see Frau Merkel's tingles and Merkel Youth) and ENArchs in France. Or the Oxbridge group in Britain.

    Any street hustler could see that the USSR was nothing but a gangster regime run by brutal con men, with nothing but Capone-style grandeur and often not even that. But the "Apostles" like Kim Philby and Guy Burgess and Anthony MacLean fell for it like rubes. Because they were smart, they "wanted to believe."

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism. That there can be heaven on earth. But they are no different from say, Germans embracing half of Africa and the ME.

    Wrong again Whiskey. As usual with you it’s Whiskey’s Razor -”Excuse the Jews and Blame the White women”.

    It never, never , never changes with you!

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism.

    Their fatal flaw is pathological racist ethnocentrism mixed with the strategic self deception of disinterested universalism.

    People begin to notice the agenda and the hypocrisy and …..well, bad stuff starts to happen in reaction.

    Dishonest people like you have a deep seated need NOT to notice.

    Hence “Whiskey’s Razor”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Steve Sailer
    The feminist complained that her Communist doctor father stifled her mother's law career because of his sexism.

    Americans don't have categories like "Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault" in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.

    But they're pretty funny to notice once you get the hang of it.

    Americans don’t have categories like “Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault” in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.

    But the most appropriate category is ‘daughter mad at father: Society at Fault.’

    Or do you think the fact that they were Jews is more pertinent to their dispute than was their fillial connection?

    I’m pretty sure a lot of daughters never grow up and love to blame society for their familial issues so that they don’t have to cooly evaluate the pros and cons of their own fathers; which is why I identify this as the defining characteristic of the phenomena you have posted on, not their ethnicity.

    Or to put it another way: if you omitted the fact that they were father and daughter would your post make any sense at all? And if you omitted the fact that they were Jews would it make any difference at all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. If you look closely enough, you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole. (Society as a whole, of course, never figures out what’s really going on). The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters)

    That’s a running theme by the genius John Kennedy Toole in his book “A Confederacy of Dunces”, especially in the scenes with the Levy family, of Levy Pants.

    Myrna Minkoff as well of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @Deduction
    Classic Rene Girard. Although I'm not sure what the West needs now is a turn the other cheek prince of peace type. We seem to have them by the bucketload. I think that we could do with a few more Conans instead.

    I think that we could do with a few more Conans instead.

    Even Conan wouldn’t crush many enemies with his hands tied behind his back and more fifth columns than first, second or third in his army. A house divided against itself, hanging separately, ad nauseum.

    It’s about where and how we direct our resentments, not about what we do with the resentments of others. More than conquerors, not less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Deduction

    Americans don’t have categories like “Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault” in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.
     
    But the most appropriate category is 'daughter mad at father: Society at Fault.'

    Or do you think the fact that they were Jews is more pertinent to their dispute than was their fillial connection?

    I'm pretty sure a lot of daughters never grow up and love to blame society for their familial issues so that they don't have to cooly evaluate the pros and cons of their own fathers; which is why I identify this as the defining characteristic of the phenomena you have posted on, not their ethnicity.

    Or to put it another way: if you omitted the fact that they were father and daughter would your post make any sense at all? And if you omitted the fact that they were Jews would it make any difference at all?

    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    • Replies: @Deduction

    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore
     
    Judging by the percentage of lawyers who were female, I'm not sure that wife and mother Protestants were that much more likely than their Jewish equivalents to be pursuing legal careers at the time.

    A massive 3 percent of all lawyers were women in 1951.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinLegalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjACahUKEwi8j861vcTIAhXL7hoKHQbsCUo&usg=AFQjCNEBfeOacW0DALYVOxAmuYuZWlTefw&sig2=Fhd3dVWnqShjzK9E5oymVw

    , @Jack D
    What is your proof for this, aside for anecdotes about Mary Pickford? All of American society was "sexist" by modern standards, especially in the 1950s where the dad is the breadwinner/wife stays home and keeps house/raises the kids model was a widespread societal ideal among all classes (except the super rich where the children were always raised by servants or shipped off to boarding school at the earliest opportunity). Fraad was a Communist but he was also a respected post-war middle class professional. And so his home life would have resembled that of any other man in his position, except for the FBI agents watching him at all times.

    As Whiskey points out, feminism was, is and always will be the domain of spoiled rich girls who have time to worry about this kind of stuff because they don't have to work or take care of children. This used to mean WASPY women because up to the '50s, most Jews were still struggling immigrants or in their first generation of prosperity. Not until the 50 and 60s were there enough spoiled Jewish daughters around for Jews to assume a prominent role in feminism. Because of their high intelligence, once a profession opens up to Jews they become vastly overrepresented, whether it is nuclear physicist or professional feminist.
    , @n/a
    "In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants"

    Wasn't the typical stereotype of domineering Jewish wives and henpecked Jewish husbands?

    Jewish women with young children tended not to work, but this was typical for the era; rates of labor-force participation were not much lower for Jewish women than for any other group, and my guess is that what difference there was is probably better explained by higher average Jewish incomes allowing greater choice, rather than "male chauvinism". Other than when they had young children, it appears Jewish women if anything worked outside the home at higher rates than women from other groups.

    In 1957, only 12 percent of Jewish women with children under six worked outside the home, compared to 18 percent of white Protestants. [. . .] in the 1975 Boston study, the labor-force participation of Jewish women dipped lower than that of any other white ethnic group during the childbearing years. Among women ages 30 to 3, the number of working Boston Jewish women in 1975 fell to 42 percent, compared to about half of white Protestant, Irish Catholic, and Italian Catholic mothers. Past age 40, the percentage of Boston Jewish women at work soared higher than that of any other subgroup, with almost three-quarters of Jewish women in the labor force.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=HMnvdbIPN7gC&pg=RA2-PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false


    Also, I'm pretty sure that by the mid-20th century Jewish women had lower fertility than non-Jewish white women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Steve Sailer
    The feminist complained that her Communist doctor father stifled her mother's law career because of his sexism.

    Americans don't have categories like "Jews mad at other Jews: Society at Fault" in which to file away examples of these kind of patterns.

    But they're pretty funny to notice once you get the hang of it.

    I have another category to introduce specifically for commenters at this site.

    ‘Gentiles mad at Whites: only Jews at Fault.’

    Interestingly it can also work for the Middle East.

    ‘Middle Easterners mad at Middle Easterners: only Jews at Fault.’

    Which really highlights the complex nature of Judaism. It was the belief system of a people but then parts of it were almost universalised under German Protestant influence and then parts were turned into just a culture or even a weakly associated club under American progressive influence.

    It now spans these three points and everything in between, and that complexity does have some advantages to the individual Jew as he can claim affiliation to any of these parts; which means that he might avoid accusations of being a white racist by claiming to be from a different people, or he might avoid accusations of disloyalty to an implicitly white country by claiming that it’s just a set of weakly held traditions.

    These possibilities are what I believe send many of the commenters here crazy. But few people are able to be as cynical as the Jew in my example and in the end it’s my experience that they identify mostly with one part of the spectrum and then stay fairly coherent from there.

    What it really does is give Jewish journalists and public figures a lot of room for tactically manoeuvring their personal story to allow them to best sell their opinion and themselves.

    I guess a Jewish Arab Israeli girl I met in a bar used this quite effectively when she heinously insulted all Arabs and then claimed innocence of racism by stating that she was Arab. I am sure that in other contexts, such as when mixing with other hard right Israelis she rarely claims Arab blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Steve Sailer
    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore.

    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore

    Judging by the percentage of lawyers who were female, I’m not sure that wife and mother Protestants were that much more likely than their Jewish equivalents to be pursuing legal careers at the time.

    A massive 3 percent of all lawyers were women in 1951.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinLegalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjACahUKEwi8j861vcTIAhXL7hoKHQbsCUo&usg=AFQjCNEBfeOacW0DALYVOxAmuYuZWlTefw&sig2=Fhd3dVWnqShjzK9E5oymVw

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I would even bet that (again as an artifact of their high intelligence and not because they have some kind of secret agenda to destroy gentile society as displaced aggression against their daddies) a disproportionate % of that 3% were Jewish like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1st in her class at Columbia Law School).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. ”The Jewish Socialist”
    From the Department of Redundancy Department.

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_communism

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    The Junior Auxiliary Thought Police strike again.

    Did you seriously just log on here and try to shame Steve for noticing? LOL!

    Who bitch this is???

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they’d have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment’s good graces long ago. As would American Jews, if they were genuinely as you say.

    Jewish liberalism is phony. Like Arabs, who come here from their ultra conservative countries and join team liberal (and then go back and revert to type); it’s in their ethnic interests. Jews are just smarter and more assimilated than blacks, browns, and other minorities, so they have to tell themselves more sophisticated lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they’d have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment’s good graces long ago."

    Rhodesia was kind of like Israel. A lot of serious people (e.g., Theodore Dalrymple) went there and made something of the place. Whatever happened to Rhodesia?

    , @Rob McX
    The relationship between white liberals and non-white "liberals" is an alliance between fox and chickens.
    , @Deduction

    If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they’d have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment’s good graces long ago. As would American Jews, if they were genuinely as you say.

    Jewish liberalism is phony. Like Arabs, who come here from their ultra conservative countries and join team liberal (and then go back and revert to type); it’s in their ethnic interests. Jews are just smarter and more assimilated than blacks, browns, and other minorities, so they have to tell themselves more sophisticated lies
     
    I see a lot of passion and sincerity in Jewish paeans to liberalism. I also see Jews acting out their beliefs through sky high intermarriage rates and their other SWPL life-style choices. I am sure that there is a degree of loyalty towards team Judaism, but young Jews are more likely to attend pride parades than synagogues, and in this you can see where the bulk of their loyalties lie.

    If ethnically puritan types (WASPs?) had an Israel, I'm not sure what would happen, after all it would have to share some key characteristics with Israel, such as:

    1. Founded after a very large proportion of worldwide WASPs had been killed.

    2. The only nation where WASPs might claim a majority in the last two thousand years.

    3. It was the subject of prayers and hopes in all WASP rituals for 2000 years.

    4. It was always thought of as the homeland.

    5. It was not a straight up WASP country but actually a hybrid with Arab Christians, and was totally intermixed, probably about fifty fifty.

    So you see Rhodesia doesn't cut it. The fifth point is the most modern and relevant today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Bill Jones
    You are terribly in error.

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,

    Actually, the bulkwark against the power of the State is the clan. The nuclear family is a result of it’s weakening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. And nobody with a spine uses Brooks as a Litmus test.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. Is this partially a very old strategy that goes back to the Neolithic? It makes sense in a shame-based culture to deflect. The Tsarnevs relatives do it, Jorge Ramos does it as well.

    There are certain features that seem shared by many of the cultures stretching from Southern Europe through the Middle East into southern Central Asia and Northern India that were “urbanized” (big villages and small towns for most) during the Neolithic by arguably related groups. Carleton Coon et al, back when one could talk about such things, referred to the “Mediterranean” race and its offshots which covered this area. Less HBD, more poetic and more geographically restricted was Braudel.

    1.) Sexual neurosis about women and family honor seems a common bug, combined with a tradition of womanizing machismo (not that everyone in these cultures approves or condones such behavior). These cultures have also produced sexual rejection or sexual puritanism and bodily mortification, sometimes with strong sexual overtones, from the self-gelders of Antiquity down to the Qalandars. Is this Universal? Are there parallels of such profound sexual contradictions in any other groups not influenced by these cultures?

    2.) Which brings us to “I’m not gay, but the guy I bugger is”; the stories from the book of Genesis about Lot’s guests and the anonymous guy in the book of Judges who let a bunch of rowdies rape his concubine rather than himself have parallels in 19th-century Samarkand where it was dangerous to walk around at night because of roving bands who were capable of man rape. For an interesting discussion on “avoidance”, i.e. ignoring such behavior within the culture, which makes sense in a shame-based culture, see Murray’s “The Will Not to Know”. Was this common in other cultures? Based on Ibn Fadlan, the still-nomadic Oghuz Turks were not man-boy love tolerant and much more relaxed about having women in public than the sedentary Iranian peoples of what’s now Uzbekistan.

    3.) And most appropriately here, deflect that shame. It’s a common, and natural (more natural than Western Masochism) human reaction to deflect blame/shame, but these cultures are much better at it than say a Chuckchi or a Saami or a KhoiKhoi or a German Lutheran. There is a level of sophistication to the blame-shifting which reflects a great appreciation of the uses of ideology and language, which makes sense when you think about how individuals in these societies have much longer histories of dealing with clerical traditions, ideologies, internal and external opponents and haggling in the market-place.

    Obviously, within these societies there is going to be a lot of variation. A Vlach wasn’t as savvy as a Greek, nor a Chechen as an Armenian, nor a Saudi as a Lebanese or an Iranian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "19th-century Samarkand where it was dangerous to walk around at night because of roving bands who were capable of man rape"

    Not to mention 21st-century Cambridge.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11609646/Two-Libyan-soldiers-who-raped-a-British-man-jailed-for-12-years-each.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Doug
    > Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other. Considering the horrific toll taken by civil wars in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, this strategy of redirecting animosities outward seems prudent.

    I think anybody who knows even the slightest bit of HBD, should know that Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are dumps because they're filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. The only difference if the State of Israel was never formed would be Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would also be dumps because they'd be currently filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. In fact we don't even need to imagine a historical counterfactual. Just look at all the other places, far out of reach of Israel, but still filled with Muslim Arabs. Yemen: dump. Sudan: dump. Algeria: dump.

    Surprise, surprise! Everywhere (with the exception of the places where you can hit the ground with a stick and have trillions in fossil fuels burst out) is a wretched wasteland. Heck, even the small pockets of Muslim Arabs in magnanimous, highly efficient Western democracies are also hyper-violent dumps! So when Muslim Arabs live next to Israelis they don't get along. When Muslim Arabs live next to Swedes they also don't get along. Israelis and Swedes, when in proximity, seem to live, work and mingle together just fine. But then Muslim Arabs also don't get along when they live next to Christian Arabs, black animists, Hindus, Kurdish Muslims or for that matter really even other Muslim Arabs. Theres seems to be a common denominator here...

    …and who is working hard to transform every European country into similar dumps?

    …while in the same time being shielded from such dump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    So there are left-wing Jews and right-wing Jews? The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out. These minority parties have much higher approval rates in Israel than they do in their own country.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/why-anti-semitic-right-hailing-netanyahus-victory-316320.html

    And the left-wing Jews in Israel are just as enthusiastic about absorbing tons of Syrian refugees as the left-wing Jews of Europe.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/herzog-israel-has-a-duty-to-take-in-syrian-refugees/

    This is no more a shocking discovery than finding out that the Scandinavians in Europe are trying to bring in a whole bunch of Muslims, all the while knowing that the Scandinavians in the plain states of America don't want America to bring in a bunch of Muslims.

    Surely there must be some Nordic conspiracy to bring down Europe from afar. Or it could simply be that there are left-wing Scandinavians and right-wing Scandinavians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. I’m sure feminism always seemed fine to corporate capitalism. It put more women in the workforce, easing pressure on wages. The resulting drop in the birth rate might mean a shortage of labour in the next generation, but the 1965 Immigration Act took care of that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. @Mark Minter
    From his biography on The Einstein College of Medicine web site. The pediatric department is named after him, Lewis M Fraad Depart of Pediatrics. The notable fragment from the bio:

    "Dr. Fraad collaborated on Dr. Spock’s landmark book “Baby and Child Care”

    I like to look at feminism from a biological perspective. I do this because I want to and not out of any particular data patterns other than my own particularly biased viewpoint.

    To me, the driving aspect of feminism is "Keep those creepy betas away from me." Cisheteropatriarchal hegemonic monogamy has this particular rule that bugs the crap out of 80% of the women, "For every boy there is a girl". Since Pareto's rule says about 80% of men will not be desirable alpha-ish fellows, then 80% of the women would have to "settle" for them.

    The issue for Jewish Women is their men. Most of them will fall outside of that 20% when compared to the global population of men. Jewish female sexual dysfunction is famous, noteworthy, the subject of jokes, a cliche: Jewish Bed Death. "What is Jewish Doggy Style?" "He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead." It is the stuff that the manosphere, particularly Roissy and Rollo write about: Loss of Genuine Desire leading to Dry Vag condition and hence, Bed Death.

    And this is egregious for many Jewish women. Biologists note that female offspring will assume the traits of the males that are reasonably sexually successful. In most Jewish groups over the past 2000 years or so, Jews were somewhat cut off from the greater population. And the traits imposed on the Jewish women by family driven matches were toward the more cerebrally suited matches and less on the physical. Take this trend for many many generations, smart men over attractive men, and Jewish women are often considered less attractive then their Gentile counterparts. Especially on the fringes given the standard distribution of "Jewish Beauty". A Jewish 6.5 is a Gentile 4.9. Yes, there are many attractive Jewish women for sure, but drop down into the bottom 80% and you start to have a sort of "bell curve" comparison with Gentile females that rivals the White IQ curve with blacks. Then combine this with the intelligence of the males inherited by daughters. Lots of Smart, ugly daughters compared to the general population. Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women. Not always so, among the Jews.

    And you have the core of feminists, ugly smart angry women, angry that the hot guys ignore them, angry that the men that will go with them, in very short order, will look like Louie De Palma from the sit-com Taxi or or some nebbish like Woody Allen.

    And Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single). But when they marry, they historically marry Jewish due to family pressure and habit of choice. And then the Bed Death sets in and thus, another old Jewish Joke:"How do you keep a Jewish girl from having sex?" "You marry her." And Jewish women have much disdain over the sexual nature of the Jewish men. The Yiddish name for a penis? "Schmeckel". "Schmeckel", not exactly a reverent term, one of the words from Yiddish beginning with "Schm", all derogatory: Schmoo, Schmooze, and one of everyone's favorites, Schmegma.

    I could only find two photos of Louis M. Fraad online.
    http://www.jacobipeds.org/images/about/lewis-fraad.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ60qfSdFg2Lsw1ijt2n-T5sS_eCh7i6ZH-hmTDHFtzGEDOvcorqA

    In the second, he looks like some sort of burn victim years after recovery. He is liver spotted, blotchy, bald, with a seagull chin. Hard to say, but toss in a Jewish doctor body from "back in the day", and it is easy for me to see that the former Irma London probably deeply resented being stuck with him, cloistered away from the sexy alphas she wanted but was denied. My wife once made a comment on some women's site about women getting abortions when the father was a beta; their attitude towards the baby was entirely different than when the father was that hot alpha. Also my wife says, "A woman that loves her husband is never out past 8 pm." And also "If a woman is out at all, other than what is absolutely necessary, she is probably ovulating."

    So I agree with the prime assertion of this post, that Jews are genius at foisting intra-Jewish conflict out onto the rest of the world. In this case, its Jewish women hating Jewish men and forcing feminism down the throats of normal men and women, all because they are ugly.

    Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women.

    About 1/2 the time the baby girl resembles her father, which is not attractive on a girl.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters), and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City.

    MacArthur Genius Grant material here. Cause and effect department.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. I have another category to introduce specifically for commenters at this site.

    ‘Gentiles mad at Whites: only Jews at Fault.’

    Here’s another: you only care when it’s “Jews at Fault,” which becomes in your mind, “only Jews at fault.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. @Steve Sailer
    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore.

    What is your proof for this, aside for anecdotes about Mary Pickford? All of American society was “sexist” by modern standards, especially in the 1950s where the dad is the breadwinner/wife stays home and keeps house/raises the kids model was a widespread societal ideal among all classes (except the super rich where the children were always raised by servants or shipped off to boarding school at the earliest opportunity). Fraad was a Communist but he was also a respected post-war middle class professional. And so his home life would have resembled that of any other man in his position, except for the FBI agents watching him at all times.

    As Whiskey points out, feminism was, is and always will be the domain of spoiled rich girls who have time to worry about this kind of stuff because they don’t have to work or take care of children. This used to mean WASPY women because up to the ’50s, most Jews were still struggling immigrants or in their first generation of prosperity. Not until the 50 and 60s were there enough spoiled Jewish daughters around for Jews to assume a prominent role in feminism. Because of their high intelligence, once a profession opens up to Jews they become vastly overrepresented, whether it is nuclear physicist or professional feminist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Not until the 50 and 60s were there enough spoiled Jewish daughters around for Jews to assume a prominent role in feminism. Because of their high intelligence, once a profession opens up to Jews they become vastly overrepresented, whether it is nuclear physicist or professional feminist."

    That is of course utter self-serving nonsense. It's not as if jewish left-wing activism, including feminism, only started in the 1950s (it didn't). Or that feminism did not adopt a far more radical, agressive, and anti-male, anti-traditionalist tone in the 1960s (it did).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other.

    Huh? Where did he say that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Years of Upheaval: 1973-74"

    Kissinger phrased it more diplomatically, but it's a recurrent theme in the second volume of his memoirs that Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Deduction

    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore
     
    Judging by the percentage of lawyers who were female, I'm not sure that wife and mother Protestants were that much more likely than their Jewish equivalents to be pursuing legal careers at the time.

    A massive 3 percent of all lawyers were women in 1951.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinLegalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf&ved=0CCIQFjACahUKEwi8j861vcTIAhXL7hoKHQbsCUo&usg=AFQjCNEBfeOacW0DALYVOxAmuYuZWlTefw&sig2=Fhd3dVWnqShjzK9E5oymVw

    I would even bet that (again as an artifact of their high intelligence and not because they have some kind of secret agenda to destroy gentile society as displaced aggression against their daddies) a disproportionate % of that 3% were Jewish like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1st in her class at Columbia Law School).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Svigor

    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.
     
    If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they'd have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment's good graces long ago. As would American Jews, if they were genuinely as you say.

    Jewish liberalism is phony. Like Arabs, who come here from their ultra conservative countries and join team liberal (and then go back and revert to type); it's in their ethnic interests. Jews are just smarter and more assimilated than blacks, browns, and other minorities, so they have to tell themselves more sophisticated lies.

    “If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they’d have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment’s good graces long ago.”

    Rhodesia was kind of like Israel. A lot of serious people (e.g., Theodore Dalrymple) went there and made something of the place. Whatever happened to Rhodesia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    Israel was one of the only countries in the world to support Rhodesia in the 1970s after it became an international pariah state. When the New York Times was telling everyone that Mugabe was just a brilliant magnanimous reformer, the IDF was arming and training the RSF.

    There's a similarly little known history with Singapore as well. After being thrown out of Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew went to Israel for a military alliance. The IDF trained with the new Singapore army, and Israeli generals and strategists set up Singapore's doctrine and defense infrastructure. It makes sense as both are small, organized, rich countries, surrounded on all sides by hostile Muslim hordes. Without Israeli support, it's likely that Singapore would have been forcibly "re-absorbed" into Malaysia, particularly once there became more Chinese wealth for the Muslims kleptocrats in Kuala Lumpur.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @International Jew

    Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other.
     
    Huh? Where did he say that?

    “Years of Upheaval: 1973-74″

    Kissinger phrased it more diplomatically, but it’s a recurrent theme in the second volume of his memoirs that Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam
    Can anybody find the section Steve is referring to because it sounds very interesting.
    , @International Jew
    America's foreign policy would be domestic policy too, if we faced well-armed enemies on our borders. Come to think of it, where our foreign policy has to do with Mexico, it's become our domestic policy too.

    Either way, what you say now is a far, far cry from your earlier claim that Israel deliberately provokes conflict with its neighbors to keep intra-Jewish conflicts latent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Svigor

    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.
     
    If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they'd have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment's good graces long ago. As would American Jews, if they were genuinely as you say.

    Jewish liberalism is phony. Like Arabs, who come here from their ultra conservative countries and join team liberal (and then go back and revert to type); it's in their ethnic interests. Jews are just smarter and more assimilated than blacks, browns, and other minorities, so they have to tell themselves more sophisticated lies.

    The relationship between white liberals and non-white “liberals” is an alliance between fox and chickens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Interesting enough that the Timees obit for her father 25 years ago had no mention of his political sympathies. though a bit about his impact on Dr. Spock.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/05/obituaries/dr-lewis-fraad-83-pediatrics-professor-advised-dr-spock.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. @Svigor

    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It’s weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.
     
    If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they'd have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment's good graces long ago. As would American Jews, if they were genuinely as you say.

    Jewish liberalism is phony. Like Arabs, who come here from their ultra conservative countries and join team liberal (and then go back and revert to type); it's in their ethnic interests. Jews are just smarter and more assimilated than blacks, browns, and other minorities, so they have to tell themselves more sophisticated lies.

    If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they’d have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment’s good graces long ago. As would American Jews, if they were genuinely as you say.

    Jewish liberalism is phony. Like Arabs, who come here from their ultra conservative countries and join team liberal (and then go back and revert to type); it’s in their ethnic interests. Jews are just smarter and more assimilated than blacks, browns, and other minorities, so they have to tell themselves more sophisticated lies

    I see a lot of passion and sincerity in Jewish paeans to liberalism. I also see Jews acting out their beliefs through sky high intermarriage rates and their other SWPL life-style choices. I am sure that there is a degree of loyalty towards team Judaism, but young Jews are more likely to attend pride parades than synagogues, and in this you can see where the bulk of their loyalties lie.

    If ethnically puritan types (WASPs?) had an Israel, I’m not sure what would happen, after all it would have to share some key characteristics with Israel, such as:

    1. Founded after a very large proportion of worldwide WASPs had been killed.

    2. The only nation where WASPs might claim a majority in the last two thousand years.

    3. It was the subject of prayers and hopes in all WASP rituals for 2000 years.

    4. It was always thought of as the homeland.

    5. It was not a straight up WASP country but actually a hybrid with Arab Christians, and was totally intermixed, probably about fifty fifty.

    So you see Rhodesia doesn’t cut it. The fifth point is the most modern and relevant today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @prosa123
    "We threw Tampax at the FBI agents"

    A situation in which the new vs. used distinction is paramount.

    Peter

    “We threw Tampax at the FBI agents”

    A situation in which the new vs. used distinction is paramount.

    Communist Tampax, the color is implied.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Steve Sailer
    "Years of Upheaval: 1973-74"

    Kissinger phrased it more diplomatically, but it's a recurrent theme in the second volume of his memoirs that Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy.

    Can anybody find the section Steve is referring to because it sounds very interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @anowow
    Is this partially a very old strategy that goes back to the Neolithic? It makes sense in a shame-based culture to deflect. The Tsarnevs relatives do it, Jorge Ramos does it as well.

    There are certain features that seem shared by many of the cultures stretching from Southern Europe through the Middle East into southern Central Asia and Northern India that were "urbanized" (big villages and small towns for most) during the Neolithic by arguably related groups. Carleton Coon et al, back when one could talk about such things, referred to the "Mediterranean" race and its offshots which covered this area. Less HBD, more poetic and more geographically restricted was Braudel.

    1.) Sexual neurosis about women and family honor seems a common bug, combined with a tradition of womanizing machismo (not that everyone in these cultures approves or condones such behavior). These cultures have also produced sexual rejection or sexual puritanism and bodily mortification, sometimes with strong sexual overtones, from the self-gelders of Antiquity down to the Qalandars. Is this Universal? Are there parallels of such profound sexual contradictions in any other groups not influenced by these cultures?

    2.) Which brings us to "I'm not gay, but the guy I bugger is"; the stories from the book of Genesis about Lot's guests and the anonymous guy in the book of Judges who let a bunch of rowdies rape his concubine rather than himself have parallels in 19th-century Samarkand where it was dangerous to walk around at night because of roving bands who were capable of man rape. For an interesting discussion on "avoidance", i.e. ignoring such behavior within the culture, which makes sense in a shame-based culture, see Murray's "The Will Not to Know". Was this common in other cultures? Based on Ibn Fadlan, the still-nomadic Oghuz Turks were not man-boy love tolerant and much more relaxed about having women in public than the sedentary Iranian peoples of what's now Uzbekistan.

    3.) And most appropriately here, deflect that shame. It's a common, and natural (more natural than Western Masochism) human reaction to deflect blame/shame, but these cultures are much better at it than say a Chuckchi or a Saami or a KhoiKhoi or a German Lutheran. There is a level of sophistication to the blame-shifting which reflects a great appreciation of the uses of ideology and language, which makes sense when you think about how individuals in these societies have much longer histories of dealing with clerical traditions, ideologies, internal and external opponents and haggling in the market-place.

    Obviously, within these societies there is going to be a lot of variation. A Vlach wasn't as savvy as a Greek, nor a Chechen as an Armenian, nor a Saudi as a Lebanese or an Iranian.

    “19th-century Samarkand where it was dangerous to walk around at night because of roving bands who were capable of man rape”

    Not to mention 21st-century Cambridge.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11609646/Two-Libyan-soldiers-who-raped-a-British-man-jailed-for-12-years-each.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    > Naji El Maarfi, 21, admitted three counts of sexual assault, one count of exposure and the theft of a bicycle. He was jailed for 10 months and put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years.

    In Britain three rapes gets you 10 months in jail?! That comes out to 14 weeks per rape. What does murder get you? A stern lecture and 30 minutes in time-out? There are people in the UK who've spent more time in jail for off-color jokes on Twitter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @a reader
    ...and who is working hard to transform every European country into similar dumps?

    ...while in the same time being shielded from such dump?

    So there are left-wing Jews and right-wing Jews? The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out. These minority parties have much higher approval rates in Israel than they do in their own country.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/why-anti-semitic-right-hailing-netanyahus-victory-316320.html

    And the left-wing Jews in Israel are just as enthusiastic about absorbing tons of Syrian refugees as the left-wing Jews of Europe.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/herzog-israel-has-a-duty-to-take-in-syrian-refugees/

    This is no more a shocking discovery than finding out that the Scandinavians in Europe are trying to bring in a whole bunch of Muslims, all the while knowing that the Scandinavians in the plain states of America don’t want America to bring in a bunch of Muslims.

    Surely there must be some Nordic conspiracy to bring down Europe from afar. Or it could simply be that there are left-wing Scandinavians and right-wing Scandinavians.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stubborn in Germany
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "So there are left-wing Jews and right-wing Jews? The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out. These minority parties have much higher approval rates in Israel than they do in their own country.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/why-anti-semitic-right-hailing-netanyahus-victory-316320.html"

    That's certainly disingenuous almost to the point of dishonesty. There was nothing in that article that said that nationalist parties in Europe were popular in Israel; only that Netanyahu was increasingly popular with such right-wing parties, and that Netanyahu himself found them to be tactically useful.
    , @a reader
    "The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out."

    You are absolutely right, if only merely backwards; if leaders and followers of rightist European parties often admire Israel's and Jews' policies, you'll be hard-pressed to find -and link to- a reciprocal feeling story, or even a non-100% excoriating article by your co-ethnics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Anonymous Nephew
    "19th-century Samarkand where it was dangerous to walk around at night because of roving bands who were capable of man rape"

    Not to mention 21st-century Cambridge.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11609646/Two-Libyan-soldiers-who-raped-a-British-man-jailed-for-12-years-each.html

    > Naji El Maarfi, 21, admitted three counts of sexual assault, one count of exposure and the theft of a bicycle. He was jailed for 10 months and put on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years.

    In Britain three rapes gets you 10 months in jail?! That comes out to 14 weeks per rape. What does murder get you? A stern lecture and 30 minutes in time-out? There are people in the UK who’ve spent more time in jail for off-color jokes on Twitter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anowow
    Makes perfect sense, who is a greater threat to the official ideology? Expect more in the future, barring some major social or political shifts.

    Think about how Stalin was much harsher on politicals than normal criminals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Mark Minter
    From his biography on The Einstein College of Medicine web site. The pediatric department is named after him, Lewis M Fraad Depart of Pediatrics. The notable fragment from the bio:

    "Dr. Fraad collaborated on Dr. Spock’s landmark book “Baby and Child Care”

    I like to look at feminism from a biological perspective. I do this because I want to and not out of any particular data patterns other than my own particularly biased viewpoint.

    To me, the driving aspect of feminism is "Keep those creepy betas away from me." Cisheteropatriarchal hegemonic monogamy has this particular rule that bugs the crap out of 80% of the women, "For every boy there is a girl". Since Pareto's rule says about 80% of men will not be desirable alpha-ish fellows, then 80% of the women would have to "settle" for them.

    The issue for Jewish Women is their men. Most of them will fall outside of that 20% when compared to the global population of men. Jewish female sexual dysfunction is famous, noteworthy, the subject of jokes, a cliche: Jewish Bed Death. "What is Jewish Doggy Style?" "He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead." It is the stuff that the manosphere, particularly Roissy and Rollo write about: Loss of Genuine Desire leading to Dry Vag condition and hence, Bed Death.

    And this is egregious for many Jewish women. Biologists note that female offspring will assume the traits of the males that are reasonably sexually successful. In most Jewish groups over the past 2000 years or so, Jews were somewhat cut off from the greater population. And the traits imposed on the Jewish women by family driven matches were toward the more cerebrally suited matches and less on the physical. Take this trend for many many generations, smart men over attractive men, and Jewish women are often considered less attractive then their Gentile counterparts. Especially on the fringes given the standard distribution of "Jewish Beauty". A Jewish 6.5 is a Gentile 4.9. Yes, there are many attractive Jewish women for sure, but drop down into the bottom 80% and you start to have a sort of "bell curve" comparison with Gentile females that rivals the White IQ curve with blacks. Then combine this with the intelligence of the males inherited by daughters. Lots of Smart, ugly daughters compared to the general population. Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women. Not always so, among the Jews.

    And you have the core of feminists, ugly smart angry women, angry that the hot guys ignore them, angry that the men that will go with them, in very short order, will look like Louie De Palma from the sit-com Taxi or or some nebbish like Woody Allen.

    And Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single). But when they marry, they historically marry Jewish due to family pressure and habit of choice. And then the Bed Death sets in and thus, another old Jewish Joke:"How do you keep a Jewish girl from having sex?" "You marry her." And Jewish women have much disdain over the sexual nature of the Jewish men. The Yiddish name for a penis? "Schmeckel". "Schmeckel", not exactly a reverent term, one of the words from Yiddish beginning with "Schm", all derogatory: Schmoo, Schmooze, and one of everyone's favorites, Schmegma.

    I could only find two photos of Louis M. Fraad online.
    http://www.jacobipeds.org/images/about/lewis-fraad.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ60qfSdFg2Lsw1ijt2n-T5sS_eCh7i6ZH-hmTDHFtzGEDOvcorqA

    In the second, he looks like some sort of burn victim years after recovery. He is liver spotted, blotchy, bald, with a seagull chin. Hard to say, but toss in a Jewish doctor body from "back in the day", and it is easy for me to see that the former Irma London probably deeply resented being stuck with him, cloistered away from the sexy alphas she wanted but was denied. My wife once made a comment on some women's site about women getting abortions when the father was a beta; their attitude towards the baby was entirely different than when the father was that hot alpha. Also my wife says, "A woman that loves her husband is never out past 8 pm." And also "If a woman is out at all, other than what is absolutely necessary, she is probably ovulating."

    So I agree with the prime assertion of this post, that Jews are genius at foisting intra-Jewish conflict out onto the rest of the world. In this case, its Jewish women hating Jewish men and forcing feminism down the throats of normal men and women, all because they are ugly.

    Interesting theory/perspective. I hadn’t heard that one previously.

    I often wonder with the Feminist and other Marxists intellectuals (critical race theorists, etc) if it isn’t about having a massive chip on one’s shoulder and seeking IMPORTANCE. The stupidity of the gentile when it comes to the various revolutionary causes (race baiting, feminism, class struggle) makes it easy for the intellectual to sidle in and become very influential and IMPORTANT (and rich) by pushing their revolutionary agenda’s.

    JI:”You are being oppressed”
    G: “I am? Oh my God, I am, thank you.”
    JI: “No prob, buy my book.”

    Time Wise being a perfect example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy

    The stupidity of the gentile when it comes to the various revolutionary causes (race baiting, feminism, class struggle) makes it easy for the intellectual to sidle in and become very influential and IMPORTANT (and rich) by pushing their revolutionary agenda’s.
     
    It isn't "stupidity"; it's the effects of their being veritably brainwashed by Hollywood, TV, newspapers, magazines, and the other channels of culture, including the universities, all of which have fallen into the wrong hands.

    As an aside, I really wish this stuff about Jews being soooooo smart would stop. They, as a group, have relatively high IQs, but it's not as if their IQs are towering over EED people or anything. Their power doesn't come from brains; it comes from usury and fractional reserve banking -- i.e., money, which they can then use to buy politicians and the aforementioned channels of culture -- and from their intense in-group/out-group way of thinking, their cohesiveness and nepotism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @countenance
    I think second wave feminism was just a corporate front to increase the supply of labor just to decrease the cost of labor.

    Anthony Ludovici chided the first wavers for not focusing on the lack of good wages for working class men which tended to turn their wives out from their homes.

    And the wage gap hysteria has its roots in first wave itself.

    To the party that will, as a preliminary, pledge itself to level male and female wages in government employ, will be given the Feminist vote; and if no party will bid, then it is the Feminist intention to run special candidates for all offices, to split the male parties, and to involve them in consecutive disasters such as the one which befell the Republican party in the last presidential election in the United States.

    Is this 2012 we’re talking of?

    Nope, it’s from Feminist Intentions by WL George. Printed way back in 1913.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Mark Minter
    From his biography on The Einstein College of Medicine web site. The pediatric department is named after him, Lewis M Fraad Depart of Pediatrics. The notable fragment from the bio:

    "Dr. Fraad collaborated on Dr. Spock’s landmark book “Baby and Child Care”

    I like to look at feminism from a biological perspective. I do this because I want to and not out of any particular data patterns other than my own particularly biased viewpoint.

    To me, the driving aspect of feminism is "Keep those creepy betas away from me." Cisheteropatriarchal hegemonic monogamy has this particular rule that bugs the crap out of 80% of the women, "For every boy there is a girl". Since Pareto's rule says about 80% of men will not be desirable alpha-ish fellows, then 80% of the women would have to "settle" for them.

    The issue for Jewish Women is their men. Most of them will fall outside of that 20% when compared to the global population of men. Jewish female sexual dysfunction is famous, noteworthy, the subject of jokes, a cliche: Jewish Bed Death. "What is Jewish Doggy Style?" "He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead." It is the stuff that the manosphere, particularly Roissy and Rollo write about: Loss of Genuine Desire leading to Dry Vag condition and hence, Bed Death.

    And this is egregious for many Jewish women. Biologists note that female offspring will assume the traits of the males that are reasonably sexually successful. In most Jewish groups over the past 2000 years or so, Jews were somewhat cut off from the greater population. And the traits imposed on the Jewish women by family driven matches were toward the more cerebrally suited matches and less on the physical. Take this trend for many many generations, smart men over attractive men, and Jewish women are often considered less attractive then their Gentile counterparts. Especially on the fringes given the standard distribution of "Jewish Beauty". A Jewish 6.5 is a Gentile 4.9. Yes, there are many attractive Jewish women for sure, but drop down into the bottom 80% and you start to have a sort of "bell curve" comparison with Gentile females that rivals the White IQ curve with blacks. Then combine this with the intelligence of the males inherited by daughters. Lots of Smart, ugly daughters compared to the general population. Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women. Not always so, among the Jews.

    And you have the core of feminists, ugly smart angry women, angry that the hot guys ignore them, angry that the men that will go with them, in very short order, will look like Louie De Palma from the sit-com Taxi or or some nebbish like Woody Allen.

    And Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single). But when they marry, they historically marry Jewish due to family pressure and habit of choice. And then the Bed Death sets in and thus, another old Jewish Joke:"How do you keep a Jewish girl from having sex?" "You marry her." And Jewish women have much disdain over the sexual nature of the Jewish men. The Yiddish name for a penis? "Schmeckel". "Schmeckel", not exactly a reverent term, one of the words from Yiddish beginning with "Schm", all derogatory: Schmoo, Schmooze, and one of everyone's favorites, Schmegma.

    I could only find two photos of Louis M. Fraad online.
    http://www.jacobipeds.org/images/about/lewis-fraad.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ60qfSdFg2Lsw1ijt2n-T5sS_eCh7i6ZH-hmTDHFtzGEDOvcorqA

    In the second, he looks like some sort of burn victim years after recovery. He is liver spotted, blotchy, bald, with a seagull chin. Hard to say, but toss in a Jewish doctor body from "back in the day", and it is easy for me to see that the former Irma London probably deeply resented being stuck with him, cloistered away from the sexy alphas she wanted but was denied. My wife once made a comment on some women's site about women getting abortions when the father was a beta; their attitude towards the baby was entirely different than when the father was that hot alpha. Also my wife says, "A woman that loves her husband is never out past 8 pm." And also "If a woman is out at all, other than what is absolutely necessary, she is probably ovulating."

    So I agree with the prime assertion of this post, that Jews are genius at foisting intra-Jewish conflict out onto the rest of the world. In this case, its Jewish women hating Jewish men and forcing feminism down the throats of normal men and women, all because they are ugly.

    This is hilarious. Kirk Douglas, Harrison Ford, David Duchovny, and lots of others create some problems for your ‘ugly Jewish male’ theory, as do Bar Rafaeli, Scarlett Johannson, and lots of others for your ‘ugly Jewish woman’ theory. The notion of frigid Jewish women definitely flies in the face of some other anti-semitic stereotypes, you guys should get your stories straight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    Actually, ridiculous as some of the arguments for this theory are, a couple of celebrities don't really prove anything for either side.

    I do think Jewish women are at a disadvantage in competition against less intelligent and mouthy and more feminine non-Jewish women--heck, I don't want one. (My mom was actually fairly feminine despite being very bright, maybe that's how she snagged a cute tall goy?) How much this has to do with feminism, I'm not sure.

    I think more likely there were lots of bored women who wanted to work, and with lots of Jewish women on the left and reading appropriate lefty feminist authors, well, there's your Steinem, Abzug, Friedan, Allred, and whoever else is driving me to miscegenation. At least I can't blame my relatives for Amanda Marcotte or Anita Sarkeesian.

    I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to weaken the gentile family. I think they believed their own BS, and with 'follow your heart' and 'decide your own destiny', the result was a 60% intermarriage rate and the continual numerical decline of secular Jewry.

    As for the 'boiling off' argument, that the most dedicated and ethnocentric secular Jews remain to perpetuate the anti-gentile leftist cadre, my observation is that the most dedicated lefties tend not to be that ethnocentric and so marry out, and the most dedicated ethnocentrists tend not to be that lefty (though they still do remain to drag the USA into stupid wars). Truthfully, you've got enough gentile leftists for Jewish leftists to marry and keep spreading identity politics and anti-whitism. If you haven't noticed, northwest European places like Sweden and Germany have plenty of lefties on their own--it's not just Barbara Lerner Spectre, curses be upon her.

    Realistically, leftism is part of European culture that's a response (often bad) to real problems. Marx couldn't do it all on his own. Businessmen impoverished a lot of workers in the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, and the workers were going to want to do something about it. The stupid postindustrial variants where women make men's lives miserable are a result of bored women wanting something else to do but clean house 3 hours a day, and then inventing ideologies that say they have the right to and if they don't, it's men's fault. Hey, they had a point. Similarly, the disgusting 'affirmative consent' standard is a response to the fact that yes, lots of women are getting raped on college campuses. Of course, cutting down on the hookup culture and restoring a sense of shame, as conservatives would suggest, is verboten, so it must be men's fault.
    , @Tracy

    The notion of frigid Jewish women definitely flies in the face of some other anti-semitic stereotypes, you guys should get your stories straight
     
    I think it's more a case of you needing to learn how to read. He didn't say that Jewish women are frigid; he said that they don't fuck their husbands after some time spent in marriage. Me, I don't know anything about any of that, and I don't buy Minter's post, but I can read and understand what he did and did not say, and he clearly said, "Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single)."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    Agitation for equal suffrage was carried on by only a few individuals. The first of these was Frances Wright, a Scottish woman who came to the country in 1826 and advocated women’s suffrage in an extensive series of lectures. In 1836 Ernestine Rose, a Polish woman, came to the country and carried on a different campaign so effectively that she obtained a personal hearing before the New York Legislature, though her petition bore only five signatures.

    Polish woman?

    Ernestine Louise Rose (January 13, 1810 – August 4, 1892) was an atheist feminist, individualist feminist, and abolitionist. She was one of the major intellectual forces behind the women’s rights movement in nineteenth-century America. [. . .]

    She was born on January 13, 1810, in Piotrków Trybunalski, Russia-Poland, as Ernestine Louise Polowsky. Her father was a wealthy rabbi and her mother the daughter of a wealthy businessman.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/yankees-and-womens-suffrage.html

    So physician, heal thyself.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Sounds like loads of Jews supported her, she did get a full five signatories for her petition!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    “This is why you will never be respectable.”

    I think Steve is pretty respectable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Steve Sailer
    "If Puritans/Yankees had an Israel, they’d have BDS-ed it out of the US establishment’s good graces long ago."

    Rhodesia was kind of like Israel. A lot of serious people (e.g., Theodore Dalrymple) went there and made something of the place. Whatever happened to Rhodesia?

    Israel was one of the only countries in the world to support Rhodesia in the 1970s after it became an international pariah state. When the New York Times was telling everyone that Mugabe was just a brilliant magnanimous reformer, the IDF was arming and training the RSF.

    There’s a similarly little known history with Singapore as well. After being thrown out of Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew went to Israel for a military alliance. The IDF trained with the new Singapore army, and Israeli generals and strategists set up Singapore’s doctrine and defense infrastructure. It makes sense as both are small, organized, rich countries, surrounded on all sides by hostile Muslim hordes. Without Israeli support, it’s likely that Singapore would have been forcibly “re-absorbed” into Malaysia, particularly once there became more Chinese wealth for the Muslims kleptocrats in Kuala Lumpur.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Doug
    > Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other. Considering the horrific toll taken by civil wars in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, this strategy of redirecting animosities outward seems prudent.

    I think anybody who knows even the slightest bit of HBD, should know that Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are dumps because they're filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. The only difference if the State of Israel was never formed would be Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would also be dumps because they'd be currently filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. In fact we don't even need to imagine a historical counterfactual. Just look at all the other places, far out of reach of Israel, but still filled with Muslim Arabs. Yemen: dump. Sudan: dump. Algeria: dump.

    Surprise, surprise! Everywhere (with the exception of the places where you can hit the ground with a stick and have trillions in fossil fuels burst out) is a wretched wasteland. Heck, even the small pockets of Muslim Arabs in magnanimous, highly efficient Western democracies are also hyper-violent dumps! So when Muslim Arabs live next to Israelis they don't get along. When Muslim Arabs live next to Swedes they also don't get along. Israelis and Swedes, when in proximity, seem to live, work and mingle together just fine. But then Muslim Arabs also don't get along when they live next to Christian Arabs, black animists, Hindus, Kurdish Muslims or for that matter really even other Muslim Arabs. Theres seems to be a common denominator here...

    “Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other.”

    Kissinger was not saying anything different from what Steve Sailer said earlier and from what I learned so long ago in college that I can’t exactly remember who first said it. Perhaps Machiavelli has something to say, but I believe the thought must have occurred to one of ancient Greeks or ancient Romans who knew an awful lot about politics. Perhaps it was something I picked up from Kissinger’s writings, but they weren’t as prolific when I was taking a course in international relations as they are now. In all likelihood, it was such a basic concept that I might have picked it up in a textbook. The concept has been around for a very long time. But, based simply on what I read about Israel, I concluded many years ago that was one reason Israel had such an aggressive foreign policy, to serve as a distraction from internal divisions by uniting the domestic population against an external enemy. One of the divisions is the obvious one between the secular Israelis who tend to congregate around Tel Aviv and the extremely religious Israelis who tend to dominate Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements. I gather those two sides can’t stand each other. As I recall, it was the divisions among the ancient Israelis which caused the downfall of ancient Israel after they threw off Seleucid rule.

    BTW, fwiw, I dated a Jewish American woman back in the 90′s, who was an atheist, and she couldn’t stand the Israelis she had encountered. She thought they were too arrogant. The Swedish woman whom I have mentioned several times and whom I have known for 25+ years was married once to a Sephardic Jew from Cuba. Once, when we were talking, I made a reference to Sephardic Jews, and she quickly retorted that they think they are the best of the best, based on her experience with her ex-husband (with whom she maintained friendly relations after their divorce). I detected no animosity in her comment. She was just stating a fact based on the years she had been married to and friendly with a Sephardic Jew from Cuba.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    BTW, fwiw, I dated a Jewish American woman back in the 90′s, who was an atheist, and she couldn’t stand the Israelis she had encountered
     
    And I've spent timr with an Israeli girl i SE Asia who can't stand the other Israelis travelling around there. It's almost like Jews are normal people who have normal gripes and differences...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Doug
    > Naji El Maarfi, 21, admitted three counts of sexual assault, one count of exposure and the theft of a bicycle. He was jailed for 10 months and put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years.

    In Britain three rapes gets you 10 months in jail?! That comes out to 14 weeks per rape. What does murder get you? A stern lecture and 30 minutes in time-out? There are people in the UK who've spent more time in jail for off-color jokes on Twitter.

    Makes perfect sense, who is a greater threat to the official ideology? Expect more in the future, barring some major social or political shifts.

    Think about how Stalin was much harsher on politicals than normal criminals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Bill Jones
    You are terribly in error.

    The bulwark against the power of the State is the nuclear family.

    The state always and everywhere weakens it,

    How. Would the nuclear family be better able to fight the state than extended family? Nuclear families were just the first step towards the complete familial breakdown we see today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. The NY Times is utterly untrustworthy in pretty much everything they write, something the host has noticed in the past, why would he care to think this obit is anything but the normal agenda driven nonsense? You cannot believe the NY Times even about the weather. But to psychoanalyze based on a New York Times obit? That is like psychoanalyzing Batman. He is a fictional character.

    I do have a question though for all the posters who are so vehement on the topic of the Jews. What do you propose to do? Be honest. Jews are rapidly intermarrying, so the question may be moot in a generation but from the comments on the about the physiognomy of certain gentiles, I am not sure about even that. As someone noted, American Jews have won multiple Nobel Prizes, represent 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives. Jews at 2% of America are very influential, way beyond their numbers (and productive and intelligent) and no person gives up what he has voluntarilly. No Jew is going to say: I think I will earn less money so the Gentiles are not made at the Jews. Jews contribute and detract – like everyone – and more than everyone.

    (I for one would like to halt all muslim immigration to the US. I actually would prefer to halt all third world immigration to the US but certainly all muslim immigration. That is a plan. As the host has noted, better we bring up everyone’s school test scores than try and close a racial gap which is not ever going to be closed. That is a plan.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction

    I do have a question though for all the posters who are so vehement on the topic of the Jews. What do you propose to do? Be honest. Jews are rapidly intermarrying, so the question may be moot in a generation but from the comments on the about the physiognomy of certain gentiles, I am not sure about even that. As someone noted, American Jews have won multiple Nobel Prizes, represent 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives. Jews at 2% of America are very influential, way beyond their numbers (and productive and intelligent) and no person gives up what he has voluntarilly.
     
    Due to the three factors of high Jewish success, high Jewish intermarriage and assortative mating, the type of grand anti-Jewish conspiracising seen on this site is incredibly counter-productive.

    1. Due to intermarriage young Jews are already barely a separate people, so it makes no sense anyway.

    2. Jews are over-represented among the most effective people, so that's a problem.

    3. Probably the majority of effective people now have Jewish relations (e.g Donald Trump) so that's an insurmountable problem.
    , @Mark Green
    Just because a Jew 'outmarries', doesn't mean that he is leaving behind his Jewish identity or that his children will not identify as Jews or work for the collective interests of Jews.

    Jews do enrich their bloodline by marrying attractive, high-IQ gentiles. Thus, their varied (though often identifiable) phenotype. Stephen Spielberg married a beautiful WASP (Kate Capshaw) who later converted to Judaism. At least one of Trump's smart and beautiful daughters married a Jew and became one herself. This may explain why we see putative Jews like Harrison Ford and any number of Aryan-looking movie stars who proclaim themselves Jewish. But how did an inbred tribe out of the Middle East get blue eyes and blonde hair and all those Ango-Saxon features?

    If Jews were a normal ethnic group, these WASPy-looking Jews might see themselves as 'part Jewish' the way so many whites in America routinely say that they're, say, 'half Irish, a quarter French, etc'. But Jews don't operate that way and don't identify that way--even the blonde ones.

    I remember watching blonde, TV comedienne, Goldie Hawn, once publicly proclaim: 'I'm no shiksa'! Hmm. She sure looked like one.

    With Jews, either you ON THE TEAM of you not part of the team. Let's just say that this is often the case.

    Jewish identity and Jewish ethnic team spirit is unique, especially now that it's so closely associated with wealth, privilege and power. This may explain why Jews so dominate American whites in areas where networking is central to success. Whites in America are largely atomized today, damaged by their commitment to independence, to multi-culturalism and with that, a learned disdain for anything resembling 'fascism' (a slippery term if there ever was one).

    Indeed, the relatively recent, liberal taboo against 'racism' has surely been advanced significantly by Jewish academics, intellectuals, jurists and entertainers. Significantly, Jews have no qualms about their own collective ethnocentrism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Mark Minter
    From his biography on The Einstein College of Medicine web site. The pediatric department is named after him, Lewis M Fraad Depart of Pediatrics. The notable fragment from the bio:

    "Dr. Fraad collaborated on Dr. Spock’s landmark book “Baby and Child Care”

    I like to look at feminism from a biological perspective. I do this because I want to and not out of any particular data patterns other than my own particularly biased viewpoint.

    To me, the driving aspect of feminism is "Keep those creepy betas away from me." Cisheteropatriarchal hegemonic monogamy has this particular rule that bugs the crap out of 80% of the women, "For every boy there is a girl". Since Pareto's rule says about 80% of men will not be desirable alpha-ish fellows, then 80% of the women would have to "settle" for them.

    The issue for Jewish Women is their men. Most of them will fall outside of that 20% when compared to the global population of men. Jewish female sexual dysfunction is famous, noteworthy, the subject of jokes, a cliche: Jewish Bed Death. "What is Jewish Doggy Style?" "He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead." It is the stuff that the manosphere, particularly Roissy and Rollo write about: Loss of Genuine Desire leading to Dry Vag condition and hence, Bed Death.

    And this is egregious for many Jewish women. Biologists note that female offspring will assume the traits of the males that are reasonably sexually successful. In most Jewish groups over the past 2000 years or so, Jews were somewhat cut off from the greater population. And the traits imposed on the Jewish women by family driven matches were toward the more cerebrally suited matches and less on the physical. Take this trend for many many generations, smart men over attractive men, and Jewish women are often considered less attractive then their Gentile counterparts. Especially on the fringes given the standard distribution of "Jewish Beauty". A Jewish 6.5 is a Gentile 4.9. Yes, there are many attractive Jewish women for sure, but drop down into the bottom 80% and you start to have a sort of "bell curve" comparison with Gentile females that rivals the White IQ curve with blacks. Then combine this with the intelligence of the males inherited by daughters. Lots of Smart, ugly daughters compared to the general population. Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women. Not always so, among the Jews.

    And you have the core of feminists, ugly smart angry women, angry that the hot guys ignore them, angry that the men that will go with them, in very short order, will look like Louie De Palma from the sit-com Taxi or or some nebbish like Woody Allen.

    And Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single). But when they marry, they historically marry Jewish due to family pressure and habit of choice. And then the Bed Death sets in and thus, another old Jewish Joke:"How do you keep a Jewish girl from having sex?" "You marry her." And Jewish women have much disdain over the sexual nature of the Jewish men. The Yiddish name for a penis? "Schmeckel". "Schmeckel", not exactly a reverent term, one of the words from Yiddish beginning with "Schm", all derogatory: Schmoo, Schmooze, and one of everyone's favorites, Schmegma.

    I could only find two photos of Louis M. Fraad online.
    http://www.jacobipeds.org/images/about/lewis-fraad.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ60qfSdFg2Lsw1ijt2n-T5sS_eCh7i6ZH-hmTDHFtzGEDOvcorqA

    In the second, he looks like some sort of burn victim years after recovery. He is liver spotted, blotchy, bald, with a seagull chin. Hard to say, but toss in a Jewish doctor body from "back in the day", and it is easy for me to see that the former Irma London probably deeply resented being stuck with him, cloistered away from the sexy alphas she wanted but was denied. My wife once made a comment on some women's site about women getting abortions when the father was a beta; their attitude towards the baby was entirely different than when the father was that hot alpha. Also my wife says, "A woman that loves her husband is never out past 8 pm." And also "If a woman is out at all, other than what is absolutely necessary, she is probably ovulating."

    So I agree with the prime assertion of this post, that Jews are genius at foisting intra-Jewish conflict out onto the rest of the world. In this case, its Jewish women hating Jewish men and forcing feminism down the throats of normal men and women, all because they are ugly.

    …. To me, the driving aspect of feminism is “Keep those creepy betas away from me ….”

    Very amusing comment, Mark.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Deduction

    Not so my friend. There is basis in reality. For example, the story of Hannukah is traditionally a tale of noble Jews throwing off the irrational, antisemitic hatred and oppression of the Greek Seleucids and re-establishing their religion. However modern scholarship is revealing that the real story was almost certainly a conflict between Hellenizing urban Jews and conservative rural Jews, with the Seleucid powers intervening to stop the bloodshed.
     
    That's an apt comparison. Commenters here blame Jews when they should be blaming multikultising gentiles equally and as part of the same category.

    Of course there are plenty of multikultising Jews too, and, ironically, Hassidic type Jews actually blame multikultising gentiles!

    Once upon a time the Jewish Civil War (the Haskala) was openly recognized as a titanic battle. In recent years it has been suppressed and (as Steve notes) has been projected on goyim.

    It is very hard, emotionally and psychologically, for Jews to even notice the daily oppression of Jewish women by Jewish men, Jewish law, and Jewish culture. It is doubly hard for them to say anything about it where the goyim can hear.

    Tens of thousands of Jewish children are denied an education in NYC in violation of the law, Jewish girls suffering worst of all, yet the “Annies” and other Jewish feminists have never made an issue of this. These poor girls are brainwashed and grow up in utter isolation from the greater culture. They bear 6-10 kids apiece and live in poverty their whole lives.

    But racial solidarity trumps everything. No mention of these poor Jewish children. It is the happy Utahn wives and Duggars who are oppressed by Evil Goy Patriarchy that must be “liberated”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cwhatfuture
    It is Jews (but not left wing ones) who are filing the lawsuits in New York to end this educational crime. Not Gentiles. And Left wing Jewish feminists (and left wing Gentile feminists) say nothing about Muslim oppression of women either. Only right wing Jews and Gentiles raise this point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Honesthughgrant
    A Jewish historian made the comment that many Jews - like Einstein - retained their sympathy for Soviet communism after WW 2, primarily because it was seen as a "punishment" for the Germans and Eastern European antisemitism.

    Certainly, many Jews became Communist during the 1933-1945 period because Stalin and the Communist Internationale were seen as the most reliable anti-Nazi in politics.

    If gentile nations are so anti-Semitic why don’t Jews just leave? It seems that even when the Jews get their own country – Israel – they still prefer to live in the “anti-Semitic” gentile nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    They're not. Read any Jewish history book, the USA always gets specifically highlighted for not being too bad. Sometimes England too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Desiderius
    "In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity."

    The genius of Christianity being that it directs them to God in Christ on the cross, who bears them for us and our salvation. Thus is He rightly called the Prince of Peace.

    Amen, brother or sister.

    I just got home from a memorial for a dear, departed brother in Christ. He endured much suffering and discord in this life, but in the arms of Jesus he finds peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Doug
    > Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other. Considering the horrific toll taken by civil wars in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, this strategy of redirecting animosities outward seems prudent.

    I think anybody who knows even the slightest bit of HBD, should know that Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are dumps because they're filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. The only difference if the State of Israel was never formed would be Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would also be dumps because they'd be currently filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. In fact we don't even need to imagine a historical counterfactual. Just look at all the other places, far out of reach of Israel, but still filled with Muslim Arabs. Yemen: dump. Sudan: dump. Algeria: dump.

    Surprise, surprise! Everywhere (with the exception of the places where you can hit the ground with a stick and have trillions in fossil fuels burst out) is a wretched wasteland. Heck, even the small pockets of Muslim Arabs in magnanimous, highly efficient Western democracies are also hyper-violent dumps! So when Muslim Arabs live next to Israelis they don't get along. When Muslim Arabs live next to Swedes they also don't get along. Israelis and Swedes, when in proximity, seem to live, work and mingle together just fine. But then Muslim Arabs also don't get along when they live next to Christian Arabs, black animists, Hindus, Kurdish Muslims or for that matter really even other Muslim Arabs. Theres seems to be a common denominator here...

    Theres seems to be a common denominator here…

    Duh. Islamophobia. It’s the oldest hatred; didn’t you know?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. “If you look closely enough, you’ll notice lots of examples of this Jewish tactical genius for transmuting intra-Jewish hostilities into rage against society as a whole.”

    That’s the impression you quickly get from reading Karl Marx – he’s a Jewish intellectual who really hates economically successful Jews – especially if they made money in finance rather than industry. One of Marx’s biggest pet hates was the tendency for ugly rich guys to score attractive wives. He had a strong belief that attractive people should marry other attractive people and believed capitalism was aesthetically/physically dysgenic (probably some self-loathing there as he was pretty ugly himself).

    If he were around today he would no doubt blame capitalism for all the third world immigrants moving to the West.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. @Deduction

    “We threw Tampax at the F.B.I. agents who parked outside of our home for two days after my father refused to speak with them,” Ms. Baxandall and her sister Harriet wrote in an essay for “Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left” (1998), edited by Judy Kaplan and Linn Shapiro. “We giggled dirty words into the phone when told that it was tapped.”
     
    Feminism: the modern day ideology of the girl who refuses to grow up.

    Of course women never used to be forced to fully grow up. They used to move from children's things when they were children straight to children's things when they were full time mothers, except the rich who were waited on hand and foot anyway.

    It's obvious that girls reach maturity much earlier than boys, but organisms that reach maturity quicker tend to end up less mature once all growth is done.

    After all, girls get taller quicker but end up signficantly less tall in the end.

    Perhaps there's a naturally large fraction of women for whom the modern day requirement to act in a certain adult manner is an unfair modern imposition that they're unsuited for? And feminism is a coping mechanism against this trauma.

    It certainly explains a lot of the actions of feminists, their high incidence of mental illness, odd sexual attitudes and tendency towards pre-adolescent attention seeking behaviour.

    In “As Good as it Gets” Jack Nicholson’s character describes women this way:

    “First, I think of a man, then remove reason and accountability.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Steve Sailer
    "Years of Upheaval: 1973-74"

    Kissinger phrased it more diplomatically, but it's a recurrent theme in the second volume of his memoirs that Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic policy.

    America’s foreign policy would be domestic policy too, if we faced well-armed enemies on our borders. Come to think of it, where our foreign policy has to do with Mexico, it’s become our domestic policy too.

    Either way, what you say now is a far, far cry from your earlier claim that Israel deliberately provokes conflict with its neighbors to keep intra-Jewish conflicts latent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "America’s foreign policy would be domestic policy too, if we faced well-armed enemies on our borders. Come to think of it, where our foreign policy has to do with Mexico, it’s become our domestic policy too."

    Gee, do you think that might have something to do with the fact that the U.S. has been silently invaded by millions of Mexicans over the last 30-40 years? While we have been absorbing the excess population of Mexico that Mexico couldn't afford to feed or educate or employ, Mexico has graciously absorbed all those profitable American industries that the U.S. couldn't afford to maintain, while being assured of the right to return the products for sale into the most profitable market on the planet. The only thing Israel has been invaded by in the last 30-40 years, other than those U.S. government checks amounting to $3+ billion a year, is all those "Jews" from Russia, and they were invited in and possibly purchased by giving the U.S.S.R. all those secrets that Jonathan Pollard stole from us. I don't think anybody would argue that Lebanon was "well-armed" in 1982 when Israel invaded them on the false pretext that the Palestinians in Lebanon were responsible for the attempted assassination of their ambassador in London. Back in the early 1970's, before the civil war started in Lebanon, as a result of all those Palestinians expelled by Jordan, Lebanon was a leading banking center of the Middle East and Beirut had the reputation of being the Paris of the Middle East. Now Israel couldn't allow such a Arab showcase to exist right next door, could it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Mark Minter
    From his biography on The Einstein College of Medicine web site. The pediatric department is named after him, Lewis M Fraad Depart of Pediatrics. The notable fragment from the bio:

    "Dr. Fraad collaborated on Dr. Spock’s landmark book “Baby and Child Care”

    I like to look at feminism from a biological perspective. I do this because I want to and not out of any particular data patterns other than my own particularly biased viewpoint.

    To me, the driving aspect of feminism is "Keep those creepy betas away from me." Cisheteropatriarchal hegemonic monogamy has this particular rule that bugs the crap out of 80% of the women, "For every boy there is a girl". Since Pareto's rule says about 80% of men will not be desirable alpha-ish fellows, then 80% of the women would have to "settle" for them.

    The issue for Jewish Women is their men. Most of them will fall outside of that 20% when compared to the global population of men. Jewish female sexual dysfunction is famous, noteworthy, the subject of jokes, a cliche: Jewish Bed Death. "What is Jewish Doggy Style?" "He sits up and begs; she rolls over and plays dead." It is the stuff that the manosphere, particularly Roissy and Rollo write about: Loss of Genuine Desire leading to Dry Vag condition and hence, Bed Death.

    And this is egregious for many Jewish women. Biologists note that female offspring will assume the traits of the males that are reasonably sexually successful. In most Jewish groups over the past 2000 years or so, Jews were somewhat cut off from the greater population. And the traits imposed on the Jewish women by family driven matches were toward the more cerebrally suited matches and less on the physical. Take this trend for many many generations, smart men over attractive men, and Jewish women are often considered less attractive then their Gentile counterparts. Especially on the fringes given the standard distribution of "Jewish Beauty". A Jewish 6.5 is a Gentile 4.9. Yes, there are many attractive Jewish women for sure, but drop down into the bottom 80% and you start to have a sort of "bell curve" comparison with Gentile females that rivals the White IQ curve with blacks. Then combine this with the intelligence of the males inherited by daughters. Lots of Smart, ugly daughters compared to the general population. Among Gentiles, often Smart women are attractive women due to smart, capable fathers marrying attractive women. Not always so, among the Jews.

    And you have the core of feminists, ugly smart angry women, angry that the hot guys ignore them, angry that the men that will go with them, in very short order, will look like Louie De Palma from the sit-com Taxi or or some nebbish like Woody Allen.

    And Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single). But when they marry, they historically marry Jewish due to family pressure and habit of choice. And then the Bed Death sets in and thus, another old Jewish Joke:"How do you keep a Jewish girl from having sex?" "You marry her." And Jewish women have much disdain over the sexual nature of the Jewish men. The Yiddish name for a penis? "Schmeckel". "Schmeckel", not exactly a reverent term, one of the words from Yiddish beginning with "Schm", all derogatory: Schmoo, Schmooze, and one of everyone's favorites, Schmegma.

    I could only find two photos of Louis M. Fraad online.
    http://www.jacobipeds.org/images/about/lewis-fraad.jpg
    https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ60qfSdFg2Lsw1ijt2n-T5sS_eCh7i6ZH-hmTDHFtzGEDOvcorqA

    In the second, he looks like some sort of burn victim years after recovery. He is liver spotted, blotchy, bald, with a seagull chin. Hard to say, but toss in a Jewish doctor body from "back in the day", and it is easy for me to see that the former Irma London probably deeply resented being stuck with him, cloistered away from the sexy alphas she wanted but was denied. My wife once made a comment on some women's site about women getting abortions when the father was a beta; their attitude towards the baby was entirely different than when the father was that hot alpha. Also my wife says, "A woman that loves her husband is never out past 8 pm." And also "If a woman is out at all, other than what is absolutely necessary, she is probably ovulating."

    So I agree with the prime assertion of this post, that Jews are genius at foisting intra-Jewish conflict out onto the rest of the world. In this case, its Jewish women hating Jewish men and forcing feminism down the throats of normal men and women, all because they are ugly.

    I’m curious about the abortion comment. Do women only get abortions when the father is someone she doesn’t really admire much? Then why would a woman have unprotected sex with a guy she doesn’t admire? Drugs and alcohol?

    Maybe the solution to the abortion question is sobriety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I knew a young woman years ago who got knocked up and got two guys to pay the full price of her abortion, so she wound up making a profit on the deal. I heard that story from her best friend, and no, I wasn't one of the two guys. I think she knew me well enough that she knew I would have demanded a paternity test.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @johnny memeonic
    But wasn't the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?

    Anglo feminism gave us prohibition, a very conservative and reactionary movement while jewish feminism gave us the bra burning 60s sexual revolution, a very liberal and progressive movement. It's almost as if they were two very different feminist movements supported by two very different ethnic groups, but hey that would be noticing, and as we all know noticing is a crime.

    But wasn’t the anglo puritan feminism of the 1870s far different in nature from the radical jewish/atheist feminism of the 1960s?

    Sure, but Anglo Puritan feminism also changed oh, just a bit, between the 1870s and the 1960s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @David Bruce
    According to her Wikipedia page, Baxandall was actually a strong advocate of the Palestinian cause. I guess you can praise Baxandall for being consistent, unlike Susan Sontag, who was a cheerleader for Israel during the '67 War, while opposing the Vietnam War.

    “I guess you can praise Baxandall for being consistent, unlike Susan Sontag, who was a cheerleader for Israel during the ’67 War, while opposing the Vietnam War.”

    There is no hypocrisy in that, as those were not the same kinds of war. In the ’67 war, Israel waged war against nations that were, potentially, existential threats to it. Vietnam was an entirely discretionary war that the U.S. did not have to fight, and it shouldn’t have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Doug
    So there are left-wing Jews and right-wing Jews? The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out. These minority parties have much higher approval rates in Israel than they do in their own country.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/why-anti-semitic-right-hailing-netanyahus-victory-316320.html

    And the left-wing Jews in Israel are just as enthusiastic about absorbing tons of Syrian refugees as the left-wing Jews of Europe.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/herzog-israel-has-a-duty-to-take-in-syrian-refugees/

    This is no more a shocking discovery than finding out that the Scandinavians in Europe are trying to bring in a whole bunch of Muslims, all the while knowing that the Scandinavians in the plain states of America don't want America to bring in a bunch of Muslims.

    Surely there must be some Nordic conspiracy to bring down Europe from afar. Or it could simply be that there are left-wing Scandinavians and right-wing Scandinavians.

    “So there are left-wing Jews and right-wing Jews? The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out. These minority parties have much higher approval rates in Israel than they do in their own country.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/why-anti-semitic-right-hailing-netanyahus-victory-316320.html”

    That’s certainly disingenuous almost to the point of dishonesty. There was nothing in that article that said that nationalist parties in Europe were popular in Israel; only that Netanyahu was increasingly popular with such right-wing parties, and that Netanyahu himself found them to be tactically useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Deduction
    Talk to an Israeli. You'll find the right wing ones do like the French National Front and books like Submission are a hit there.

    They don't like the Nazi Party but what could anyone expect lol
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    To be fair it should be recognized that Sailer is a hall monitor by nature, who in my own time reading him has like any B-list stand-up comic tsk-tsked the behavior of the panoply of official NAMs including but not limited to: blacks, Caribbean blacks, Arabs, Saudi Arabs, sybaritic Persians, Afghan perverts (a twofer), vibrant Caucasians, Armenians, Roma, Somalis, mestizo Mexicans, Castillian Mexicans, Texicans, Puerto Ricans, melanin-bleaching mulattoes from Brazil, Australian aborigines, and Muslim Indo-Chinese and Inuit to the extent those aren’t NNAMs. But he also clucks like a Bullingdon wannabe at the unclubbability of Pacific Islanders, Hmong, greasy-grind Koreans, two-faced mercantilist Chinese, drunk Scandinavians, and overly procreative Italians (last one is the strangest and oddly archaic). You can argue about the proportionality of his whining at the comings & goings of Jews — obviously, studying them 24/7 to ferret out any lapse no matter how strained — but the difference is *they* always pay attention & angrily reply to his prodding, while the other groups just ignore him. Just be thankful that the comment section is apparently thus far invisible to put-upon emotionally stunted gays, with their incensed heartfelt reaction to literally everything that happens on the f-ing planet — after 1 week you’d plead for the good old days of irritable anti-anti-Semitic squabbles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    1. He doesn't talk about gays that much.

    2. I don't think quite as many black people think it's fun to argue about politics on blogs. Personally I think Steve keeps his tone just antisemitic enough to attract both anti-Semites and riled-up Semites and philo-Semites, and keep his comment total high.

    I'm not complaining, I'd have to go read about sports or something if he stopped.

    But, of course, he can't admit it... ;)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Jack D
    What is your proof for this, aside for anecdotes about Mary Pickford? All of American society was "sexist" by modern standards, especially in the 1950s where the dad is the breadwinner/wife stays home and keeps house/raises the kids model was a widespread societal ideal among all classes (except the super rich where the children were always raised by servants or shipped off to boarding school at the earliest opportunity). Fraad was a Communist but he was also a respected post-war middle class professional. And so his home life would have resembled that of any other man in his position, except for the FBI agents watching him at all times.

    As Whiskey points out, feminism was, is and always will be the domain of spoiled rich girls who have time to worry about this kind of stuff because they don't have to work or take care of children. This used to mean WASPY women because up to the '50s, most Jews were still struggling immigrants or in their first generation of prosperity. Not until the 50 and 60s were there enough spoiled Jewish daughters around for Jews to assume a prominent role in feminism. Because of their high intelligence, once a profession opens up to Jews they become vastly overrepresented, whether it is nuclear physicist or professional feminist.

    “Not until the 50 and 60s were there enough spoiled Jewish daughters around for Jews to assume a prominent role in feminism. Because of their high intelligence, once a profession opens up to Jews they become vastly overrepresented, whether it is nuclear physicist or professional feminist.”

    That is of course utter self-serving nonsense. It’s not as if jewish left-wing activism, including feminism, only started in the 1950s (it didn’t). Or that feminism did not adopt a far more radical, agressive, and anti-male, anti-traditionalist tone in the 1960s (it did).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Name some important pre-1950 Jewish feminists? Jews do not appear prominently if at all in the Suffragette movement, Prohibition, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Rosalyn Baxandall, a feminist historian….

    Oxymoronic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. @Sean the Neon Caucasian
    The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything. Seriously, this stuff reads like some David Icke material.

    “The biggest problem with the alt-right is blaming the Jews for everything.”

    You are quite wrong. While some people on the alt-right are obsessed with Jews, not everyone is – probably not most of them. You may simply percieve that to be the case because you are used to the status-quo; in which Jews are never blamed (as a group) in the way that white gentiles are, and in which it is never pointed out how prominent Jews are among those who have undermined white gentile society.

    Even David Horowitz admitted that the second-wave feminism of Betty Friedan and her allies was in fact largely a left-wing project. The fact that Friedan, Abzug, Steinem and many others of that movement all happened to be from one particular ethnic group was a further admission he was unwilling or unable to make. Steve isn’t so unwilling or unable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Stubborn in Germany
    This post from Sailer is total garbage. The quality of "argument" in it resembles the old joke:

    Step 1: Quadruple our ad spend!

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: PROFIT!!

    So the New York Times runs an obituary on an obscure feminist. Nobody reads the obit except her family and friends... and Steve Sailer. Here is his logic:

    Step 1: The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters),

    Step 3: and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve's Step 2. But yeah, that's it. That's the entire argument. Pathetic.

    Stubborn is not the same thing as smart. Apparently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @Jack D
    The fact that there were once German Jewish clubs that excluded Russian Jews does not mean that there were not ALSO Christian clubs that excluded all Jews. The two are not mutually exclusive and anti-Semitism was not some imaginary displacement of intra-group Jewish rivalry. If you think that anti-Semitism is imaginary just read the comments at iSteve and you'll see that it is alive and well today.

    Anti-semitism was not an American tradition but grew when the American Jewish community switched from being a handful of cultured German Jews to the "huddled masses" of E. European Jews. According to Wikipedia " The .... august California Club was founded in Los Angeles in 1888 when "at least 12 of the 125 founding members were Jews." But "as the original Jewish members died off, this power center became off limits to Jews." This discrimination reached a peak in perhaps the 1920s where Jews became persona non-grata at an increasing # of American institutions (clubs, hotels, universities). This discrimination was not something imaginary that Jews made up - it was very real and lasted in some cases into the 1980s if not longer.

    Of course Jews excluded from the other clubs sometimes formed clubs of their own, but not out of choice - either they had to form their own clubs or not play golf at all.

    The fact that there were once German Jewish clubs that excluded Russian Jews does not mean that there were not ALSO Christian clubs that excluded all Jews. The two are not mutually exclusive and anti-Semitism was not some imaginary displacement of intra-group Jewish rivalry. If you think that anti-Semitism is imaginary just read the comments at iSteve and you’ll see that it is alive and well today.”

    Anti-semitism was aapparently also alive and well among those german Jews who excluded eastern-european Jews. If they felt the need to exclude their own co-religionists, is it any wonder that some gentiles did so as well? Chinese were excluded too. Why is it regarded as so strange that immigrants to a nation would be excluded by the people who are already there, and who might feel some resentment at the intrustion into their own country? That isn’t anti-semitism, it’s simply human nature.

    And by the way, despite your ethnically self-interested contentions, the offense of noticing things is not the same thing as anti-semitism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe they learned about Bolshevism from folks like Jack Reed, Louise Bryant, etc.

    “Maybe they learned about Bolshevism from folks like Jack Reed,”

    Yes, maybe the hordes of Yiddish-speaking socialists and communists that started forming in New York City around the time Reed was born in Oregon learned about Bolshevism from him or people like him. Maybe the Jewish communists back in Europe did as well. Or maybe you need to work on training yourself to pause long enough before posting to try to come up with at least vaguely plausible angles when you get the urge to reflexively defend Jews.

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_%28journalist%29

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.
     
    So who influenced Lippmann?

    [H]e studied under George Santayana, William James, and Graham Wallas, concentrating upon philosophy and languages (he spoke German and French), and earned his degree in three years, graduating as a member of the Phi Beta Kappa society.[11]
    At some time, Lippmann became a member, alongside Sinclair Lewis, of the New York Socialist Party
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann

    Graham Wallas (31 May 1858 – 9 August 1932) was an English socialist
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Wallas
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Deduction

    “We threw Tampax at the F.B.I. agents who parked outside of our home for two days after my father refused to speak with them,” Ms. Baxandall and her sister Harriet wrote in an essay for “Red Diapers: Growing Up in the Communist Left” (1998), edited by Judy Kaplan and Linn Shapiro. “We giggled dirty words into the phone when told that it was tapped.”
     
    Feminism: the modern day ideology of the girl who refuses to grow up.

    Of course women never used to be forced to fully grow up. They used to move from children's things when they were children straight to children's things when they were full time mothers, except the rich who were waited on hand and foot anyway.

    It's obvious that girls reach maturity much earlier than boys, but organisms that reach maturity quicker tend to end up less mature once all growth is done.

    After all, girls get taller quicker but end up signficantly less tall in the end.

    Perhaps there's a naturally large fraction of women for whom the modern day requirement to act in a certain adult manner is an unfair modern imposition that they're unsuited for? And feminism is a coping mechanism against this trauma.

    It certainly explains a lot of the actions of feminists, their high incidence of mental illness, odd sexual attitudes and tendency towards pre-adolescent attention seeking behaviour.

    An interesting thesis. Good post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    While you’re at it, Google and read about Ernestine Rose, daughter of a rabbi, immigrant from Poland, and one of the two or so earliest feminist activists in America (the earliest being Scottish immigrant Frances Wright):

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/yankees-and-womens-suffrage.html

    It took this immigrant from a “a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion” 5 months to get 5 signatures on a petition to grant married women property rights in New York.

    After a good deal of trouble I obtained five signatures. Some of the ladies said the gentlemen would laugh at them; others, that they had rights enough; and the men said the women had too many rights already. . . . I continued sending petitions with increased numbers of signatures until 1848 and ’49, when the Legistlature enacted the Law which granted woman the right to keep what was her own. But no sooner did it become legal than all the women said: “Oh! that is right! We ought always have had that!” (Stanton, 1:99)

    On Stanton and Rose:

    Stanton’s anti-immigrant speeches in the mid-1860s suggest that, like so many others in the mid-nineteenth century, she probably harbored unconscious biases against foreigners, and, perhaps, Jews that may have rendered Rose’s words and deeds invisible to her. Yet, Stanton certainly learned from Rose, who was five years her senior. Many of Stanton’s most effective speeches and best ideas of the 1850s were predicted by Rose’s talks in the 1840s. Rose and Stanton, the two most brilliant and forceful orators of the movement, were, perhaps, in some ways too much alike in personality and too different in background and manner to ever become close friends. [Carol A. Kolmerten. The American Life of Ernestine L. Rose.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Whiskey
    Steve, wrong again. While there is no question that high IQ Ashkenazi Jews are as over-represented in Radicalism and Feminism as they are every other High IQ endeavor, including nobel prizes for science and writing Hollywood movies and TV shows, they certainly did not start, or even become even minor players in feminism, until very, very late in the game. When their feminist radicalism was a FUNCTION of INHERITED WEALTH.

    Steve you look for radicalism and see Jews. I see INHERITED WEALTH. Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don't have time for utopian radicalism. It takes either a flock of believers to fleece (Karl Marx, Morris Dees) or mostly, INHERITED WEALTH. Wow big surprise 1960s Jewish feminists NEVER HAD TO WORK and INHERITED or MARRIED Wealth!

    In that, they were no different from the vastly larger number of non Jewish feminists. It is worthy to note that Jews were completely absent from the Seneca Falls movement, the Oneida movement, the Suffragette Movement, and other 19th Century feminist movements. While they certainly were active in socialism and communism in the 19th Century, but even there were overshadowed by non-Jewish violent radicals who were much, MUCH better at killing than they were. [Eric Ambler's "Care of Time" focuses on a MacGuffin fake biography of one such Russian, non Jewish radical under the Czar, a notorious killer.]

    Indeed Marx and the 1848 Movement were part and parcel of the greater Christian and Scientific Christian movements to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote (done in Wyoming and New Zealand in the 1860s), reform marriage laws, liberalize divorce, and generally abolish the old way of doing things PARTICULARLY the Nuclear Family which was considered since the 1780s by Mary Wollstonecroft and that most Christian of Poets, William Blake, to be a prison. Why, Blake even wrote an epic poem about how marriage was a prison!

    Ashkenazi Jews are highly intelligent, and like most highly intelligent Europeans fall prey to:

    *Status mongering.
    *Radical, universal, utopianism.
    *Social engineering and hubris.
    *Exalting women above all else.

    I'll remind you that the SPARTANS did in fact, long before Jews came on the scene, radically re-order the nuclear family to avoid domestic tyranny and create an elite fighting force. Some guy named PLATO wrote extensively on the above themes particularly about "noble lies" and the need for elite rule of the masses in some obscure treatise no one ever read called "the Republic."

    Feminism was on the face of it, bad and very bad for Jews, by reducing the birth rate, availability of young women for Jewish men, and population inside the United States at a time when increased third world immigration made Jewish survival a numbers game, and most of European Jewry had been wiped out by some German guy.

    However, like most High IQ groups, Ashkenazi Jews are suckers for radical universal utopianism of any variety, just like Scandinavians and Germans (see Frau Merkel's tingles and Merkel Youth) and ENArchs in France. Or the Oxbridge group in Britain.

    Any street hustler could see that the USSR was nothing but a gangster regime run by brutal con men, with nothing but Capone-style grandeur and often not even that. But the "Apostles" like Kim Philby and Guy Burgess and Anthony MacLean fell for it like rubes. Because they were smart, they "wanted to believe."

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism. That there can be heaven on earth. But they are no different from say, Germans embracing half of Africa and the ME.

    “Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don’t have time for utopian radicalism.”

    Jewish Socialism in the United States, 1880-1920
    The birth and growth of American Jewish Socialism.
    By Daniel Soyer

    American Jewish Socialism arose in the 1880s with mass Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, but it was not simply a Russian import. Jewish American immigrants turned to Socialism in response to their experiences on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Many Jews in late 19th-century Eastern Europe had endured downward socio-economic mobility as traditional Jewish economic niches were undermined by the expanding industrial capitalist system. This experience, combined with persecution under the Tsars and encounters with poverty and factory labor in America, inspired many Jews to look for radical social change.

    Jews as Proletarians

    The influx of Jewish immigrants from Russia in the 1880s brought with it a small but vocal number of intellectuals, many of whom had had a Russian-language education and some of whom had been active in the early Russian revolutionary movement. In America, they took manual jobs, especially in the fledgling garment industry, and began to see themselves for the first time as proletarians, members of the industrial working class.

    Meanwhile, they aligned themselves with either Anarchist or Marxian Socialist ideologies: Anarchists favored direct action and stressed the inherently oppressive class nature of the state, while Socialists (Social Democrats, as they were called) sought to capture control of the state for the working class. In the early years, though, the line between the factions was blurry, and both sides worked together in a number of short-lived organizations and institutions, including the Propaganda Association and the Russian Labor Lyceum.

    At first, the Socialist intellectuals found it difficult to influence the much larger community of Jewish immigrant workers, who spoke only Yiddish and had not had the same experiences of the revolutionary movement in Russia. These intellectuals preferred to carry out their activities in Russian, and doubted that serious political ideas could be expressed in Yiddish, which they viewed as an inferior dialect of German. Gradually, however, the radicals began to give speeches and issue publications in Yiddish.

    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-socialism-in-the-united-states-1880-1920/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Socialism was also pretty popular among non-Jews in America during that time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

    What Whiskey gets wrong is that socialism was popular among the proletariat around the turn of the 20th century, because conditions were generally awful for workers back then. But is he wrong about the 1960s, after the New Deal, Social Security, 5 day work weeks, 8 hour days, Ford setting the standard for high paid industrial workers, etc.? Didn't leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Feminism is as old as the hills, and Jews didn’t invent it. Sexual tension is part of the biological mechanism of sexual reproduction and has been observed even in fruit flies. It’s a mechanism for promoting stability and fitness of the species. That said, yeah, there was a KGB push to promote feminism in the West during the Cold War. That’s how Betty Friedan got her first writing job. She was tasked with pushing feminism for the CPUSA as early as 1947 if I recall correctly. Somehow that led her into more lucrative positions when she probably switched sides and started pushing it for the CIA, which also employed Gloria Steinem BTW.

    For those who think feminism is new, ask yourselves why ancient patriarchs felt compelled to write male authority into law thousands of years ago. Obviously, it was an issue long before the Enlightenment and other recent follies. Read the classics and you’ll see it was as much of a problem then as it is now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  163. @SFG
    Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.

    I'm not defending feminism--I hate them more than anyone.

    What do women want? Good part-time jobs.

    What did women get for all their marchin’ and demandin’? Full-time, crappy jobs and missed babyhoods.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Steve Sailer
    In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants, especially adjusted for education and leftism. Nobody can remember that anymore because nobody is supposed to remember that kind of thing anymore.

    “In the middle of the 20th Century in the U.S., Jews tended to be significantly more male chauvinist than Protestants”

    Wasn’t the typical stereotype of domineering Jewish wives and henpecked Jewish husbands?

    Jewish women with young children tended not to work, but this was typical for the era; rates of labor-force participation were not much lower for Jewish women than for any other group, and my guess is that what difference there was is probably better explained by higher average Jewish incomes allowing greater choice, rather than “male chauvinism”. Other than when they had young children, it appears Jewish women if anything worked outside the home at higher rates than women from other groups.

    In 1957, only 12 percent of Jewish women with children under six worked outside the home, compared to 18 percent of white Protestants. [. . .] in the 1975 Boston study, the labor-force participation of Jewish women dipped lower than that of any other white ethnic group during the childbearing years. Among women ages 30 to 3, the number of working Boston Jewish women in 1975 fell to 42 percent, compared to about half of white Protestant, Irish Catholic, and Italian Catholic mothers. Past age 40, the percentage of Boston Jewish women at work soared higher than that of any other subgroup, with almost three-quarters of Jewish women in the labor force.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=HMnvdbIPN7gC&pg=RA2-PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Also, I’m pretty sure that by the mid-20th century Jewish women had lower fertility than non-Jewish white women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @n/a
    "Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don’t have time for utopian radicalism."


    Jewish Socialism in the United States, 1880-1920
    The birth and growth of American Jewish Socialism.
    By Daniel Soyer

    American Jewish Socialism arose in the 1880s with mass Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, but it was not simply a Russian import. Jewish American immigrants turned to Socialism in response to their experiences on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Many Jews in late 19th-century Eastern Europe had endured downward socio-economic mobility as traditional Jewish economic niches were undermined by the expanding industrial capitalist system. This experience, combined with persecution under the Tsars and encounters with poverty and factory labor in America, inspired many Jews to look for radical social change.

    Jews as Proletarians

    The influx of Jewish immigrants from Russia in the 1880s brought with it a small but vocal number of intellectuals, many of whom had had a Russian-language education and some of whom had been active in the early Russian revolutionary movement. In America, they took manual jobs, especially in the fledgling garment industry, and began to see themselves for the first time as proletarians, members of the industrial working class.

    Meanwhile, they aligned themselves with either Anarchist or Marxian Socialist ideologies: Anarchists favored direct action and stressed the inherently oppressive class nature of the state, while Socialists (Social Democrats, as they were called) sought to capture control of the state for the working class. In the early years, though, the line between the factions was blurry, and both sides worked together in a number of short-lived organizations and institutions, including the Propaganda Association and the Russian Labor Lyceum.

    At first, the Socialist intellectuals found it difficult to influence the much larger community of Jewish immigrant workers, who spoke only Yiddish and had not had the same experiences of the revolutionary movement in Russia. These intellectuals preferred to carry out their activities in Russian, and doubted that serious political ideas could be expressed in Yiddish, which they viewed as an inferior dialect of German. Gradually, however, the radicals began to give speeches and issue publications in Yiddish.

    http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-socialism-in-the-united-states-1880-1920/

     

    Socialism was also pretty popular among non-Jews in America during that time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

    What Whiskey gets wrong is that socialism was popular among the proletariat around the turn of the 20th century, because conditions were generally awful for workers back then. But is he wrong about the 1960s, after the New Deal, Social Security, 5 day work weeks, 8 hour days, Ford setting the standard for high paid industrial workers, etc.? Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?

    Read More
    • Replies: @n/a
    "Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?"

    Jews have been to the left of non-Jewish whites and/or overrepresented among radicals at every income level, and in every occupational or educational milieu, for the entire time they've been in the US in large numbers.

    For example, in the mid-20th century:

    The degree of commitment of American Jews to liberalism is different from the degree of that commitment among other religious groups. The difference is that the Jewish devotion to liberalism is not correlated with economic or educational status. This was demonstrated almost 20 years ago by Wesley and Beverly Allinsmith.2

    Toward the close of World War II, the Allinsmiths asked 8,820 members of eight religious denominations whether they believed that the most important postwar task of the U.S. Government was to provide opportunity for people to get ahead on their own or "to guarantee every person a decent and steady job and standard of living."

    Nationally, 47% of the people questioned preferred security to opportunity. As the percentage of manual workers in each denomination increased, the proportion favoring security rose. Status, education and income were inversely related to the choice of security. As one proceeded from Congregationalists to Presbyterians to Episcopalians to Methodists to Lutherans to Baptists and finally to Catholics, the preference for security steadily increased from 26% to 58%.

    The Jews were the only exception to this rule. Although they were a very high status group ranking first in occupational level, third in educational level and fourth in economic level, 56% of them preferred security to opportunity. This was almost as high as the Catholic preference for security.

    Moreover, within each of the eight religious denominations, the preference for opportunity was greatest among those with most education, highest status and best occupational level. Again, the Jews were the only exception.

    The 1944 presidential vote also revealed this marked difference between Jewish and Gentile political behavior. The upper-class and upper-middle-class Christian denominations voted heavily against Roosevelt and in favor of Republican standard-bearer Thomas Dewey. Only 31.4% of the Congregationalists, 39.9% of the Presbyterians and 44.6% of the Episcopalians backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The more working-class denominations, however, voted heavily for him, particularly the Catholics who were 72.8% in his favor. In terms of their combined educational, occupational and status rank in the Allinsmith survey-that of second place-the Jews might well have been expected to vote Republican. Actually, they were 92.1% for Roosevelt. This overwhelming support was greater than that of any of the Christian denominations. [. . .]

    However, in the 1952 elections, despite the fact that the Republican presidential candidate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had led the Western coalition to victory over the Nazis, 75% of the Jewish voters supported Adlai E. Stevenson, a man who had played no role of any importance in World War II. There was no difference in the attitude of the candidates toward Jewry or the state of Israel. The issue was clearly one of moderation vs. liberalism. In a situation where American voters as a whole gave decisive support to Eisenhower, three-fourths of the Jews backed his Democratic opponent. Moreover, interviews in depth of Boston voters showed that only 30% of the Gentiles with high socioeconomic status, as against 60% of those with low socioeconomic status, backed Stevenson. Among Boston Jews, 72% of those with high status voted for Stevenson.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2011/11/jewish-liberalism-allinsmith-study.html
     
    And in a 1969 survey of professors, Jews reported themselves more leftist in parental background, personal identification, voting behavior, and their children's activism than Protestants (or Catholics).

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/10/political-background-and-identification.html


    Down to the present, Jews vote far to the left of Protestants and Catholics, even controlling for region.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipsos-reuters-2012-presidential-polling.html


    Despite the fact that:

    "Richer Voters Continue to Support the Republicans Overall and within States"
    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf


    And within groups like billionaires, or major political donors, Jews are considerably to the left of non-Jews.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?"

    Just this evening, I caught a little bit of the 1976 documentary "Harlan County USA", a sympathetic portrayal of east Kentucky coal miners and their bitter and long strike against the coal compaines in the early 1970s. It was directed by Barbara Kopple, who I presume is a rather left-wing, jewish New Yorker. It's difficult to imagine any leftist today making a movie that would portray white working class people, especially southern hill-folk, as favorably as that movie did. Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any leftist today going to the trouble to portray such people at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @n/a
    "Maybe they learned about Bolshevism from folks like Jack Reed,"

    Yes, maybe the hordes of Yiddish-speaking socialists and communists that started forming in New York City around the time Reed was born in Oregon learned about Bolshevism from him or people like him. Maybe the Jewish communists back in Europe did as well. Or maybe you need to work on training yourself to pause long enough before posting to try to come up with at least vaguely plausible angles when you get the urge to reflexively defend Jews.

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reed_%28journalist%29

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.

    So who influenced Lippmann?

    [H]e studied under George Santayana, William James, and Graham Wallas, concentrating upon philosophy and languages (he spoke German and French), and earned his degree in three years, graduating as a member of the Phi Beta Kappa society.[11]
    At some time, Lippmann became a member, alongside Sinclair Lewis, of the New York Socialist Party

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

    Graham Wallas (31 May 1858 – 9 August 1932) was an English socialist

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @n/a
    "So who influenced Lippmann?"

    Besides his grandfather?

    "Lippmann's grandfather was a native of Berlin who had emigrated to America after the German Revolutions of 1848."

    "It was not that the spirit of reform was entirely missing from the Lippman household in Manhattan. Lippmann's grandfather, after all, had participated in the German Revolution of 1848."

    'From his grandfather, who emigrated from Europe after the abortive Liberal uprisings of 1848, Walter as a child learned to believe that "Wherever the America flag was planted, there tyranny must disappear."'




    And who influenced Graham Wallas?

    Also at Harvard, Lippmann met Graham Wallas who encouraged his reading of Marx, George Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zdFb42M9OzsC&pg=PA7


    Nor was John Reed remotely typical of communist activists in the US.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/08/ethnic-origins-of-washington-posts-top.html
    , @ben tillman

    So who influenced Lippmann?
     
    Really, that's post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. You haven't even shown that his beliefs agreed with theirs (and you won't be able to, as his intractable differences with gentile socialists and progressives remind us), but even if they did, how could you possibly demonstrate that he got his beliefs from them?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Dave Pinsen
    Socialism was also pretty popular among non-Jews in America during that time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

    What Whiskey gets wrong is that socialism was popular among the proletariat around the turn of the 20th century, because conditions were generally awful for workers back then. But is he wrong about the 1960s, after the New Deal, Social Security, 5 day work weeks, 8 hour days, Ford setting the standard for high paid industrial workers, etc.? Didn't leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?

    “Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?”

    Jews have been to the left of non-Jewish whites and/or overrepresented among radicals at every income level, and in every occupational or educational milieu, for the entire time they’ve been in the US in large numbers.

    For example, in the mid-20th century:

    The degree of commitment of American Jews to liberalism is different from the degree of that commitment among other religious groups. The difference is that the Jewish devotion to liberalism is not correlated with economic or educational status. This was demonstrated almost 20 years ago by Wesley and Beverly Allinsmith.2

    Toward the close of World War II, the Allinsmiths asked 8,820 members of eight religious denominations whether they believed that the most important postwar task of the U.S. Government was to provide opportunity for people to get ahead on their own or “to guarantee every person a decent and steady job and standard of living.”

    Nationally, 47% of the people questioned preferred security to opportunity. As the percentage of manual workers in each denomination increased, the proportion favoring security rose. Status, education and income were inversely related to the choice of security. As one proceeded from Congregationalists to Presbyterians to Episcopalians to Methodists to Lutherans to Baptists and finally to Catholics, the preference for security steadily increased from 26% to 58%.

    The Jews were the only exception to this rule. Although they were a very high status group ranking first in occupational level, third in educational level and fourth in economic level, 56% of them preferred security to opportunity. This was almost as high as the Catholic preference for security.

    Moreover, within each of the eight religious denominations, the preference for opportunity was greatest among those with most education, highest status and best occupational level. Again, the Jews were the only exception.

    The 1944 presidential vote also revealed this marked difference between Jewish and Gentile political behavior. The upper-class and upper-middle-class Christian denominations voted heavily against Roosevelt and in favor of Republican standard-bearer Thomas Dewey. Only 31.4% of the Congregationalists, 39.9% of the Presbyterians and 44.6% of the Episcopalians backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The more working-class denominations, however, voted heavily for him, particularly the Catholics who were 72.8% in his favor. In terms of their combined educational, occupational and status rank in the Allinsmith survey-that of second place-the Jews might well have been expected to vote Republican. Actually, they were 92.1% for Roosevelt. This overwhelming support was greater than that of any of the Christian denominations. [. . .]

    However, in the 1952 elections, despite the fact that the Republican presidential candidate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had led the Western coalition to victory over the Nazis, 75% of the Jewish voters supported Adlai E. Stevenson, a man who had played no role of any importance in World War II. There was no difference in the attitude of the candidates toward Jewry or the state of Israel. The issue was clearly one of moderation vs. liberalism. In a situation where American voters as a whole gave decisive support to Eisenhower, three-fourths of the Jews backed his Democratic opponent. Moreover, interviews in depth of Boston voters showed that only 30% of the Gentiles with high socioeconomic status, as against 60% of those with low socioeconomic status, backed Stevenson. Among Boston Jews, 72% of those with high status voted for Stevenson.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2011/11/jewish-liberalism-allinsmith-study.html

    And in a 1969 survey of professors, Jews reported themselves more leftist in parental background, personal identification, voting behavior, and their children’s activism than Protestants (or Catholics).

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/10/political-background-and-identification.html

    Down to the present, Jews vote far to the left of Protestants and Catholics, even controlling for region.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipsos-reuters-2012-presidential-polling.html

    Despite the fact that:

    “Richer Voters Continue to Support the Republicans Overall and within States”

    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf

    And within groups like billionaires, or major political donors, Jews are considerably to the left of non-Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Reminiscent of the old Himmelfarb quote: "Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @MQ
    This is hilarious. Kirk Douglas, Harrison Ford, David Duchovny, and lots of others create some problems for your 'ugly Jewish male' theory, as do Bar Rafaeli, Scarlett Johannson, and lots of others for your 'ugly Jewish woman' theory. The notion of frigid Jewish women definitely flies in the face of some other anti-semitic stereotypes, you guys should get your stories straight.

    Actually, ridiculous as some of the arguments for this theory are, a couple of celebrities don’t really prove anything for either side.

    I do think Jewish women are at a disadvantage in competition against less intelligent and mouthy and more feminine non-Jewish women–heck, I don’t want one. (My mom was actually fairly feminine despite being very bright, maybe that’s how she snagged a cute tall goy?) How much this has to do with feminism, I’m not sure.

    I think more likely there were lots of bored women who wanted to work, and with lots of Jewish women on the left and reading appropriate lefty feminist authors, well, there’s your Steinem, Abzug, Friedan, Allred, and whoever else is driving me to miscegenation. At least I can’t blame my relatives for Amanda Marcotte or Anita Sarkeesian.

    I don’t think it was a deliberate attempt to weaken the gentile family. I think they believed their own BS, and with ‘follow your heart’ and ‘decide your own destiny’, the result was a 60% intermarriage rate and the continual numerical decline of secular Jewry.

    As for the ‘boiling off’ argument, that the most dedicated and ethnocentric secular Jews remain to perpetuate the anti-gentile leftist cadre, my observation is that the most dedicated lefties tend not to be that ethnocentric and so marry out, and the most dedicated ethnocentrists tend not to be that lefty (though they still do remain to drag the USA into stupid wars). Truthfully, you’ve got enough gentile leftists for Jewish leftists to marry and keep spreading identity politics and anti-whitism. If you haven’t noticed, northwest European places like Sweden and Germany have plenty of lefties on their own–it’s not just Barbara Lerner Spectre, curses be upon her.

    Realistically, leftism is part of European culture that’s a response (often bad) to real problems. Marx couldn’t do it all on his own. Businessmen impoverished a lot of workers in the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, and the workers were going to want to do something about it. The stupid postindustrial variants where women make men’s lives miserable are a result of bored women wanting something else to do but clean house 3 hours a day, and then inventing ideologies that say they have the right to and if they don’t, it’s men’s fault. Hey, they had a point. Similarly, the disgusting ‘affirmative consent’ standard is a response to the fact that yes, lots of women are getting raped on college campuses. Of course, cutting down on the hookup culture and restoring a sense of shame, as conservatives would suggest, is verboten, so it must be men’s fault.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JSM
    "I don’t think it was a deliberate attempt to weaken the gentile family. I think they believed their own BS, and with ‘follow your heart’ and ‘decide your own destiny’, the result was a 60% intermarriage rate and the continual numerical decline of secular Jewry."

    The stupid postindustrial variants where women make men’s lives miserable are a result of bored women wanting something else to do but clean house 3 hours a day, and then inventing ideologies that say they have the right to and if they don’t, it’s men’s fault. Hey, they had a point.

    The thing is, most women didn't end up with glamourous careers. Most White women *didn't* end up "following their heart" or "deciding their own destiny."

    Because of the devaluation of the currency, integration which destroyed old established White neighborhoods necessitating White flight & driving up the cost of housing, and Jewish lady professors telling them they had to "establish themselves" before reproducing or they'd never get anywhere, most women ended up working because they must, for survival's sake. Most women didn't end up as CEOs or models or best-selling authors. Most women ended up as waitresses, PBX operators and preschool teachers. And those women ended up crying all the way to work, for missing Baby at daycare.

    All the factors -- like currency devaluation, integration, "establish yourself" first -- which forced the waitresses, PBX operators and preschool teachers (of Other People's Kids) to dump Baby in daycare or forgo having him entirely, all those social revolutions, the leadership is overwhelmingly Jewish.

    Nah, it wasn't an accident.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @n/a
    "Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?"

    Jews have been to the left of non-Jewish whites and/or overrepresented among radicals at every income level, and in every occupational or educational milieu, for the entire time they've been in the US in large numbers.

    For example, in the mid-20th century:

    The degree of commitment of American Jews to liberalism is different from the degree of that commitment among other religious groups. The difference is that the Jewish devotion to liberalism is not correlated with economic or educational status. This was demonstrated almost 20 years ago by Wesley and Beverly Allinsmith.2

    Toward the close of World War II, the Allinsmiths asked 8,820 members of eight religious denominations whether they believed that the most important postwar task of the U.S. Government was to provide opportunity for people to get ahead on their own or "to guarantee every person a decent and steady job and standard of living."

    Nationally, 47% of the people questioned preferred security to opportunity. As the percentage of manual workers in each denomination increased, the proportion favoring security rose. Status, education and income were inversely related to the choice of security. As one proceeded from Congregationalists to Presbyterians to Episcopalians to Methodists to Lutherans to Baptists and finally to Catholics, the preference for security steadily increased from 26% to 58%.

    The Jews were the only exception to this rule. Although they were a very high status group ranking first in occupational level, third in educational level and fourth in economic level, 56% of them preferred security to opportunity. This was almost as high as the Catholic preference for security.

    Moreover, within each of the eight religious denominations, the preference for opportunity was greatest among those with most education, highest status and best occupational level. Again, the Jews were the only exception.

    The 1944 presidential vote also revealed this marked difference between Jewish and Gentile political behavior. The upper-class and upper-middle-class Christian denominations voted heavily against Roosevelt and in favor of Republican standard-bearer Thomas Dewey. Only 31.4% of the Congregationalists, 39.9% of the Presbyterians and 44.6% of the Episcopalians backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The more working-class denominations, however, voted heavily for him, particularly the Catholics who were 72.8% in his favor. In terms of their combined educational, occupational and status rank in the Allinsmith survey-that of second place-the Jews might well have been expected to vote Republican. Actually, they were 92.1% for Roosevelt. This overwhelming support was greater than that of any of the Christian denominations. [. . .]

    However, in the 1952 elections, despite the fact that the Republican presidential candidate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had led the Western coalition to victory over the Nazis, 75% of the Jewish voters supported Adlai E. Stevenson, a man who had played no role of any importance in World War II. There was no difference in the attitude of the candidates toward Jewry or the state of Israel. The issue was clearly one of moderation vs. liberalism. In a situation where American voters as a whole gave decisive support to Eisenhower, three-fourths of the Jews backed his Democratic opponent. Moreover, interviews in depth of Boston voters showed that only 30% of the Gentiles with high socioeconomic status, as against 60% of those with low socioeconomic status, backed Stevenson. Among Boston Jews, 72% of those with high status voted for Stevenson.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2011/11/jewish-liberalism-allinsmith-study.html
     
    And in a 1969 survey of professors, Jews reported themselves more leftist in parental background, personal identification, voting behavior, and their children's activism than Protestants (or Catholics).

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/10/political-background-and-identification.html


    Down to the present, Jews vote far to the left of Protestants and Catholics, even controlling for region.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipsos-reuters-2012-presidential-polling.html


    Despite the fact that:

    "Richer Voters Continue to Support the Republicans Overall and within States"
    http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/rb_qjps.pdf


    And within groups like billionaires, or major political donors, Jews are considerably to the left of non-Jews.

    Reminiscent of the old Himmelfarb quote: “Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Reminiscent of the old Himmelfarb quote: “Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans”."

    Another way of saying it might have been: Jews earn like Jews and vote like Jews. But that might not have had the effect that Himmelfarb intended.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Joe Walker
    If gentile nations are so anti-Semitic why don't Jews just leave? It seems that even when the Jews get their own country - Israel - they still prefer to live in the "anti-Semitic" gentile nations.

    They’re not. Read any Jewish history book, the USA always gets specifically highlighted for not being too bad. Sometimes England too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @slumber_j
    In fairness, "not being too bad" isn't exactly what a nation normally aspires to. It's a grudging formulation, in which the speaker implies ongoing judgement and thereby keeps the upper hand.

    It reminds me of Obama's "You're likeable enough." And also of a deli order a friend of mine once overheard here in NYC: "I want an everything bagel with not too much butter."
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Read any Jewish history book, the USA always gets specifically highlighted for not being too bad."

    Gosh. That's mighty white of 'em.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Anonymous
    To be fair it should be recognized that Sailer is a hall monitor by nature, who in my own time reading him has like any B-list stand-up comic tsk-tsked the behavior of the panoply of official NAMs including but not limited to: blacks, Caribbean blacks, Arabs, Saudi Arabs, sybaritic Persians, Afghan perverts (a twofer), vibrant Caucasians, Armenians, Roma, Somalis, mestizo Mexicans, Castillian Mexicans, Texicans, Puerto Ricans, melanin-bleaching mulattoes from Brazil, Australian aborigines, and Muslim Indo-Chinese and Inuit to the extent those aren't NNAMs. But he also clucks like a Bullingdon wannabe at the unclubbability of Pacific Islanders, Hmong, greasy-grind Koreans, two-faced mercantilist Chinese, drunk Scandinavians, and overly procreative Italians (last one is the strangest and oddly archaic). You can argue about the proportionality of his whining at the comings & goings of Jews -- obviously, studying them 24/7 to ferret out any lapse no matter how strained -- but the difference is *they* always pay attention & angrily reply to his prodding, while the other groups just ignore him. Just be thankful that the comment section is apparently thus far invisible to put-upon emotionally stunted gays, with their incensed heartfelt reaction to literally everything that happens on the f-ing planet -- after 1 week you'd plead for the good old days of irritable anti-anti-Semitic squabbles.

    1. He doesn’t talk about gays that much.

    2. I don’t think quite as many black people think it’s fun to argue about politics on blogs. Personally I think Steve keeps his tone just antisemitic enough to attract both anti-Semites and riled-up Semites and philo-Semites, and keep his comment total high.

    I’m not complaining, I’d have to go read about sports or something if he stopped.

    But, of course, he can’t admit it… ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Dave Pinsen

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.
     
    So who influenced Lippmann?

    [H]e studied under George Santayana, William James, and Graham Wallas, concentrating upon philosophy and languages (he spoke German and French), and earned his degree in three years, graduating as a member of the Phi Beta Kappa society.[11]
    At some time, Lippmann became a member, alongside Sinclair Lewis, of the New York Socialist Party
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann

    Graham Wallas (31 May 1858 – 9 August 1932) was an English socialist
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Wallas

    “So who influenced Lippmann?”

    Besides his grandfather?

    “Lippmann’s grandfather was a native of Berlin who had emigrated to America after the German Revolutions of 1848.”

    “It was not that the spirit of reform was entirely missing from the Lippman household in Manhattan. Lippmann’s grandfather, after all, had participated in the German Revolution of 1848.”

    ‘From his grandfather, who emigrated from Europe after the abortive Liberal uprisings of 1848, Walter as a child learned to believe that “Wherever the America flag was planted, there tyranny must disappear.”‘

    And who influenced Graham Wallas?

    Also at Harvard, Lippmann met Graham Wallas who encouraged his reading of Marx, George Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=zdFb42M9OzsC&pg=PA7

    Nor was John Reed remotely typical of communist activists in the US.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/08/ethnic-origins-of-washington-posts-top.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    The really weak point of iSteve and the comments section is the lack of data. I started reading iSteve regularly after GNXP, and I have to say that Razib’s focus on data in social sciences is spot-on.

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it’s all meaningless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Only an ignoramus (or a liar) could argue that they picked it up in the US - someone who had never heard of Bolsheviks or Mensheviks.
    , @ben tillman

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it’s all meaningless.
     
    Your comment is meaningless unless you indicate what you mean by "leftism". But the traditional definition of Leftism ("movement") suggests aggression, and a society can't commit aggression against itself. Leftism is always going to come from outsiders or "the fringe".

    There's no need for data. Theory suffices. But the data, of course, confirm the theory.
    , @Hail

    until somebody throws out some data
     
    See Racehist's many posts on this subject, generally brimming with data from scholarly sources.

    Here is a place to get you started. You're welcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Big Bill
    Once upon a time the Jewish Civil War (the Haskala) was openly recognized as a titanic battle. In recent years it has been suppressed and (as Steve notes) has been projected on goyim.

    It is very hard, emotionally and psychologically, for Jews to even notice the daily oppression of Jewish women by Jewish men, Jewish law, and Jewish culture. It is doubly hard for them to say anything about it where the goyim can hear.

    Tens of thousands of Jewish children are denied an education in NYC in violation of the law, Jewish girls suffering worst of all, yet the "Annies" and other Jewish feminists have never made an issue of this. These poor girls are brainwashed and grow up in utter isolation from the greater culture. They bear 6-10 kids apiece and live in poverty their whole lives.

    But racial solidarity trumps everything. No mention of these poor Jewish children. It is the happy Utahn wives and Duggars who are oppressed by Evil Goy Patriarchy that must be "liberated".

    It is Jews (but not left wing ones) who are filing the lawsuits in New York to end this educational crime. Not Gentiles. And Left wing Jewish feminists (and left wing Gentile feminists) say nothing about Muslim oppression of women either. Only right wing Jews and Gentiles raise this point.

    Read More
    • Agree: Deduction
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Hail
    A case makes itself that the USA has a "hostile elite" with Jews being the most significant subgroup thereof. Aggression, ethnocentricism, and talent, combined with their influence within the elite, should make Jewish power a subject of discussion, at least.

    The thing is, it's not at all. Nary a peep. No one, but no one, talks about it in a respectable medium, despite its obvious importance. If you've ever had the opportunity to talk to a politically-aware non-Westerner (not just Muslims), many will mention Jewish power when discussing America readily.

    (On CNN, only one person, a host, has ever implied anything near the above and he was promptly fired. He was a Cuban-American whose name I've forgotten.)

    The Jewish issue is the Great Taboo in the USA, and political taboos are a form of lying. "Live not by lies," as Steve's original blog said proudly at the top.

    Pretend the subject is discussed as much as you like and everyone agrees with you. Now, what do you want to do about those Jews?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. by Jonah Goldberg July 18, 2000 3:40 PM @JonahNRO It’s about her character. The New York Times exonerates Hillary Clinton on the charge that she called an aide a “f***ing Jew bastard.” That’s fine by me. I don’t think it would be that big a deal if she did say it. But I do think she said it. My reasons are simple: Three witnesses swear to it, she has a well-documented history of swearing like a Russian sailor drunk on rubbing alcohol, she comes from a background where people said these sorts of things, and she’s not very good on Jewish issues when she is not running for the Senate from the state of New York.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/220129/hillarys-slur-jonah-goldberg

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  177. @Mr. Anon
    "Not until the 50 and 60s were there enough spoiled Jewish daughters around for Jews to assume a prominent role in feminism. Because of their high intelligence, once a profession opens up to Jews they become vastly overrepresented, whether it is nuclear physicist or professional feminist."

    That is of course utter self-serving nonsense. It's not as if jewish left-wing activism, including feminism, only started in the 1950s (it didn't). Or that feminism did not adopt a far more radical, agressive, and anti-male, anti-traditionalist tone in the 1960s (it did).

    Name some important pre-1950 Jewish feminists? Jews do not appear prominently if at all in the Suffragette movement, Prohibition, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IBC
    Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Gertrude Stein, and Sarah Bernhardt. Bernhardt also proved that a "Jewfro" could be fashionable well before the 1970s:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Bernhardt#/media/File:SarahBernhardt.png

    Amusingly, Barbie's creator, Ruth Handler, was also Jewish. And Ayn Rand could be considered anti-feminist in some ways.

    Weren't there quite a few Jewish people in the wine and liquor business? And Jewish tavern owners back in the old country? That would certainly have dampened many Jewish people's enthusiasm for Prohibition. I think the Temperance movement was born in New England in the wake of a bad whiskey, rum, and cider hangover --not Manischewitz (as tempting as it may be to think that).

    , @ben tillman

    Name some important pre-1950 Jewish feminists? Jews do not appear prominently if at all in the Suffragette movement, Prohibition, etc.
     
    Ernestine Rose was the brains of the movement in the 19th century. This is elementary stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Steve Sailer
    Yes, some New Yorkers didn't quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956. Or maybe you could attribute the timing to disillusion due to Hungary. Hard to guess ... A lot of stuff happened in 1956.

    Yes, some New Yorkers didn’t quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956.

    This Suez Crisis theory requires both that (1) Jewish American communists cared much about Israel (2) they had a reasonable expectation that the USSR would side with two imperial powers against a former British colony that was sliding toward one-party socialism. I don’t think requirement here is met.

    By contrast, the Hungarian invasion damaged the image of the USSR and communism generally in most every Western country.

    In France, the communist party held 150 seats in the national assembly during the January 2, 1956 election, and that fell to 10 in the 1958 election.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    The Soviet positions in 1948 (recognizing the establishment of the State of Israel) and 1956 (siding with Egypt in the Anglo-French-Israeli attempt to retake the Suez Canal) were consistent with their goal of ending British influence in the middle east.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. ” and she’s not very good on Jewish issues ”

    nor Slovakian or Hungarian or Serbian et al

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. “You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it’s all meaningless.”

    frankfurt school dude !!11!!

    Columbia the Gem of the Ocean

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. @Chrisnonymous
    The really weak point of iSteve and the comments section is the lack of data. I started reading iSteve regularly after GNXP, and I have to say that Razib's focus on data in social sciences is spot-on.

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it's all meaningless.

    Only an ignoramus (or a liar) could argue that they picked it up in the US – someone who had never heard of Bolsheviks or Mensheviks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Only an ignoramus (or a liar) could argue that they picked it up in the US – someone who had never heard of Bolsheviks or Mensheviks.
     
    You are right. And if we're going to ignore theory -- which should suffice to settle the question -- you can look at all the empirical data compiled by n/a, who has commented in this thread, at his website.
    , @inertial
    I could be rude and say that only an ignoramus can think that Bolshevism/Menshevism and Feminism have anything to do with each other. But I won't say that. Instead I'll only note that the only thing that these movements have in common is that in different times and in different places they were considered to be on the "left." Even that is not necessarily true about Feminism. Not only the conservative Christian Feminism is a "thing," it's now the default position of most every Church.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Lot

    Yes, some New Yorkers didn’t quit the Communist Party until the Soviet Union sided with Egypt when it was attacked by Israel, Britain, and France in 1956.
     
    This Suez Crisis theory requires both that (1) Jewish American communists cared much about Israel (2) they had a reasonable expectation that the USSR would side with two imperial powers against a former British colony that was sliding toward one-party socialism. I don't think requirement here is met.

    By contrast, the Hungarian invasion damaged the image of the USSR and communism generally in most every Western country.

    In France, the communist party held 150 seats in the national assembly during the January 2, 1956 election, and that fell to 10 in the 1958 election.

    The Soviet positions in 1948 (recognizing the establishment of the State of Israel) and 1956 (siding with Egypt in the Anglo-French-Israeli attempt to retake the Suez Canal) were consistent with their goal of ending British influence in the middle east.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Steve Sailer
    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It's natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It's like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame "men." But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame "society."

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman's -- her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago -- had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women's independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne's joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. "My son, the doctor"

    2. "My daughter drove me"

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there's no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.

    I don’t know a single person who has read any of the Jewish feminists you mention here, whatever the name recognition. Is Jewish feminism a front for intra-Jewish tensions? Maybe. But feminism as a whole isn’t really a particularly Jewish phenomenon, even if a disproportionate number of intellectual harridans emerged from certain ghettoes in mid-20C America. The link to communism is even more tenuous and probably unfair. A good Marxist would scorn our contemporary gender fixations as so much bourgeois decadence and corporate manipulation, which is probably closer to the truth anyway. The Soviet Union may have put women to work to increase productivity, but it did not, to my knowledge, maintain that women were ‘oppressed’ by marriage or maternal obligations. Eventually, it imposed a childlessness tax. Russia doesn’t have more traditional gender norms today because old-school leftists sought to destroy them. Quite the opposite! It was a shield against far more socially corrosive market forces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Jack D
    Name some important pre-1950 Jewish feminists? Jews do not appear prominently if at all in the Suffragette movement, Prohibition, etc.

    Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Gertrude Stein, and Sarah Bernhardt. Bernhardt also proved that a “Jewfro” could be fashionable well before the 1970s:

    Amusingly, Barbie’s creator, Ruth Handler, was also Jewish. And Ayn Rand could be considered anti-feminist in some ways.

    Weren’t there quite a few Jewish people in the wine and liquor business? And Jewish tavern owners back in the old country? That would certainly have dampened many Jewish people’s enthusiasm for Prohibition. I think the Temperance movement was born in New England in the wake of a bad whiskey, rum, and cider hangover –not Manischewitz (as tempting as it may be to think that).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @SFG
    Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.

    I'm not defending feminism--I hate them more than anyone.

    Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.

    I think it was less the labor-saving devices as it was the destruction of ethnic-based neighborhoods and the move toward the suburbs. Women had always had other women around, including extended family. Being stuck in a house alone all day, in terms of adult company, with no one to talk to but kids — that’s what caused a fire in the belly.

    For an interesting book about the intentional destruction of those old neighborhoods, see this book by E Michael Jones of Culture Wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rod1963
    Thanks for recommending that book. It bugged me for the longest while why the intact white ethnic communities had seemingly been broken up/vanished within such a short period of time after WWII.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @WhatEvvs
    This is the kind of trash that make guys like David Brooks ashamed to admit they read you. This is why you will never be respectable. Your odd allergy to Jews, which makes you say garbage things like this, with no basis in reality. It's weird: you control yourself for a while, and then this poison comes spewing out.

    Feminism is as American as apple pie. The Jews who came to the US were practitioners of a conservative, backward, patriarchal religion. When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    Google Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and a whole lotta names will come up. Read about them, and learn stuff.

    When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.

    No way.

    First, the Puritans were heavily influenced by the Dutch Jewish community; in other words, THEY picked up the ideas around them.

    Second, abolitionism doesn’t even fit into the discussion. It’s an anachronism, as it predated the wave of Jewish immigration you’re talking about.

    Third, the Puritans were extremely intolerant, and it’s ludicrous to ascribe some sort of pathological altruism to them.

    Fourth, the *alleged* ideology that you’re pretending Jews assimilated into was one of self-sacrifice, not one of self-interest. Yet Jews somehow did not adopt an anti-Jewish attitude.

    Fifth, Jews were always more enthusiastic and more likely to support the alleged ideology you refer to. In other words, Jews were always more hostile to Anglo-Americans than Anglo-Americans themselves were.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    First, the Puritans were heavily influenced by the Dutch Jewish community
     
    I've read a fair amount about the Puritans and have never heard this before. Do you have a source? A quick google search turns up nothing.

    While Cromwell had a warm view of Jews, in North America they initially preferred to settle in Georgia and New York rather than the puritan dominated areas. One interesting anecdote:

    The Jewish settlement in Georgia dates almost from the very foundation of the colony; and the early history of Georgia is practically the history of the growth and development of Savannah, Jewish life centering in that city. It would appear that a movement was set on foot in London to settle some Jews in the colony even before James Oglethorpe, in June, 1733, led his first band of followers to the point which soon after became the city of Savannah. The second vessel which reached the colony from England (on July 11, 1733) had among its passengers no less than forty Jewish emigrants. Though their arrival was unexpected, the liberal-minded governor welcomed them gladly, notwithstanding that he was aware that the trustees of the colony in England had expressed some opposition to permitting Jews to settle there. These first settlers were all of Spanish, Portuguese, and Prussian extraction, though within a year of their arrival others, who were apparently German Jews, also took up their residence there. These two bands of settlers received equally liberal treatment from Oglethorpe, and were the progenitors of one of the most important communities of Jews in the U.S. Many of their descendants are still living in various parts of the country. The first male white child born in the colony was a Jew, Philip (Uri) Minis on July 11, 1734.

    Among the first immigrants was Dr. Nunis, who was made welcome because of his medical knowledge, and because he, with a number of others, brought sufficient wealth to the colony to enable the immigrants to take up large tracts of land. A congregation was organized as early as 1734. Three years later Abraham de Lyon, who had been a vineron in Portugal, introduced the culture of grapes. The cultivation and manufacture of silk and the pursuit of agriculture and of commerce were the chief occupations of these early settlers. A dispute with the trustees of the colony respecting the introduction of slaves caused an extensive emigration to South Carolina in 1741, and resulted in the dissolution of the congregation. But in 1751 a number of Jews returned to Georgia, and in the same year the trustees sent over Joseph Ottolenghi to superintend the somewhat extensive silk-industry in the colony. Ottolenghi soon attained prominence in the political life of his associates, and was elected a member of the Assembly in 1761 and in succeeding years. There seems to have been little if any distinction made socially between the Jews and the other settlers, and educational and philanthropic institutions seem to have been supported by all alike.
     
    , @5371
    No, the Puritans were influenced by the Jews they read about in the Bible, not by the real Jews in the Netherlands, of whom there were very few at the time some of the Puritans lived there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. OT,

    Steve, you recently conveyed the idea that Turkey allowing migrants to submerge Europe was some bargaining tool.

    Your tin foil conspirationist theories once again prove right; Europe just agreed to relax visas for vibrant Turks, and added a mere € 3 bn bonus.

    What can possibly go wrong?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  188. @Dave Pinsen

    The reality of course is close to the opposite of what you propose:

    Reed also attended meetings of the Socialist Club, over which his friend Walter Lippmann presided, but he never joined. Still, the club left its impact on his psyche.
     
    So who influenced Lippmann?

    [H]e studied under George Santayana, William James, and Graham Wallas, concentrating upon philosophy and languages (he spoke German and French), and earned his degree in three years, graduating as a member of the Phi Beta Kappa society.[11]
    At some time, Lippmann became a member, alongside Sinclair Lewis, of the New York Socialist Party
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann

    Graham Wallas (31 May 1858 – 9 August 1932) was an English socialist
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Wallas

    So who influenced Lippmann?

    Really, that’s post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc. You haven’t even shown that his beliefs agreed with theirs (and you won’t be able to, as his intractable differences with gentile socialists and progressives remind us), but even if they did, how could you possibly demonstrate that he got his beliefs from them?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @gcochran
    Only an ignoramus (or a liar) could argue that they picked it up in the US - someone who had never heard of Bolsheviks or Mensheviks.

    Only an ignoramus (or a liar) could argue that they picked it up in the US – someone who had never heard of Bolsheviks or Mensheviks.

    You are right. And if we’re going to ignore theory — which should suffice to settle the question — you can look at all the empirical data compiled by n/a, who has commented in this thread, at his website.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Jack D
    Name some important pre-1950 Jewish feminists? Jews do not appear prominently if at all in the Suffragette movement, Prohibition, etc.

    Name some important pre-1950 Jewish feminists? Jews do not appear prominently if at all in the Suffragette movement, Prohibition, etc.

    Ernestine Rose was the brains of the movement in the 19th century. This is elementary stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Chrisnonymous
    The really weak point of iSteve and the comments section is the lack of data. I started reading iSteve regularly after GNXP, and I have to say that Razib's focus on data in social sciences is spot-on.

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it's all meaningless.

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it’s all meaningless.

    Your comment is meaningless unless you indicate what you mean by “leftism”. But the traditional definition of Leftism (“movement”) suggests aggression, and a society can’t commit aggression against itself. Leftism is always going to come from outsiders or “the fringe”.

    There’s no need for data. Theory suffices. But the data, of course, confirm the theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Chrisnonymous
    The really weak point of iSteve and the comments section is the lack of data. I started reading iSteve regularly after GNXP, and I have to say that Razib's focus on data in social sciences is spot-on.

    You guys can argue about whether Jews taught leftism to Americans or learned it from Americans til the cows come home, but until somebody throws out some data, it's all meaningless.

    until somebody throws out some data

    See Racehist’s many posts on this subject, generally brimming with data from scholarly sources.

    Here is a place to get you started. You’re welcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Doug
    > Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other. Considering the horrific toll taken by civil wars in neighboring Syria and Lebanon, this strategy of redirecting animosities outward seems prudent.

    I think anybody who knows even the slightest bit of HBD, should know that Syria, Lebanon and Palestine are dumps because they're filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. The only difference if the State of Israel was never formed would be Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would also be dumps because they'd be currently filled with Syrians, Lebanese and Palestinians. In fact we don't even need to imagine a historical counterfactual. Just look at all the other places, far out of reach of Israel, but still filled with Muslim Arabs. Yemen: dump. Sudan: dump. Algeria: dump.

    Surprise, surprise! Everywhere (with the exception of the places where you can hit the ground with a stick and have trillions in fossil fuels burst out) is a wretched wasteland. Heck, even the small pockets of Muslim Arabs in magnanimous, highly efficient Western democracies are also hyper-violent dumps! So when Muslim Arabs live next to Israelis they don't get along. When Muslim Arabs live next to Swedes they also don't get along. Israelis and Swedes, when in proximity, seem to live, work and mingle together just fine. But then Muslim Arabs also don't get along when they live next to Christian Arabs, black animists, Hindus, Kurdish Muslims or for that matter really even other Muslim Arabs. Theres seems to be a common denominator here...

    I’m told that Beirut was a pretty nice place at one time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Dave Pinsen
    Socialism was also pretty popular among non-Jews in America during that time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America

    What Whiskey gets wrong is that socialism was popular among the proletariat around the turn of the 20th century, because conditions were generally awful for workers back then. But is he wrong about the 1960s, after the New Deal, Social Security, 5 day work weeks, 8 hour days, Ford setting the standard for high paid industrial workers, etc.? Didn't leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?

    “Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?”

    Just this evening, I caught a little bit of the 1976 documentary “Harlan County USA”, a sympathetic portrayal of east Kentucky coal miners and their bitter and long strike against the coal compaines in the early 1970s. It was directed by Barbara Kopple, who I presume is a rather left-wing, jewish New Yorker. It’s difficult to imagine any leftist today making a movie that would portray white working class people, especially southern hill-folk, as favorably as that movie did. Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine any leftist today going to the trouble to portray such people at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot

    portray white working class people, especially southern hill-folk, as favorably as that movie did
     
    One generation after another of dysgenic flight out of these areas means southern hill-folk are far from what they used to be in the 70's.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @Stubborn in Germany
    This post from Sailer is total garbage. The quality of "argument" in it resembles the old joke:

    Step 1: Quadruple our ad spend!

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: PROFIT!!

    So the New York Times runs an obituary on an obscure feminist. Nobody reads the obit except her family and friends... and Steve Sailer. Here is his logic:

    Step 1: The Jewish Socialist wife was secretly resentful of her Jewish Communist but patriarchal husband for forcing her to keep an elegant home (at least, in the telling of her Jewish radical feminist daughters),

    Step 3: and pretty soon nice Lutherans in Duluth are feeling vaguely guilty about how they somehow must have oppressed this poor rich woman in New York City

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve's Step 2. But yeah, that's it. That's the entire argument. Pathetic.

    I guess the rabbit ate Steve’s Step 2. But yeah, that’s it. That’s the entire argument. Pathetic.

    He wasn’t making an argument; he was making observations. Pretty pathetic of you to not pick up on that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Tracy

    Partially, yes, but a lot of women just got bored sitting around at home once labor-saving devices became big in the 1950s.
     
    I think it was less the labor-saving devices as it was the destruction of ethnic-based neighborhoods and the move toward the suburbs. Women had always had other women around, including extended family. Being stuck in a house alone all day, in terms of adult company, with no one to talk to but kids -- that's what caused a fire in the belly.

    For an interesting book about the intentional destruction of those old neighborhoods, see this book by E Michael Jones of Culture Wars.

    Thanks for recommending that book. It bugged me for the longest while why the intact white ethnic communities had seemingly been broken up/vanished within such a short period of time after WWII.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @ben tillman

    When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.
     
    No way.

    First, the Puritans were heavily influenced by the Dutch Jewish community; in other words, THEY picked up the ideas around them.

    Second, abolitionism doesn't even fit into the discussion. It's an anachronism, as it predated the wave of Jewish immigration you're talking about.

    Third, the Puritans were extremely intolerant, and it's ludicrous to ascribe some sort of pathological altruism to them.

    Fourth, the *alleged* ideology that you're pretending Jews assimilated into was one of self-sacrifice, not one of self-interest. Yet Jews somehow did not adopt an anti-Jewish attitude.

    Fifth, Jews were always more enthusiastic and more likely to support the alleged ideology you refer to. In other words, Jews were always more hostile to Anglo-Americans than Anglo-Americans themselves were.

    First, the Puritans were heavily influenced by the Dutch Jewish community

    I’ve read a fair amount about the Puritans and have never heard this before. Do you have a source? A quick google search turns up nothing.

    While Cromwell had a warm view of Jews, in North America they initially preferred to settle in Georgia and New York rather than the puritan dominated areas. One interesting anecdote:

    The Jewish settlement in Georgia dates almost from the very foundation of the colony; and the early history of Georgia is practically the history of the growth and development of Savannah, Jewish life centering in that city. It would appear that a movement was set on foot in London to settle some Jews in the colony even before James Oglethorpe, in June, 1733, led his first band of followers to the point which soon after became the city of Savannah. The second vessel which reached the colony from England (on July 11, 1733) had among its passengers no less than forty Jewish emigrants. Though their arrival was unexpected, the liberal-minded governor welcomed them gladly, notwithstanding that he was aware that the trustees of the colony in England had expressed some opposition to permitting Jews to settle there. These first settlers were all of Spanish, Portuguese, and Prussian extraction, though within a year of their arrival others, who were apparently German Jews, also took up their residence there. These two bands of settlers received equally liberal treatment from Oglethorpe, and were the progenitors of one of the most important communities of Jews in the U.S. Many of their descendants are still living in various parts of the country. The first male white child born in the colony was a Jew, Philip (Uri) Minis on July 11, 1734.

    Among the first immigrants was Dr. Nunis, who was made welcome because of his medical knowledge, and because he, with a number of others, brought sufficient wealth to the colony to enable the immigrants to take up large tracts of land. A congregation was organized as early as 1734. Three years later Abraham de Lyon, who had been a vineron in Portugal, introduced the culture of grapes. The cultivation and manufacture of silk and the pursuit of agriculture and of commerce were the chief occupations of these early settlers. A dispute with the trustees of the colony respecting the introduction of slaves caused an extensive emigration to South Carolina in 1741, and resulted in the dissolution of the congregation. But in 1751 a number of Jews returned to Georgia, and in the same year the trustees sent over Joseph Ottolenghi to superintend the somewhat extensive silk-industry in the colony. Ottolenghi soon attained prominence in the political life of his associates, and was elected a member of the Assembly in 1761 and in succeeding years. There seems to have been little if any distinction made socially between the Jews and the other settlers, and educational and philanthropic institutions seem to have been supported by all alike.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Doug
    So there are left-wing Jews and right-wing Jews? The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out. These minority parties have much higher approval rates in Israel than they do in their own country.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/why-anti-semitic-right-hailing-netanyahus-victory-316320.html

    And the left-wing Jews in Israel are just as enthusiastic about absorbing tons of Syrian refugees as the left-wing Jews of Europe.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/herzog-israel-has-a-duty-to-take-in-syrian-refugees/

    This is no more a shocking discovery than finding out that the Scandinavians in Europe are trying to bring in a whole bunch of Muslims, all the while knowing that the Scandinavians in the plain states of America don't want America to bring in a bunch of Muslims.

    Surely there must be some Nordic conspiracy to bring down Europe from afar. Or it could simply be that there are left-wing Scandinavians and right-wing Scandinavians.

    “The right-wing Jews who run Israel actively support the European parties trying to keep Muslims out.”

    You are absolutely right, if only merely backwards; if leaders and followers of rightist European parties often admire Israel’s and Jews’ policies, you’ll be hard-pressed to find -and link to- a reciprocal feeling story, or even a non-100% excoriating article by your co-ethnics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Dave Pinsen
    Reminiscent of the old Himmelfarb quote: "Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans".

    “Reminiscent of the old Himmelfarb quote: “Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans”.”

    Another way of saying it might have been: Jews earn like Jews and vote like Jews. But that might not have had the effect that Himmelfarb intended.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Mr. Anon
    "Didn’t leftist radicalism become more the province of the wealthy then?"

    Just this evening, I caught a little bit of the 1976 documentary "Harlan County USA", a sympathetic portrayal of east Kentucky coal miners and their bitter and long strike against the coal compaines in the early 1970s. It was directed by Barbara Kopple, who I presume is a rather left-wing, jewish New Yorker. It's difficult to imagine any leftist today making a movie that would portray white working class people, especially southern hill-folk, as favorably as that movie did. Indeed, it's difficult to imagine any leftist today going to the trouble to portray such people at all.

    portray white working class people, especially southern hill-folk, as favorably as that movie did

    One generation after another of dysgenic flight out of these areas means southern hill-folk are far from what they used to be in the 70′s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "One generation after another of dysgenic flight out of these areas means southern hill-folk are far from what they used to be in the 70′s."

    That is probably part of it, but not all. They are no less photogenic than are mestizos. A lot of it is down to what Dave Pinsen alluded to: leftists no longer even pretend to give a damn about working people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Whiskey
    Steve, wrong again. While there is no question that high IQ Ashkenazi Jews are as over-represented in Radicalism and Feminism as they are every other High IQ endeavor, including nobel prizes for science and writing Hollywood movies and TV shows, they certainly did not start, or even become even minor players in feminism, until very, very late in the game. When their feminist radicalism was a FUNCTION of INHERITED WEALTH.

    Steve you look for radicalism and see Jews. I see INHERITED WEALTH. Working class Jews who have to scrap for a living don't have time for utopian radicalism. It takes either a flock of believers to fleece (Karl Marx, Morris Dees) or mostly, INHERITED WEALTH. Wow big surprise 1960s Jewish feminists NEVER HAD TO WORK and INHERITED or MARRIED Wealth!

    In that, they were no different from the vastly larger number of non Jewish feminists. It is worthy to note that Jews were completely absent from the Seneca Falls movement, the Oneida movement, the Suffragette Movement, and other 19th Century feminist movements. While they certainly were active in socialism and communism in the 19th Century, but even there were overshadowed by non-Jewish violent radicals who were much, MUCH better at killing than they were. [Eric Ambler's "Care of Time" focuses on a MacGuffin fake biography of one such Russian, non Jewish radical under the Czar, a notorious killer.]

    Indeed Marx and the 1848 Movement were part and parcel of the greater Christian and Scientific Christian movements to abolish slavery, give women the right to vote (done in Wyoming and New Zealand in the 1860s), reform marriage laws, liberalize divorce, and generally abolish the old way of doing things PARTICULARLY the Nuclear Family which was considered since the 1780s by Mary Wollstonecroft and that most Christian of Poets, William Blake, to be a prison. Why, Blake even wrote an epic poem about how marriage was a prison!

    Ashkenazi Jews are highly intelligent, and like most highly intelligent Europeans fall prey to:

    *Status mongering.
    *Radical, universal, utopianism.
    *Social engineering and hubris.
    *Exalting women above all else.

    I'll remind you that the SPARTANS did in fact, long before Jews came on the scene, radically re-order the nuclear family to avoid domestic tyranny and create an elite fighting force. Some guy named PLATO wrote extensively on the above themes particularly about "noble lies" and the need for elite rule of the masses in some obscure treatise no one ever read called "the Republic."

    Feminism was on the face of it, bad and very bad for Jews, by reducing the birth rate, availability of young women for Jewish men, and population inside the United States at a time when increased third world immigration made Jewish survival a numbers game, and most of European Jewry had been wiped out by some German guy.

    However, like most High IQ groups, Ashkenazi Jews are suckers for radical universal utopianism of any variety, just like Scandinavians and Germans (see Frau Merkel's tingles and Merkel Youth) and ENArchs in France. Or the Oxbridge group in Britain.

    Any street hustler could see that the USSR was nothing but a gangster regime run by brutal con men, with nothing but Capone-style grandeur and often not even that. But the "Apostles" like Kim Philby and Guy Burgess and Anthony MacLean fell for it like rubes. Because they were smart, they "wanted to believe."

    Ashkenazi Jews fatal flaw is wanting to believe in universal utopianism. That there can be heaven on earth. But they are no different from say, Germans embracing half of Africa and the ME.

    Whiskey, that proud son of Caldedonia (quick, Whiskey, who is thier patron saint – no googling), that defiant scotch(sic)-irish lad who is yet unaware that the “scots-irish” were not irish, or perhaps he’s a son of Erin (who however doesn’t know how to spell the name Buchanan), must have posted tens of thousands of words on this blog, perhaps more than a hundred-thousand. And yet, I am unaware of him once posting anything – even a single post – on any topic pertaining to Scotland, Ireland, or their respective diaspora populations.

    And why is that, Jock?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JSM
    that defiant scotch(sic)-irish lad who is yet unaware that the “scots-irish” were not irish, or perhaps he’s a son of Erin (who however doesn’t know how to spell the name Buchanan),

    It's worse than that, even. Back just before "Scotch-Irish" was first becoming a joke term for Jew around here, due to Whiskers, he well and truly proved he's not Scotch-Irish. In fact, he doesn't even know what it MEANS: He had told us, "Yes, it is, too, true I'm Scotch-Irish! My dad was Scotch, my mom was Irish!"

    We do loves our Whiskey-- for the mirth value, alone, if nothing else. Too bad I'm apparently the only woman that feels that way, because if he ever managed to bed one, he'd quit blaming us.

    ---- And, no, fellas, I'm NOT gonna "take one for the team." Sorry, that's just a bridge too far, even for a pro-White woman.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Lot

    portray white working class people, especially southern hill-folk, as favorably as that movie did
     
    One generation after another of dysgenic flight out of these areas means southern hill-folk are far from what they used to be in the 70's.

    “One generation after another of dysgenic flight out of these areas means southern hill-folk are far from what they used to be in the 70′s.”

    That is probably part of it, but not all. They are no less photogenic than are mestizos. A lot of it is down to what Dave Pinsen alluded to: leftists no longer even pretend to give a damn about working people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Bernie Sanders seems to care about working people. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-president-primary-hillary/
    , @iffen
    It is political.

    Do you want to try and line up support from hill-folk or mestizos?

    Every political group or tendency needs peons, cannon fodder, brown-shirts, etc.

    The most difficult, yet most important step is choosing up sides in a manner that gives you the best odds of winning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. See Racehist’s many posts on this subject, generally brimming with data from scholarly sources.

    In addition to feminism, the following are also Jewish plots as evidenced by their extreme disproportionate influence:

    Mathematics:

    http://www.jinfo.org/Mathematics.html

    Physics:

    http://www.jinfo.org/Physics.html

    Computer science:

    http://www.jinfo.org/Computer_Info_Science.html

    Chemistry:

    http://www.jinfo.org/Chemistry.html

    Perhaps the biggest Jewish plot of all are vaccines:

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

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

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  204. @nickels
    Interesting theory/perspective. I hadn't heard that one previously.

    I often wonder with the Feminist and other Marxists intellectuals (critical race theorists, etc) if it isn't about having a massive chip on one's shoulder and seeking IMPORTANCE. The stupidity of the gentile when it comes to the various revolutionary causes (race baiting, feminism, class struggle) makes it easy for the intellectual to sidle in and become very influential and IMPORTANT (and rich) by pushing their revolutionary agenda's.

    JI:"You are being oppressed"
    G: "I am? Oh my God, I am, thank you."
    JI: "No prob, buy my book."

    Time Wise being a perfect example.

    The stupidity of the gentile when it comes to the various revolutionary causes (race baiting, feminism, class struggle) makes it easy for the intellectual to sidle in and become very influential and IMPORTANT (and rich) by pushing their revolutionary agenda’s.

    It isn’t “stupidity”; it’s the effects of their being veritably brainwashed by Hollywood, TV, newspapers, magazines, and the other channels of culture, including the universities, all of which have fallen into the wrong hands.

    As an aside, I really wish this stuff about Jews being soooooo smart would stop. They, as a group, have relatively high IQs, but it’s not as if their IQs are towering over EED people or anything. Their power doesn’t come from brains; it comes from usury and fractional reserve banking — i.e., money, which they can then use to buy politicians and the aforementioned channels of culture — and from their intense in-group/out-group way of thinking, their cohesiveness and nepotism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Yes, I agree about the 'stupidity'. I use the word stupidity only out of frustration seeing how few have red-pilled, perhaps naivete is a better choice.

    And, agree, the high IQ is a myth. In fact, the noble Western man is an easy target for the lies and deceit, as such an approach is so utterly foreign and despicable to his high moral nature. It is virtually inconceivable to him someone would take such a swinely tact. Once one understands the tactics of deceit, the lack of originality, creativity and aesthetic becomes overwhelmingly apparent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @MQ
    This is hilarious. Kirk Douglas, Harrison Ford, David Duchovny, and lots of others create some problems for your 'ugly Jewish male' theory, as do Bar Rafaeli, Scarlett Johannson, and lots of others for your 'ugly Jewish woman' theory. The notion of frigid Jewish women definitely flies in the face of some other anti-semitic stereotypes, you guys should get your stories straight.

    The notion of frigid Jewish women definitely flies in the face of some other anti-semitic stereotypes, you guys should get your stories straight

    I think it’s more a case of you needing to learn how to read. He didn’t say that Jewish women are frigid; he said that they don’t fuck their husbands after some time spent in marriage. Me, I don’t know anything about any of that, and I don’t buy Minter’s post, but I can read and understand what he did and did not say, and he clearly said, “Jewish women are as sexual, if not more, than any other women. In fact, they are somewhat notorious for libertine attitudes about sex (when single).”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. How much of what the West has in terms of technological advancement is due to the presence of Jewish inventors? Wont the West still be stuck in the same technological state as Tokugawa Japan or Qing China if the Jews has not migrated to Europe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    This may be the stupidest thing I have ever read anywhere.
    , @SFG
    Jews weren't a big presence scientifically until the Enlightenment or so. You'd be down maybe fifty years of science or so, I'm guessing. I don't know how big a breakthrough relativity really was, so I'll defer to physicists on this one.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Nonsense. Jews have never especially been known as inventors of gizmos, although there have been some. And jewish scientists only started to appear in the 19th century. Their contribution to science since that time has of course been quite significant, for which fact Jews can rightfully claim some bragging rights. But by the 19th century, the West was already technologically superior to the rest of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @namae nanka

    Agitation for equal suffrage was carried on by only a few individuals. The first of these was Frances Wright, a Scottish woman who came to the country in 1826 and advocated women's suffrage in an extensive series of lectures. In 1836 Ernestine Rose, a Polish woman, came to the country and carried on a different campaign so effectively that she obtained a personal hearing before the New York Legislature, though her petition bore only five signatures.


    Polish woman?

    Ernestine Louise Rose (January 13, 1810 – August 4, 1892) was an atheist feminist, individualist feminist, and abolitionist. She was one of the major intellectual forces behind the women's rights movement in nineteenth-century America. [. . .]

    She was born on January 13, 1810, in Piotrków Trybunalski, Russia-Poland, as Ernestine Louise Polowsky. Her father was a wealthy rabbi and her mother the daughter of a wealthy businessman.

     
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2013/09/yankees-and-womens-suffrage.html

    So physician, heal thyself.

    Sounds like loads of Jews supported her, she did get a full five signatories for her petition!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. If Chinese really believe that Blacks are inferior why are NBA stars like Lebron and Kobe so popular in China, and African Males have no problem finding wives in Guangzhou. And if Koreas are HBD conciuous why are they filling up their country with Southeast Asians who have the same IQ as Blacks. The only exception to this is Japan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. @tbraton
    "Along somewhat similar lines, Henry Kissinger’s conclusion after years of negotiating with Israeli politicians was that Israel’s foreign policy was basically a front to give Israelis somebody to hate besides each other."

    Kissinger was not saying anything different from what Steve Sailer said earlier and from what I learned so long ago in college that I can't exactly remember who first said it. Perhaps Machiavelli has something to say, but I believe the thought must have occurred to one of ancient Greeks or ancient Romans who knew an awful lot about politics. Perhaps it was something I picked up from Kissinger's writings, but they weren't as prolific when I was taking a course in international relations as they are now. In all likelihood, it was such a basic concept that I might have picked it up in a textbook. The concept has been around for a very long time. But, based simply on what I read about Israel, I concluded many years ago that was one reason Israel had such an aggressive foreign policy, to serve as a distraction from internal divisions by uniting the domestic population against an external enemy. One of the divisions is the obvious one between the secular Israelis who tend to congregate around Tel Aviv and the extremely religious Israelis who tend to dominate Jerusalem and the West Bank settlements. I gather those two sides can't stand each other. As I recall, it was the divisions among the ancient Israelis which caused the downfall of ancient Israel after they threw off Seleucid rule.

    BTW, fwiw, I dated a Jewish American woman back in the 90's, who was an atheist, and she couldn't stand the Israelis she had encountered. She thought they were too arrogant. The Swedish woman whom I have mentioned several times and whom I have known for 25+ years was married once to a Sephardic Jew from Cuba. Once, when we were talking, I made a reference to Sephardic Jews, and she quickly retorted that they think they are the best of the best, based on her experience with her ex-husband (with whom she maintained friendly relations after their divorce). I detected no animosity in her comment. She was just stating a fact based on the years she had been married to and friendly with a Sephardic Jew from Cuba.

    BTW, fwiw, I dated a Jewish American woman back in the 90′s, who was an atheist, and she couldn’t stand the Israelis she had encountered

    And I’ve spent timr with an Israeli girl i SE Asia who can’t stand the other Israelis travelling around there. It’s almost like Jews are normal people who have normal gripes and differences…

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I can understand why Ronald Thomas West constantly refers to you as "Troll," for that is exactly what you are. As I pointed out in an earlier post, you and your group leader, Wizard of Ooze, have the pronounced habit of responding tangentially to another post and avoiding the main point. For example, the main thrust of my message to which you are responding was that it has long been observed that nations use external threats or external enemies to distract the domestic population from their internal differences, which might otherwise tear the nation apart. Henry Kissinger, Steve Sailer and I were simply applying a very old principle to a relatively new country, Israel, that only came into existence (despite all the propaganda) in 1948 after an absence from the world stage of nearly 2000 years. Only at the end, in a separate paragraph, did I allude to two personal experiences to illustrate the divisions among Jews (although I cited in the main paragraph the major divide in Israel between the secular and the extremely religious, which you chose not to address). For some obscure reason, you chose to ignore my main point and respond only to my very minor point about my former Jewish girlfriend making statements that she couldn't stand the Israelis she had met because of their arrogant attitude to make a worthless observation about how all ethnic groups have people that don't get along. Duh! How profound!

    No wonder you lack the intellectual fire power to respond to my earlier post about your totally fallacious criticism of my observation about an indisputable interpretation of the First Commandment handed down by Yahweh to Moses, as set forth in Exodus, the second book of the Torah. You attacked me out of the blue using a highly imaginative and completely baseless interpretation of your own choosing of a phrase that is well-established: "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Whereas I was quoting the long established King James translation of that part of Exodus, you offered up your own personal and unique version which finds no source in any recognized translation of the Bible, with the result that your entire "argument" is totally spurious. BTW that's another trait which you exhibit over and over: the launching of baseless ad hominin attacks on the posters you respond to. That's a sure sign of your Troll status.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Whats even the point of all this? Everyone in the west will be a mulatto or a pardo anyway 100 years from now anyway, unless white people can have their own version of Indian reservations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  211. @Leftist conservative
    supposedly Gloria Steinem was funded at least in part by the FBI.

    My theory is that the powers that be (basically comprised of the large nonprofit foundations combined with the US Govt agencies) did here in america what they did overseas after WW2 to stop communism--in the words of richard bissell, who worked for both the ford foundation and one of the American spy agencies, they diverted leftist energies to areas that were "less harmful." Less harmful from the perspective of the rich and powerful, no doubt.

    In fact one of the occasional columnists here at unz wrote a review of saunders' book THE CULTURAL COLD WAR that details some of this.

    So the theory goes that feminism was a "proper" diversion for leftist activist energies--away from economic leftism (tax the heck out of the rich and give the $ to the people) and toward areas that would not hurt the plutocrats and the big corporations. In fact feminism as a substitute form of Leftism benefited the big corporations because it expanded the pool of labor. It's all about propaganda. Of course the govt explored the use of propaganda to pump up female egos so they could compete in the workforce during WW2, when male labor was not as available (Rosie the Riveter, we can do it, etc).

    Makes a lot of sense. There’s certainly evidence that lage non-profit organisations like the Ford Foundation have donated to feminist causes.

    Another issue is that the traditional nuclear family that had its hayday in the 1950s was in part a product of indirect and direct government welfare – protectionism in the early 20th Century and Keynsian infrastructure spending and paternalistic welfare in the depression /WW II era.

    By the 1960s the nuclear family was starting to become an obstacle to big business since it depended on paying high wages to males and mainstaining low levels of labour market flexibility. Hence, business stood to benefit from a return to the loser family structures of the early industrial revolution.

    The potential problem for big business is that feminism, open borders and the breakdown of the traditional family are now creating an anti-capitalist populus that want higher taxes, a less competitive corporate environment, and more welfare.

    It’s a bit like 9/11 with the Taliban attacking the US after the US supported it against the Russians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @cwhatfuture
    The NY Times is utterly untrustworthy in pretty much everything they write, something the host has noticed in the past, why would he care to think this obit is anything but the normal agenda driven nonsense? You cannot believe the NY Times even about the weather. But to psychoanalyze based on a New York Times obit? That is like psychoanalyzing Batman. He is a fictional character.

    I do have a question though for all the posters who are so vehement on the topic of the Jews. What do you propose to do? Be honest. Jews are rapidly intermarrying, so the question may be moot in a generation but from the comments on the about the physiognomy of certain gentiles, I am not sure about even that. As someone noted, American Jews have won multiple Nobel Prizes, represent 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives. Jews at 2% of America are very influential, way beyond their numbers (and productive and intelligent) and no person gives up what he has voluntarilly. No Jew is going to say: I think I will earn less money so the Gentiles are not made at the Jews. Jews contribute and detract - like everyone - and more than everyone.

    (I for one would like to halt all muslim immigration to the US. I actually would prefer to halt all third world immigration to the US but certainly all muslim immigration. That is a plan. As the host has noted, better we bring up everyone's school test scores than try and close a racial gap which is not ever going to be closed. That is a plan.)

    I do have a question though for all the posters who are so vehement on the topic of the Jews. What do you propose to do? Be honest. Jews are rapidly intermarrying, so the question may be moot in a generation but from the comments on the about the physiognomy of certain gentiles, I am not sure about even that. As someone noted, American Jews have won multiple Nobel Prizes, represent 1/3 of all Billionaires. 1/3 of SCOTUS judges, 1/6 of all US Senators, and 2/3 of TV and Movie executives. Jews at 2% of America are very influential, way beyond their numbers (and productive and intelligent) and no person gives up what he has voluntarilly.

    Due to the three factors of high Jewish success, high Jewish intermarriage and assortative mating, the type of grand anti-Jewish conspiracising seen on this site is incredibly counter-productive.

    1. Due to intermarriage young Jews are already barely a separate people, so it makes no sense anyway.

    2. Jews are over-represented among the most effective people, so that’s a problem.

    3. Probably the majority of effective people now have Jewish relations (e.g Donald Trump) so that’s an insurmountable problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Steve Sailer
    This case of redirecting resentments outward is just one example of a general pattern that you see across all cultures in all history. In general, redirecting resentments outward is useful for maintaining group solidarity. Ibn Khaldun defined decadence as when a group stops doing that and falls to backstabbing. It's natural. For example, when the military dictatorship in Argentina was starting to topple in 1983, they immediately seized the Falklands to rally domestic support.

    It's like how when feminists can blame men for something, they blame "men." But when they would have to blame women for something, they blame "society."

    The Jewish knack for doing this is important in understanding recent history, such as the resurgence of feminism in the 1960s-early 1970s, because Jews are important in understanding recent history, as the names of prominent feminists of that era, such as Friedan, Dworkin, Firestone, Ginsburg, Abzug, and Steinem etc., would suggest.

    One little known fact today is that socially prominent Jewish families, such as this woman's -- her father a doctor from Vienna, her mother the niece of a Congressman elected over 100 years ago -- had fallen behind Yankee families of similar standing in women's independence. It was only natural for some Jewish women to notice that, for example, their parents were more biased toward their brothers than was seemly in Protestant families of equal sophistication.

    I can recall a Jewish comedienne's joke a few decades ago that the two favorite phrases of Jewish mothers when bragging to other Jewish mothers are:

    1. "My son, the doctor"

    2. "My daughter drove me"

    And Eastern European Jews tended to be cruder toward women than Protestants were. The history of Hollywood, for example, shows Mary Pickford becoming a studio owner back in the D.W. Griffith days almost a century ago, but once Hollywood became dominated by rather crass Jewish immigrants, women rapidly lost opportunity.

    So by the late 1960s it was only natural for some Jewish women to want to reform Jewish attitudes toward women in a country where the Protestant majority was more advanced in this regard.

    But all this history is almost forgotten because Jews have a talent for redirecting spats among Jews outward into assaults on society in general. Sure, the daughter may resent her father being sexist toward her mother. But there's no need to air your ethnic dirty laundry in public when you can denounce the public and get them to pay you to denounce them. Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.

    “Making money off denouncing Society for being sexist is something her wealthy Communist father can be proud of his daughter for doing.”

    Sorta like…Yentl meets The Jazz Singer?

    There’s something so very Hollywood about it all, isn’t there? Marching, rebelling, throwing tampons–simply made for the age of visual/sound recording in marketing, advertising, and propaganda.

    And later broadcast/network news, and now Twitter and Facebook.

    Reminds me of the old joke about Moses at the edge of the Red Sea.

    Sea in front, the children of Israel all around screaming, Pharoah’s chariots bearing down. Moses turns to his publicity agent Manny and says, “Manny, oy, what a day I’m having. Any ideas how we can get out of this one?”

    Manny replies, “Not one, but if you can pull off an escape, I can get you ten pages in the Old Testament.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @ben tillman

    When they lost their religion, they picked up the ideas that were around them. In their case, Puritan Abolitionist New England Yankee stuff, which included feminism.
     
    No way.

    First, the Puritans were heavily influenced by the Dutch Jewish community; in other words, THEY picked up the ideas around them.

    Second, abolitionism doesn't even fit into the discussion. It's an anachronism, as it predated the wave of Jewish immigration you're talking about.

    Third, the Puritans were extremely intolerant, and it's ludicrous to ascribe some sort of pathological altruism to them.

    Fourth, the *alleged* ideology that you're pretending Jews assimilated into was one of self-sacrifice, not one of self-interest. Yet Jews somehow did not adopt an anti-Jewish attitude.

    Fifth, Jews were always more enthusiastic and more likely to support the alleged ideology you refer to. In other words, Jews were always more hostile to Anglo-Americans than Anglo-Americans themselves were.

    No, the Puritans were influenced by the Jews they read about in the Bible, not by the real Jews in the Netherlands, of whom there were very few at the time some of the Puritans lived there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @rvg
    How much of what the West has in terms of technological advancement is due to the presence of Jewish inventors? Wont the West still be stuck in the same technological state as Tokugawa Japan or Qing China if the Jews has not migrated to Europe?

    This may be the stupidest thing I have ever read anywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Mr. Anon
    "One generation after another of dysgenic flight out of these areas means southern hill-folk are far from what they used to be in the 70′s."

    That is probably part of it, but not all. They are no less photogenic than are mestizos. A lot of it is down to what Dave Pinsen alluded to: leftists no longer even pretend to give a damn about working people.

    Bernie Sanders seems to care about working people. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-president-primary-hillary/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "Bernie