September 14, 2013

Sunstein: "Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis?"

Cass Sunstein is a Harvard Law School professor and former Obama Administration official who is married to US UN ambassador Samantha Power, who is always advising Obama to hurl cruise missiles at Libya or Syria.

Sunstein is a very smart guy who is ironically lacking in self-awareness. For example, in 2008 he declared that the solution to online conspiracy theories is for the government to mount secret conspiracies against conspiracy theorists: "cognitive infiltration" was the reassuring name Sunstein came up with.

Now, Sunstein is worried that if Americans ever stop "Bowling Alone" they might become Nazis.

From Bloomberg View,
Could Bowling Leagues and the PTA Breed Nazis? 
By Cass R. Sunstein Jul 30, 2013 7:30 AM PT 
In recent decades, many social scientists have drawn attention to the importance of “social capital.” The term is meant to capture the value, economic and otherwise, that comes from social networks, through which people frequently interact with one another. But what if social capital ends up contributing to the rise of extreme movements, including fascism? 
It is well-established that individuals and societies can gain a great deal from civic institutions, such as parent-teacher associations, athletic leagues, churches and music clubs. High levels of social capital have been associated with numerous social benefits, including improvements in health, promise-keeping, trust, altruism, compliance with the law, child welfare and individual happiness.

Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam has done a great deal to explore the beneficial effects of social capital. In his book “Bowling Alone,” he documented what he saw as its decline in the U.S., connecting that decline with a wide range of social problems. 
Pointing to research by Putnam and others, many people have argued that the U.S. and other nations should make a sustained effort to measure and increase social capital, with particular attention to civic associations that help to generate it. 
At the same time, social capital can have a dark side. If people are in a social network whose members are interested in committing crimes, the existence of social capital will promote criminal activity. A fascinating recent study called “Bowling for Fascism” goes much further: It shows that the rise of Nazism was greatly facilitated by unusually high levels of social capital in Weimar Germany.
... In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Germany had an exceptionally vibrant civil society that included clubs involved in hiking, animal breeding, shooting, gymnastics, bowling, firefighting and singing. The authors’ principal finding is that in cities with dense networks of clubs and associations, Germans were far more likely to join the Nazi Party.  
No one should doubt that private associations are desirable and valuable, and that they can produce a dazzling range of social goods, including checks on the power of government. But Satyanath and his co-authors reveal another possibility: that such associations can facilitate the spread of extremism, ultimately laying the groundwork for serious challenges to democracy itself. 
(Cass R. Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University professor at Harvard Law School, is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is the former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the co-author of “Nudge” and author of “Simpler: The Future of Government.”) 
To contact the writer of this article: email Cass R. Sunstein here.

Apparently, the masses won't be coming after Cass with their pitchforks, but with their bowling balls. I mean, "kegler" is a German word, right?

In a saner world, Sunstein would have read over his first draft and said to himself: "You know, people are just going to laugh at my Jewish Paranoia. Better come up with something less embarrassing. I mean, I'm the guy whose wife started a war in 2011, so it would be pretty comical for me to be publicly worrying about the Bowling Nazi menace."

In this world, however, "Jewish paranoia" is such a powerful force that practically nobody finds it funny, or even noticeable: a Google search for "Jewish paranoia" find few usages.

Sunstein's column helps explain the bipartisan elite enthusiasm for more Mexican immigration: Mexicans have so little social capital that they are not even a potential threat to the power of people like Sunstein and Power.

83 comments:

Erik L said...

That sounds like a pretty useless study (by itself). It's limited to the only country in history that actually produced NAZIs and looks at only one association. I haven't read the paper but would probably have a lot of questions about the strength of the association.

With respect to your often implied idea that Jews are doing so well in America that the time for paranoia has ended- maybe, but Jews are taught from an early age that it seemed that way many times in the past too.

Anonymous said...

Sunstein's column was inspired by an NBER paper co-authored by Shanker Satyanath, Nico Voigtlaender, Hans-Joachim Voth entitled Bowling for Fascism: Social Capital and the Rise of the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany, 1919-33. How is writing about other people's NBER paper an example of Jewish paranoia? The non-Jewish co-authors of the NBER paper are the ones who introduced the possibility of the connection between social capital and Nazism.

Johnny said...

Miami Beach, my one time home, is blanketed in Judaic clubs, youth centers, schools etc. Lots of social capital here. Maybe Cass and KMac are both correct.

Anonymous said...

The goal is to make us all into deracinated transnational rootless cosmopolitans.

Miss Carnivorous said...

My lefty lesbian co-worker was on one of her usual rants about Europeans being so much better educated and just smarter and morally superior to/than Americans. She informed us that her friend married a German man because he was preferable to an American man. "So, I said, what you are saying is that your friend is a Nazi?"

candid_observer said...

Unsaid but implicit in Susstein's criticism is an answer to the problem that Putnam discovered at a later date: that diversity broke down the feeling of community and social bonds.

You see, that now turns out to be a good thing, because it prevents us all from becoming Nazis. Being isolated, alienated, and miserable is a small price pay for not being Nazis.

Anonymous said...

Paranoia? This guy's spot on. Here's a transcript from my Fantasy Football league's draft:

JG: "Dude, what the ****? You took Chris Johnson for 56? He's not worth it"

AH: "Eat a ****. BTW, I prophesy that should war come, the Jews will be utterly annihilated"

JG: "LMFAO - true dat. So -- Welker or Thomas?"

True story.

Anonymous said...

The only people who should have strong intragroup social/political capital in a democracy are minorities like blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, and Jews because there is of course absolutely no risk of them becoming extreme and tribalistic and only concerning themselves with their narrow group interests over the common societal good

Alexander Irwin said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKfMlQ7KWFE

El Kabong said...

The phrase "Jewish paranoia" is uttered by Oliver Platt in the movie "Bulworth." Other than that, I've never seen or heard it used.

Sean said...

Sunstein thinks "serious challenges to democracy itself" will come from--democracy itself!

Whiskey said...

Sunstein's an idiot. The consensus view of Historians is that LACK of social capital and any normal society post Kulturkampf of Bismarck led Germans to join the Nazis in desperation.

Desperation.

The UK had a normal, conservative and liberal and socialist private life, that crowded out their own version of the NSDAP the way a lawn when healthy crowds out weeds.

Yes it is true that Germany had private associations, in comparison with FRANCE let alone Britain, it had only a fraction.

And who can be thanked for that? The Iron Chancellor. Who annihilated private associations and flattened Germany with the Kaiser, Junkers, socialist state, and nothing else.

Now gee, where does that seem like it is repeated?

Forget Jewish paranoia -- a man married to Samantha Power is not very Jewish, men concerned about Jewish identity do not marry Irish women who look like a female Seamus from the WWE. This is all class based.

And no, Sunstein does not want a Mexican America to stave off Nazis. Rather, to crush the lower classes particularly those in the middle who are a threat to his uneven and not-dare-speak-its-name hereditary basis.

An open border society is bad for Jews. You get the attitudes towards Jews not of Bible-reading Protestants but Priest-following "Jews killed Jesus" Catholics, and Jews shoved aside by Chinese with a superstate behind them. But stupidity knows no bounds.

Phil said...

Somehow, Cass Sunstein overlooked a current example: Israel, with its Jews-only, illegal settlements in the occupied territories, ethnically cleanses the indigenous Palestinian people as well as fails to allow them their legal right of return.

Aaron Gross said...

You really misrepresented Sunstein's article. First of all, he probably didn't say or even suggest anything about bowling leagues and the PTA being breeding grounds for Nazis in America. That was the title, which presumably was written by the editor.

Second, he didn't say anything about America in particular, but about "[w]ithin nations and around the world." He wrote that "in some nations, dense social networks also increase people’s vulnerability to extremism." The article he cited asserts that in places with stronger democratic institutions, like Prussia, the link between Nazi party entry and association density was weaker.

In fact, Sunstein then cited work suggesting "that terrorism itself can arise not because people are isolated, poor or badly educated, but because they are part of tightly knit networks in which hateful ideas travel quickly."

So this isn't "Jewish paranoia" or fear of neo-Nazis. It's concern about extremist groups, such as terrorist groups, especially in countries that don't have strong democratic institutions.

If anyone's interested in what Sunstein actually wrote, skip the dishonest smear about "Jewish paranoia," skip the sensationalist headline to Sunstein's article, and just read the article itself.

C. Van Carter said...

http://youtu.be/UDB9oCgVHGw

a very knowing American said...

"As soon as several of the inhabitants of the United States have taken up an opinion or a feeling which they wish to promote in the world, they look out for mutual assistance; and as soon as they have found one another out, they combine. From that moment they are no longer isolated men, but a power seen from afar, whose actions serve for an example and whose language is listened to. ... Nothing, in my opinion, is more deserving of our attention than the intellectual and moral associations of America. "

Alexis de Tocqueville

The Sunstein quote seems to confirm what I have suspected for a while, that American liberalism since the 1970s, underneath all the talk about diversity and inclusion, has really been about putting an end to the centuries-long nightmare of Tocquevillean America, and replacing it with a bureaucratic-managerial state.

Anti-Democracy Activist said...

The Nazis met in pubs (see: Beer Hall Putsch) - better get rid of pubs.

The Nazis rallied in stadiums (see: Triumph of the Will) - better get rid of stadiums.

The Nazis marched down streets - better get rid of streets.

The Nazis drove around in cars - better get rid of cars.

The Nazis wore shoes - better get rid of shoes.

Is it any wonder leftists like Sunstein are the people who think there's logic in gun control?

Chubby Ape said...

Any future historians trying to figure out our current era will have to discuss this X factor or they'll be wasting their time and energies. When they wonder why the current governing class, media and academia put so much energy into alienating, castigating, demoralizing and generally pissing off the majority of the population, this Jewish fear of Cossacks and Nazis will have to be mentioned.

Maybe I'm being optimistic in thinking that there will be serious historians in the future? I hope not.

Anonymous said...

as you say, social capital is dangerous to those who rule, so his paranoia serves a greater purpose.

Crawfurdmuir said...

I suppose that Cass is afraid if the great unwashed quit bowling alone they will form up in klaverns or some such. All one has to do is to look at the hysterics of the leftist elite about the Tea Party to see the underlying fears. The left likes to posture as the party of the Peepul, but its response to any genuine manifestation of populism is rather like one would imagine that of a 1920s society matron (as played by Margaret Dumont) upon encountering a drunken tramp staggering into her parlour.

Cail Corishev said...

So his big revelation is that, when people form into groups based on like-minded interests and goals, sometimes those interests and goals will have negative implications for other groups?

And he got paid to write this?

Forbes said...

>If people are in a social network whose members are interested in committing crimes, the existence of social capital will promote criminal activity.

If?

Street gangs, Mafia, Mexican/Colombian drug cartels, moonshiners, human trafficking, et al. I guess the Ivory Tower and the Washington cocoon is isolated from reality and history.

Charlesz Martel said...

An interesting observation about "Social Capital" in groups is how ethnically and racially homogenous many groups are. Go to the Oshkosh airshow- - 99% White men. Go to an amateur radio hamfest- ditto. Gun clubs and gun shows. Check out many "social capital" groups organized around a particular activity, and you'll see the same thing. A Woodcarving group.A motorcycle club.Scuba club.Car clubs. Guys smoking cigars together at a cigar store -(though less so).

There's a joke that the thinnest book in the world is entitled "Blacks I Met While Yachting"- but go to a sailing club - even a club where members share boats, or one-design clubs- where a small used sailboat is less than the cost of a set of custom rims for a car, so it's not a financial issue- and you'll see it's true.

Whites seem to be the overwhelming majority of organized clubs. "It's a White Thang!"

In the early days of home computers, a constant comment about the early clubs was how they were so diverse- people of all ages, united by a common interest- where all that mattered was how much you knew- 13 year olds lecturing 50 year olds. That's true- they were like that. But they didn't last long, and slowly disappeared as the web became the meeting place.

I agree that this article is just another manifestation of the Jewish fear that anytime the gentiles get together it's to plot against the Jews. In general, in my experience, the Jews seem to think that people are more interested in them as a group than they really are. I don't think most gentiles are too concerned about the composition of most chess clubs. They're much more concerned with the composition of football teams.

Mr. Anon said...

"Sunstein is a very smart guy who is ironically lacking in self-awareness."

Sunstein is a cheerleader for, and perhaps an architect of, a police-state. He is a rank, repugnant creep.

agnostic said...

"Sunstein's column helps explain the bipartisan elite enthusiasm for more Mexican immigration: Mexicans have so little social capital that they are not even a potential threat to the power of people like Sunstein and Power."

Exactly. They're trying to resurrect Poland of the late Middle Ages and Early Modern period -- before all that unfortunateness beginning in the 1800s.

Elite members of the majority ethnic group will hold political power, while Ashkenazi Jews will control the vast coordinating / managerial apparatus, in which the dumb goy peasants are just cogs in a machine.

They can't do that if most of the country is Celto-Germanic, since pastoralist people have never tolerated such an arrangement. They need a more docile, long-suffering, hardscrabble farmer type. Someone who doesn't mind a life devoid of joy, purpose, or autonomy.

Welp, those Balto-Slavic peasants seem to have caught on and bear reminders of the bad old days. So no point in importing a bunch of them.

Hey, I know -- Mexicans! They're a little dumber and darker than Balts and Slavs, but whaddaya gonna do finding good help these days?

And it's not just support for importing a new class of long-suffering peasants who won't bother asserting themselves. It's support for clamping down on Celto-Germanic hillbilly / mountain men types who organize themselves into patrol groups to keep out the hardscrabble peasant hordes.

Don't rely on Nordic / Scandinavian weenie types to help out either.

Anonymous said...

He's right. Countries with lots of social capital typically have large numbers of citizens engaging in political brawls in the streets.

agnostic said...

You thought Sunstein was clueless, check out the abstract of the paper he's referring to:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w19201

"We also show that the effects of social capital depended on the institutional context – in Prussia, where democratic institutions were stronger, the link between party entry and association density was markedly weaker."

Oh, if only Prussia could have remained as strong as it had been! Who the hell are these clowns cheering for in Germany? Some bunch of militaristic krauts? Well, as long as they had stronger democratic institutions...

The absence of self-awareness rears its head again. Like, if you're questioning the worth of social capital because of its potential dark side -- shouldn't the same skepticism apply to "democratic institutions" if they lead to militaristic kraut behavior?

And anyway, the link is weaker because there is almost no variation in the outcome variable. Prussians had the highest share of the vote going to the Nazis, well over 55%. If a variable doesn't show much variation, no other variables will help to explain the non-existent variation.

A Working Class American said...

a united majority is feared by those at the top. The socially disconnected, suburbanized, video game playing, cable tv watching society of today is a large factor in the conquering of america by the elite.

The elite are correct to fear social capital.

A Working Class American said...

a quote from the article:
"ut Satyanath and his co-authors reveal another possibility: that such associations can facilitate the spread of extremism, ultimately laying the groundwork for serious challenges to democracy itself. "

No, what the authors really fear is democracy itself. That is what high social capital engenders: democracy. And that is what mass immigration destroys.

agnostic said...

The bird's-eye explanation of Nazi support is very simple, hence leave it to economists to bungle the job. It reflected an ancient split in Germany between the south/west and the north/east.

(As always, "there are many factors," bla bla bla. But it jumps out from the data.)

One of the strongest indicators of belonging to an anti-Nazi area is how Catholic it was.

http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/07/catholics-and-nazi-vote-1932.html

This doesn't prove that it was Catholicism per se that served to protect people's minds from Nazi appeals, rather than another variable also highly correlated with it.

But it ought to at least make ya think, don'tcha think? Like, maybe there's something about going to church, confessing your sins, undertaking acts of penance to demonstrate your contrition, giving to charity, and so on, that blunts the appeal of spastic Nazis screaming about how Something Must Be Done -- RIGHT NOW!

Maybe there's something about focusing on the other-worldly, divine, and sacred that blunts the appeal of investing a profane human being, or cadre of them, with so much ultimate power?

But -- we can't give much weight to religious groups when talking about "civil society" and "social capital," can we? True, they're non-governmental. True, they're not privately owned businesses. But, y'know -- religion.

It just can't be an institution that folks at the grassroots would join voluntarily, remain in voluntarily, and contribute to voluntarily. Who in their right mind...?

Putnam is no fool -- he knows about the harms of living in a Tower of Babel kind of neighborhood, and how important churches (especially the high-involvement ones, not mainline Protestant ones) have been in American civil society.

But then you get these autistic economist types who can't conceive of a positive role for religion, so they miss one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. And again, with such a shameful lack of self-awareness.

"I can't believe the Catholics were anti-Nazi -- I don't know anybody who went to Catholic church!"

Anonymous said...

"So this isn't "Jewish paranoia" or fear of neo-Nazis. It's concern about extremist groups, such as terrorist groups, especially in countries that don't have strong democratic institutions."

But for most Jews, even Sailer and Richwine are EXTREME figures.
Look how Stephanie Grace was treated by the Jewish dean at Harvard.
If some bowling club shared Sailer or Richwine's views, Cass the ass would the first one to scream 'Nazism'.

And speaking of 'terrorist' groups, what is Sunstein's view of Irgun and Zionist use of terrorism?

What does Sunstein have to say about Jeremiah Wright and the black church of hate?

Anonymous said...

the Jewish fear that anytime the gentiles get together it's to plot against the Jews.

Which, in turn, is Freudian Projectionism in a nutshell.

Udolpho.com said...

So this isn't "Jewish paranoia" or fear of neo-Nazis. It's concern about extremist groups, such as terrorist groups, especially in countries that don't have strong democratic institutions.

lol for Sustein the latter amounts to the former

Garland said...

Great musical call by C Van Carter.

Anonymous said...

Is parody dead?

Anonymous said...

"Sunstein is a cheerleader for, and perhaps an architect of, a police-state. He is a rank, repugnant creep."

He is a casshole.

Chubby Ape said...

Anonymous said...

The goal is to make us all into deracinated transnational rootless cosmopolitans.


I think the goal is more to make the world into a safe, fun and profitable place for rootless, transnational cosmopolitans. Picture the gleeful children diving into one of those ball pits they have at Ikea and elsewhere: we are just meant to be the pool of unconnected and multicoloured plastic balls in which they amuse themselves. By "they" I don't just mean the Jews, by the way but rather that bunch of globalists Charlie Rose knows.

anony-mouse said...

Even paranoids have enemies.

Hunsdon said...

Erik L said: With respect to your often implied idea that Jews are doing so well in America that the time for paranoia has ended- maybe, but Jews are taught from an early age that it seemed that way many times in the past too.

Hunsdon said: I'll take "Self fulfilling prophecies" for one thousand, Alex.

Anonymous said...

Gee. Try again in a few years with Mexico Del Norte, Cassy.

meanwhile..here we are..Racial map of the USA based on 2010 census. Find your dot..we're Blue again to confuse matters...

http://demographics.coopercenter.org/DotMap/index.html

Anonymous said...

And it's not just support for importing a new class of long-suffering peasants who won't bother asserting themselves. It's support for clamping down on Celto-Germanic hillbilly / mountain men types who organize themselves into patrol groups to keep out the hardscrabble peasant hordes.

I don't think you know anything about "hillbilly/mountain men". Hillbillies aren't "Germanic". And they're not pastoralists. There isn't enough pasture in the mountains. Hillbillies are backwoods farmers and hunters. They raise hogs and poultry.

The "Germanics" in America are farmers in the Midwest.

These "hillbillies" and "Germanics" are better characterized as "peasants" than Mexicans are, since they're more independent and rural while the Mexicans are not independent and are engaged in urban service activity.

Cail Corishev said...

"I think the goal is more to make the world into a safe, fun and profitable place for rootless, transnational cosmopolitans."

Well said. You can see the kind of world they think they could create by watching the TV shows they make. Clean, fun cities full of people of all colors, creeds (well, except one), cultures, and orientations, all basically equal to each other in traits like intelligence and social skills, mingling happily and making each other's lives more vibrant and interesting. No one ever tells them that what they want to do is wrong or unavailable because the local culture doesn't allow or provide it. To the extent that there is crime, even that is interesting -- all white-collar crimes committed by evil white geniuses.

If only whites/heteros/Christians/Republicans would stop keeping it from happening!

Luke Lea said...

FWIW, in China social capital is verboten. "Civil society" is on the list of forbidden phrases.

Cail Corishev said...

"Racial map of the USA based on 2010 census."

Pretty cool, but I wish you could change the colors. The green dots (blacks) blend into the blue dots (whites) too well. In my small, 93% white town, the red dots (Asians) appear more numerous than the green ones, even though there are 9 blacks for every Asian, because red stands out better.

I guess my town doesn't have enough Asians to form any sort of Chinatown, because they're scattered pretty evenly across it, in both wealthier and poorer areas. I'm surprised how many there are in the "green" part of town.

Svigor said...

With respect to your often implied idea that Jews are doing so well in America that the time for paranoia has ended- maybe, but Jews are taught from an early age that it seemed that way many times in the past too.

That's way to keep the self-fulfilling prophecy alive! Good work. But only if you turn that fear into aggression, and steadfastly refuse introspection; gotta follow through.

Forget Jewish paranoia -- a man married to Samantha Power is not very Jewish, men concerned about Jewish identity do not marry Irish women who look like a female Seamus from the WWE. This is all class based.

That's arguable. Just because you marry out doesn't mean you aren't in the tribe, and more importantly, that you no longer act as if you are.

And no, Sunstein does not want a Mexican America to stave off Nazis. Rather, to crush the lower classes particularly those in the middle who are a threat to his uneven and not-dare-speak-its-name hereditary basis.

An open border society is bad for Jews. You get the attitudes towards Jews not of Bible-reading Protestants but Priest-following "Jews killed Jesus" Catholics, and Jews shoved aside by Chinese with a superstate behind them. But stupidity knows no bounds.


A society where the elite (in which Jews are far more entrenched than any other demographic group) crushes the middle class via open borders to secure its own power sounds pretty good for Jews. As does a fragmented, incoherent society made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups. Jewry has been globalist since long before globalism.

We see the same kinds of tactics here as we did in the threads about the Syrian conflict, and Israel's approach to the region. Divide and conquer, sow chaos and conflict.

A Working Class American said...

little known facts: the nazis never got a majority vote from the public. They got into power with about 33 pct or so. At the height of their power, even with the intimidation tactics they used, they only got 43 pct of the vote.
The germans of that era knew a lot more about hitler and the nazis than americans do today.

elvisd said...


With respect to your often implied idea that Jews are doing so well in America that the time for paranoia has ended- maybe, but Jews are taught from an early age that it seemed that way many times in the past too.


One Jewish friend has told me that in childhood they're drilled "holocaust, holocaust, holocaust" into their heads. He's from the midwest. You can imagine what it's like in NYC.


If anyone's interested in what Sunstein actually wrote, skip the dishonest smear about "Jewish paranoia," skip the sensationalist headline to Sunstein's article, and just read the article itself.
I've read it, and it's still stupid Harvard bullshit. You might as well say, "Research showed a strong affinity to cabbage eating and Nazi party affiliation".

Bud said...

Someone should do a bit on Samantha Power's look. She used to be sorta hot. Now she's mid stream turning into a hag. How'd dat happen?

ATBOTL said...

It sometimes seems like America has more Jewish organizations than it has Jews.

Anonymous said...

Samantha Power is an Irish redhead. Too much sun exposure?

Anonymous said...

The Communists, the Fascists and the Nazis all quickly banned independent associations or brought them under government control. When Sunstein, Power, or any member of the Washington elite speaks about the "danger" of independent organizations, it is not because they fear fascism, it is because they want to implement it - in their own way. This is not Jewish Paranoia. It is left wing power seeking.

agnostic said...

"Hillbilly / mountain men" is what their genetic and cultural stock is -- not whatever they happen to be doing now. Some Punjabi guy whose nature is pastoralist might be driving a cab in New York.

There sure are Germanics of hillbilly stock -- southern Germans, Austrians, and the Swiss ("Pennsylvania Dutch").

I distinguished Nordic / Scandinavian from Celto-Germanic. So by Germanic I mean the west/south. Saxons and Prussians go with Nordic / Scandinavian.

"There isn't enough pasture in the mountains"

Funny, Montana has 2.5 cattle for every person. Wyoming has 2.4, Idaho 1.4, and New Mexico ranks 10th in the nation with 0.7.

Ever seen a picture of the Alps? Or the Balkan Mountains? Plenty of pasture, and that's how people there have traditionally made a living. Can't rely on planting crops and plowing the soil up that high.

"They raise hogs and poultry."

Livestock herders, doesn't matter what particular animal it is. They don't rely on plowing fields, threshing, grinding grain, etc.

You seem to have only the Appalachian hillbillies in mind, but the largest mountain range is the Rockies. Lots of ranching going on there (see data above). And aside from Anglo/Scandinavian Utah, the mountain states are packed with Celtic people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scotch_irish1346.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irish1346.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census_Bureau_Scottish_Americans_in_the_United_States.gif

Anonymous said...

From Wiki. Declan Sunstein?

On July 4, 2008, Power married law professor Cass Sunstein, whom she met while working on the Obama campaign.[ They were married in the Church of Mary Immaculate, near Waterville on the Ring of Kerry in Power's native Ireland. On April 24, 2009, she gave birth to their first child, Declan Power SunsteinOn June 1, 2012, she gave birth to their second child, a daughter, RĂ­an Power Sunstein.

Anonymous said...

There sure are Germanics of hillbilly stock -- southern Germans, Austrians, and the Swiss ("Pennsylvania Dutch").

Those aren't hillbillies. The Pennsylvania Dutch definitely aren't hillbillies. You seem to think "hillbilly" means "rural white people" or something. You clearly know nothing about hillbillies or rural white people.

Funny, Montana has 2.5 cattle for every person. Wyoming has 2.4, Idaho 1.4, and New Mexico ranks 10th in the nation with 0.7.

Ever seen a picture of the Alps? Or the Balkan Mountains? Plenty of pasture, and that's how people there have traditionally made a living. Can't rely on planting crops and plowing the soil up that high.


I'm talking about the mountains hillbillies live in. Hillbillies don't live in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, New Mexico. They definitely don't live in the Alps or the Balkans.

Livestock herders, doesn't matter what particular animal it is. They don't rely on plowing fields, threshing, grinding grain, etc.

It does matter. It matters a great deal. You have to feed your animals and different animals have different caloric requirements. Hillbillies are backwoods farmers that do plow their plots and grow crops to feed themselves and their hogs and poultry. Hillbillies don't have enough pasture or plots big enough to grow enough crops to feed stocks of cattle.

You seem to have only the Appalachian hillbillies in mind, but the largest mountain range is the Rockies. Lots of ranching going on there (see data above). And aside from Anglo/Scandinavian Utah, the mountain states are packed with Celtic people:

That's because Appalachian hillbillies are actually hillbillies. A rancher in the Rockies is not a hillbilly. Ranchers and stockmen are not hillbillies. Celtic people are not hillbillies just because they're Celtic.

Anonymous said...

They do like security more.

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2011/11/jewish-liberalism-allinsmith-study.html

Chubby Ape said...

Anonymous said...

The Communists, the Fascists and the Nazis all quickly banned independent associations or brought them under government control. When Sunstein, Power, or any member of the Washington elite speaks about the "danger" of independent organizations, it is not because they fear fascism, it is because they want to implement it - in their own way. This is not Jewish Paranoia. It is left wing power seeking.


I was with you up until the last bit. This is left wing (managerial, technocratic) power seeking but its also quite Jewish. If the call to interference took on a prissy, matriarchal and holier-than-thou tone then we could say it was a bit of typically Swedish or typically Canadian power seeking. Various tribes do have a track record that it's worth referring to as we make our way through life. "But that's how Hitler got started!" you may say. Well, now we're back where we started aren't we?

diana said...

"How is writing about other people's NBER paper an example of Jewish paranoia? The non-Jewish co-authors of the NBER paper are the ones who introduced the possibility of the connection between social capital and Nazism."

It's not an example of paranoia, and the idea of social capital as leading into a lemming-like nationalism isn't particularly shocking, or original.

What's paranoid is Steve's obsession with Jews, when a lot more important things are going on in the world.

I can think of two: the recall vote in Colorado, whether Bill Thompson and Bill DeBlasio are engaged in a murderous fight for a run off primary in NYC, and the astonishing turn of events in the last week in which Putin has positioned himself as a wise peacemaker, schooled Obama, and revealed the latter as a buffoon.

Oops, that's three.

Really, I read this blog for the incidental knowledge I can't get anywhere else, and of course the contrarian and heretical perspective, but Steve's Jewish obsessions and complexes are disturbing. I take the bad with the good. I think a lot of people do.

PS if you put quotation marks around "jewish paranoia" you'll get 7K plus hits. #2 is from David Duke's website. I'm not paranoid about Duke, last I heard he is living in a trailer. He probably can't afford eyeliner anymore.

Anonymous said...

And anyway, the link [between indices of social capital and support for the Nazis] is weaker [in Prussia] because there is almost no variation in the outcome variable. Prussians had the highest share of the vote going to the Nazis, well over 55%. If a variable doesn't show much variation, no other variables will help to explain the non-existent variation.

This is a very good observation.

But I think you're making the link between Catholicism and anti-Nazism too complicated. One of the results of Bismarck's Kulturkampf against German Catholics was Catholic political solidarity. The Zentrum, or Catholic Centre Party, was a true Volkspartei, drawing voters from all social classes, including the small-town professionals, tradesmen, small business owners, etc., who in Protestant Germany tended to vote for the smaller conservative parties. The collapse of those parties in the early thirties was the biggest electoral factor catapulting the Nazis into power.

The big, social-solidarity-based parties (the Social Democrats, the Communists, and the Centre) were all fairly resistant to the Nazi appeal. The Catholic resistence shows up on the electoral map, because Catholics geographically concentrated and were rural as well as urban. (One of the problems with electoral maps is that they visually overweight rural voters.)

The key to understanding the Nazi's appeal is understanding the mindset of those middle-class, Protestant conservatives who turned to them. And if you're looking for weird and unhealthy German political attitudes, that is indeed where you will find the most striking examples.

Cennbeorc

neil craig said...

One would have to be paranoid to think that things like banning smoking in bars are designed to cut down our social space and contacts and leave us more open to government bullshit.

Wouldn't one?

Mr. Anon said...

"A Working Class American said...

little known facts: the nazis never got a majority vote from the public."

Perhaps it was little known to you, until you saw it on the history channel, or read it in a graphic novel, or something. But I was quite aware of the fact - I bet that most of the regular posters here were aware of it too.

Again - stop lecturing us. You sound like an obnoxious sixteen year-old know-it-all.

Mr. Anon said...

"Aaron Gross said...

If anyone's interested in what Sunstein actually wrote, skip the dishonest smear about "Jewish paranoia," skip the sensationalist headline to Sunstein's article, and just read the article itself."

Your characterization of what Sunstein wrote is what is dishonest. I did read the article, and Steve's characterization of it is quite apt.

Sunstein says that civic associations can lead to "extremism". And what Sunstein means by "extremism" is probably different than what I would mean by it. He implies that such organizations are a bad thing, and he makes no qualifications about the nature of the society. Oh sure, he throws in a but-they-are-not-all-bad" qualifier. Gee - thanks - that's quite a concession. You know, the Rotary Club or KofC does a few good things, but...........what they get up to when they're all alone, talking amongst themselves.....................

So why write the article at all? What is the purpose of even writing that article if not to subtley plant the idea that voluntary private organizations are somehow bad.

Mr. Anon said...

"anony-mouse said...

Even paranoids have enemies."

Sometimes they have lots of them.

If somebody makes me the object of their paranoia, then that person has become my actual enemy, have they not?

Mr. Anon said...

"candid_observer said...

You see, that now turns out to be a good thing, because it prevents us all from becoming Nazis. Being isolated, alienated, and miserable is a small price pay for not being Nazis."

No price is too high for other people to pay.

Anonymous said...

I looked at the article. Good to see this idiot getting a sound thrashing in the comments.

Anonymous said...

Evil Germans + bowling leagues = Lebowski

A Working Class American said...

yeah, say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos....

Anonymous said...

"The Pennsylvania Dutch definitely aren't hillbillies."

As most here probably know, the Pennsylvania Dutch aren't even Dutch. They are mostly Germans from the Palatinate and Alsace-Loraine. That is, Rhinelanders like the Amish.

The Palatines were peasant war refugees:

"...some 13,000 Germans who came to England between May and November 1709. Their arrival in England, and the inability of the British Government to integrate them, caused a highly politicized debate over the merits of immigration. The English tried to settle them in England, Ireland, and the Colonies. ...

...the Poor Palatines were unlike previous migrant groups — skilled, middle-class, religious exiles such as the Huguenots or the Dutch...

...The Germans transported to New York in the summer of 1710 totaled about 2800 people in ten ships, the largest group of immigrants to enter the colony before the American Revolution. ...

The experience with the Poor Palatines discredited the Whig philosophy of naturalization..."

Anonymous said...

"... In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Germany " = Jewish Paranoia.

Name one, just one, evil event concocted in any kind of civil organization listed in the article since the 30s. Polish Solidarity?

If you are looking for mischief, keep an ear on madrassas and yeshivas. Nobody knows what goes on in those cohesive mysterious places.

Anonymous said...

"What's paranoid is Steve's obsession with Jews, when a lot more important things are going on in the world."

What really hurts me is Steve's neglect of the Irish. It's always The English, The Jews, The English, The Jews.

I guess when Sean Hannity starts prefacing his every mention of Ireland with "Our Good Friend", he'll take notice of us. Damn, I think Steve is a real self-hater, he writes often about the above mentioned groups, as well as the Chinese, the Japanese, the French, the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Chechens, etc., to the neglect of his ancestral Swiss.

fnn said...

The "jewish paranoia" thing is pretty well established. Here's Jewish prof Paul Gottfried touching on it at the late Larry Auster's blog:

Frankfurt School
(...)
Paul Gottfried writes:
You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the postwar reconstruction of German “civic culture’ and the work was deeply admired by SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly.

(...)
Prof. Gottfried replies:
Christopher Lash’s True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the mainstream liberal support for The Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s. Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno’s ideas.

(...)

The "responses" section of Wikipedia entry on The Authoritarian Personality helps put the above in context:

The Authoritarian Personality
(...)
Some observers have criticized what they saw as a strongly politicized agenda to The Authoritarian Personality. Social critic Christopher Lasch[26] argued that by equating mental health with left-wing politics and associating right-wing politics with an invented “authoritarian” pathology, the book's goal was to eliminate antisemitism by “subjecting the American people to what amounted to collective psychotherapy—by treating them as inmates of an insane asylum.” Similarly, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek wrote, “It is precisely the kind of group loyalty, respect for tradition, and consciousness of differences central to Jewish identity, however, that Horkheimer and Adorno described as mental illness in Gentiles. These writers adopted what eventually became a favorite Soviet tactic against dissidents: anyone whose political views differed from theirs was insane. […] Christian self-denial, and especially sexual repression, caused hatred of the Jews [according to Adorno et al.].”[27]
The Authoritarian Personality remains widely cited in the social sciences and continues to inspire research interest today.[28]

Anonymous said...

There is no paranoia. Paranoia is an irrational fear. The parties here understand exactly what independent organizations mean - they mean independence of thought. A party which would ban such groups completely understands there can be no government control of thought and action when such organizations exist. This is not irrational in the least. It is very rational. Jewish Paranoia is a very stupid term as it takes what is a true danger - the "meritocratic" desire to control an ever expansive government in the US, and turns it into a paranoid obsession with Jews.

Anonymous said...

Nazis had universal healthcare and work projects.
I guess Obama is a fascist for having pushed both on us.

A lot of fallacious thinking on the part of Sunstein. A lot of things that Nazis supported or provided had nothing to do with the war and holocaust.

What really led to the Nazi rise to power was the Versailles Treaty and the horrible depression which affected Germany far worse than other countries.

Much of the German middle class lost everything and faced abject poverty in the 20s and early 30s. Even so, for 15 yrs Germans patiently and heroically remained loyal to democracy. Even when Hitler came to power, it was with only 33% of the vote and only because German communists had orders from Moscow not to cooperate with social democrats.

If the German economy hadn't been ruined by the allies during the interwar period and if finance capitalists hadn't exploited the crisis to rake it all in, German people would never have gone with Hitler. German people went with Hitler for the same reason Americans went with FDR. 'It's the economy stupid', and as things were bad in the US, they were much worse in Germany.

Besides, much of the lib establishment in the West had been cheering the USSR when it was killing millions in the 20s and 30s. With the communist threat looming, it was understandable why the German rich and middle classes decided to back Hitler as the last resort.

Anonymous said...

It's poweroia.

Anonymous said...

Sunstein teaches a course at Harvard with Larry Summers called "Inside Government: Making Public Policy":

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/degrees/teaching-courses/course-listing/bgp-300

Are paranoids who see potential Nazis in the PTA the best people to teach public policy making?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

So why write the article at all ... if not to subtley plant the idea that voluntary private organizations are somehow bad.

I agree. Why write it at all? There are thousands of tight, white associations out there; no beer hall putsch's yet, sadly. And like somebody else noticed, failing to mention Sunni madrassa is a hilarious omission.

Sunstein is in a long line of Jewish liberals horrified by the idea of Anglo-Europeans exercising freedom of association.

diana said...

What is a little known fact is that Hitler got the women's vote. This is such an embarrassment that some revisionists debate this, but it is a subject of inquiry.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/orw9ekq

After WWI, with 2M men dead, women wanted a strong man in power.

I think the surviving men went heavily for the German version of the labor party, but I'm not sure. It would make sense.

Until recently Labor parties were working MEN'S parties, very macho.

See FIST with Sylvester Stallone, written by Joe Esterhasz, a neglected semi-masterpiece.

Traditional women like a strong man party, traditional men like a labor party.

Dahinda said...

He stole this article from the script of "Annie Hall:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaPBhxXhprg

Unpersoned at iSteve said...

I’m a Jew by choice—I converted 50 years ago, and I’m even more satisfied with that choice now than I was a half-century ago. That’s partly because being Jewish is mostly not about beliefs, but about connections with other people, sharing values and a collective destiny.

- Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone), Can There Be Judaism Without Belief In God?, Moment Magazine

Anonymous said...

Ironically, what the likes of Sunstein may fear most is the new FDR than the new Hitler, which is extremely unlikely.

FDR was vastly popular all across the nation among whites in the north and south and west and east. He won the middle class, working class, the poor, etc.

Media Jews have been comparing Obama more with Reagan than with FDR, and indeed Jews want Obama to be more like Reagan.
Reagan served the rich elites. FDR took on the rich elites and taxed them savagely. Today, the elites are filled with Jews, and they fear a FDR-like politician who may galvanize the masses all across the nation against the rich elites.

In FDR's time, most of the super rich were wasps, and so, Jews supported FDR. Today, if an FDR-like leader were to take power and push through drastic policies, a lot of rich Jews would get it in the neck. And Wall Street banksters would not have been spared as happened under Obama. Obama's 'new deal' has been little tax raises on the rich and allowing the rich to get richer in the past 5 yrs, the total opposite of what FDR did.

Obama's economic policies, esp the bailouts with no strings attached and massive 'quantitative easing', have helped the super rich.

Also, if FDR took care of American citizens first--he was no immigration nut--, Obama has been working with globalists to favor corporations and illegals.
FDR, a rich wasp, went against other rich wasps for the betterment of the greater white masses who were hurting.
Obama has essentially served his Jewish and liberal wasp masters to bail out criminal banks and keep them flush with cash.

Though Reagan won superlandslides--partly because the opposing candidates were so lackluster--, the coaliton he created didn't have a chance of lasting for long. It favored the rich over the middle class and working class.
FDR's coalition lasted for 60 yrs until Republicans finally won the House in the early 90s.
Despite 12 yrs of Reagan and Bush, House and Senate were mostly controlled by Dems.
And when Repubs took both houses in 1994, they held them for a mere decade because they had nothing to offer to the middle class as their main objective was tax cuts for the rich, wars for Israel, and some red meat tossed at Christian Right dummies who ruined the GOP brand as the party of illiterate anti-intellectuals.

Anyway, since FDR is such an icon of American liberalism, Sunstein cannot attack him. But it seems what Sunstein fears most is not the rise of Nazism in America as a truly militant and robust FDR-style liberalism that favors the middle class and working class over the globalist elite class dominated by Jews and their allies the homos.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMP4eclF3C8

Where is Obama? Why isn't he being blamed for this?

I guess election is over.

Marc B said...

All forms of implicitly (and explicitly) White gathering are of concern to Leftists, so these Stasi-like tactics come as no surprise. The fact that they have been so openly campaigned for is the only thing I find perplexing. I suspect they are a test to measure just how dumbed-down and complacent the country has become. Even the relatively innocuous Tea Party had to be denigrated as racist and extremist by virtue of it's Whiteness and support for policies of self-interest.

I have become far more active in the White community than in the past because I learned can have much more sway with other Whites of similar interests that way. It's more effective than setting up a blog or podcast. We now seek out implicitly White activities to expand our social circle and sphere of influence. Additionally, my group of friends had not only become stale, but more than a few could no longer associate with someone with whom they disagreed.

People are far more likely to take your opinions seriously once you have established yourself as a stand-up man/woman. You'll build a more solid base of supporters person-to-person than you will with a few broadcast emails. It does not take to much prodding to get fellow Whites to tell you how they really feel once they discover you aren't a DWL.

Chubby Ape said...

Unpersoned at iSteve said...

I’m a Jew by choice—I converted 50 years ago, and I’m even more satisfied with that choice now than I was a half-century ago. That’s partly because being Jewish is mostly not about beliefs, but about connections with other people, sharing values and a collective destiny.

- Robert Putnam (author of Bowling Alone), Can There Be Judaism Without Belief In God?, Moment Magazine


Doesn't Putnam come from a Plymouth Rock type WASP family? Those Nonconformist, Dissenter types always seemed to be wannabe Israelites anyway. I can imagine the conversion feeling quite right and natural for him: like Pinnochio becoming a real boy or margarine miraculously turning into butter.

diana said...

Thanks for the Moment magazine link.

Judaism without God is like a third-world democracy: one man, one vote, one time.

Judaism without God works for one generation, then collapse. The next generation(s) will be Orthodox.

And that ain't paranoia, that's fact.