October 31, 2013

Mayor Bloomberg would be a good man to have on your side

The news of NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg's triumph today over the liberal judge who outlawed his stop-and-frisk program reminds me that Michael Bloomberg is a man you want to have on your side, not on somebody else's side. 

Moreover, Bloomberg strikes me as a man of fundamentally conservative personality, in the sense of having tendencies toward a natural array of loyalties.

As I've argued before:
What Jonathan Haidt never quite gets across is that conservatives typically define their groups concentrically, moving from their families outward to their communities, classes, religions, nations, and so forth. If Mars attacked, conservatives would be reflexively Earthist. As Ronald Reagan pointed out to the UN in 1987, “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”   
In contrast, modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know (or in the case of profoundly liberal sci-fi movies such as Avatar, other 10-foot-tall blue space creatures they barely know).

Bloomberg and, for that matter, Larry Summers strike me as men who by temperament are essentially concentric (and thus conservative) in their loyalties. Of course, this leaves open the question of for whose benefit, precisely, these loyalist urges will be exerted. I favor using carrots of public praise and sticks of public criticism to incline powerful men toward backing the interests of their fellow American citizens over the other interest groups clamoring for their support. 

Of course, Bloomberg has a lot of options in life about whose side to be on. For example, he is accepting a Russian oligarch-funded "Jewish Nobel Prize" from Bibi Netanyahu.

I poked around on the Internet and found a lot of jokes about why does Bloomberg, who has $30 billion, need a $1 million prize? (He's giving it to charity.)

I didn't find much at all asking any questions about what this says about Bloomberg's loyalties, just as I didn't find much praising Summers for turning down Netanyahu's offer of the Israeli equivalent of Chairmanship of the Fed. (Summers didn't offer an explanation, so we can only hope that loyalty to his native country played a role.)

My view is that publicly critiquing powerful individual's loyalties is a natural tool for nudging those power players toward backing the interests of you and yours. It is on the whole a good thing keep a man who controls a "private army" of 44,000 uniformed police officers, a media empire, and whose employees spy on customers of Bloomberg terminals, worried about his reputation.

Apparently, however, that kind of criticism of the rich and powerful is just not done anymore. It gets you denounced for mentioning "the dual loyalty slander."

My impression, however, is that for anybody who is as much "in the arena" as Michael Bloomberg, restrictions on expressing skepticism about him are pernicious. In general, the more people don't want you to talk about something, the more it needs talking about.

But, that kind of moderation is considered these days to be almost unthinkable.

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

The second bloomberg ventures out of NYC for his little BS gun control initiatives he usually gets his face bashed in. He's powerful but honestly grow up or at least stay out of the water you are developing that Russian type fatalism that always causes Slavs to drown.

SFG said...

Pretty much.

Koch was the same way, ironically--he was an advocate for Israel and New York City. A conservative born in a liberal area will defend his liberal area against outside threats, while attempting to moderate bad behavior within it (you may remember him closing down the bathhouses). Of course, lacking Giuliani's guido combativeness, a true crackdown on crime was beyond him.

Dennis Dale said...

There's another implication Haidt misses with his mostly plausible definitions of conservative v liberal types. For him it's the standard view of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans squared off over these differing values. But the current composition of the Democratic Party is one (proportionally shrinking) part true believer (universalist concern for the suffering) and another, non- and anti-white, engaged in remorseless racial promotion that necessitates a deliberate hostility toward universal values.
Of course, one could also argue the typical white liberal Democrat is engaged in just the same thing, only against Other White People.
But in reading Haidt I'm struck, as always, by the persistence of the liberal mind in view non-whites as non-entities, without agency or character and with one sole interest: the overcoming of white racism.

Rev. Right said...

Bloomberg and, for that matter, Larry Summers strike me as men who by temperament are essentially concentric (and thus conservative) in their loyalties.

Sure, as long as you are in their center, which, unfortunately, does not include the vast majority of Americans.

What they want to conserve probably does not include me and my world. Which sucks, because both are very good at conserving what they want.

Anonymous said...

I haven't gotten the sense that Bloomberg has especially strong Jewish loyalties. He seemed indifferent to organized Jewry on the 51 Park Place mosque, and though he gets worked up about a number of issues, I haven't known him to be interested in any Jewish issues, per se. I could have missed something. But accepting an award doesn't seem like a pledge of very much allegiance to the award-givers.

Dave Pinsen said...

Do you expect Bloomberg to change his views on immigration then?

Jorn said...

'leapfrogging loyalties' reminds me of those ostentatious Christians who'd rather love anyone than their actual neighbors...

Whiskey said...

Except Steve Bloomie does not matter any more. He can't be mayor again. He is not going to be Gov or Senator. Nor President. He has less power than Cory Booker or Ted Cruz. His business news empire is under threat. That reporters can look up usage caused a lot of dumping. He's another rich bored guy like Bill Gates.

And thus the enemy.

ALL rich bored peope are.

dearieme said...

Shouldn't the Republicans run him against La Clinton? At the very least it would give endless pleasure to witness many split loyalties.

Anonymous said...

OT, but looks like another polar bear case in Washington DC. http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23847121/george-washington-university-professor-assaulted-near-dupont-circle#axzz2jO3UpVV5

theo the kraut said...

OT, @Steve:

Gladwell isn't in luck these days--here he gets a bashing by Mark S. Seidenberg, Professor of Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, U of Wisconsin-Madison

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=8123

More criticism in the comments, eg a link to Leigh Cowart, "The Killing Point", 10/16/2013

https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/killing-point/6816c15d1770a04bae4d746e36542f94af47eca1/

Anonymous said...

Lucky Americans who have a First Amendment, you can only lose your careers and not your liberty when you say the 'wrong' thing.

Harry Baldwin said...

Of Mayor Bloomberg's concentric circle of concerns, I think that his concern for his own security outweighs all else (as with most people). It must drive the seventh-richest person in the United States crazy to think that his god-like existence could be ended by some marginally employed nut with a gun, and thus his obsession with banning them.

In 1096, Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows against Christians because they were capable of penetrating the plate armor worn by the aristocracy (knights). It was against the divine order of things that a peasant should be able to kill a nobleman.

Anonymous said...

OMG, what is the world coming to? First, Mayor Bloomberg sticking up for law and order in the Big Apple. Now it's an aging Bill Gross of Pimco channeling his inner Jimmy Hoffa, sticking up for the working stiffs against the capitalists.

Anonymous said...

I kind of doubt that a lot of conservatives here would not defend the Us if it was attack. So, I think your remark is dated. Conservatives as a group just care about money and a handful of social issues.

Anonymous said...

OT:

More gloating about the end of White America, this time by Jewish sociologist Michael Kimmel. His conclusion:

“Angry White Men may still strew some obstacles on that global path to greater equality, making the road bumpier. But its direction is clear. And the loudest screams are coming not from those whose fortunes are rising, but from those over whom the engines locomotives of history are rolling. . .. The past may have been theirs, but the future belongs to others.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/americas-angry-white-men_b_4182486.html

Matthew said...

Bloomberg is one of the leading players in the push for amnesty. That does not strike me as being a man of "concentric loyalties." If so, then the average (white, non-Jewish) American is on the outermost edge of the circle.

Your point about publicly critiquing people's loyalties raises an interesting question, though. Is it time to start publicly critiquing the amnesty plan as being domnated by Jews out for their own interests?

I'm not at all inlcined to be a Jew-basher, and I'm well aware of the many non-Jewish players involved in the push. But on the national level it is very much dominated by ethnic Jews - Ballmer, Bloomberg, Fuckerberg, Soros, Schumer, not to mention every single Jew in the House and Senate (including Cantor).

Calling people out on the overwhelming support of Jews for immivasion is perfectly legit. Whether it would be good tactics is another matter.

Anonymous said...

Not only is the left going down but so is the Tea Party right, yeah, no more cheap labor Ted Cruz types. Wait until his state gets an oil bust because prices are too low, it will be the end of the cheap labor right. His state Texas pushed George W Bush on us.

Anonymous said...

perhaps liberals are even more tribal, and don't see their fellow countrymen as their fellow countrymen.

Anonymous said...

The connection between Israel and US Jews is more on the mind of the American people then anyone wants to admit.

Summers taking the Israeli banking job would only cement that notion.

Anonymous said...

For a capitalistic man, profit seeking overides any other factors. He can sell his soul for the money.

For communistic guys, loyalty to the class outweights anything else.

For religious man, ideology is everything.

For concentric guys, loyalty to your own ethnic group overide anything else. This is natural for most animals in the world.

For English and Chinese, self-loathing or self-critism or humility lead to contempt of familiarity. Yes, you treat outsiders better than your own kind. Such anti-natural behavior is result from extremely complitcated and sophisticated society in which your own kind often is your worst enemy who compete for the same resource and can not form mutual beneficial relationship. With outsiders, you actualy can form more favorable symbiotic relationship (Chinese land farmers vs mongolian herders)(English traders vs foreign nationals).

In reality, all factors have effect. Winners are more likey those profit seekers.

Anonymous said...

Is there really a difference between a putative crypto-conservative like Bloomberg who draws his concentric circles in a xenophilic way and a liberal with explicitly leapfrogging loyalties?

Let's remember that Bloomberg is one of those guys who's always telling us how dumb, lazy, and boring we are, and how we need more immigrants to save us from ourselves.

Let's also remember that a lot of liberals ostentatiously celebrate the Other as a status marker of membership in the liberal tribe. E.g., libs don't care much for Mexicans, but they do care for other libs who also profess to like Mexicans.

It seems academic to speculate on whether Bloomberg is motivated by conservative loyalty to something other than Americans qua Americans, or by liberal disloyalty to same. In the end, it's the same result, isn't it?

Dan Kurt said...

Bloomberg is rich, quite smart, and Jewish. Why then is he so anti-gun? Unarmed people are easy victims to violent acts from a person or a government. Jews out of all people should know this, especially brilliant, successful ones.

Dan Kurt

Anonymous said...



http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0112&week=&msg=ukaJuTaI2aIKtItTygAkgA&user=&pw=



In arguing that Jews would not intermarry and kept others in a lower status,
MacDonald tells us

"further indication of the low status of the offspring of foreigners
[which] comes from the very negative attitudes toward Solomon's many
foreign wives. Solomon is cursed with the fragmentation of his kingdom
after his death as the result of this practice (1 King's 11:11...)" (page
41)

But that is a highly biased interpretation of a selectively chosen passage
from the Bible, which actually reads:

"The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from
the Lord, the God of Israel who had appeared to him twice. Although he had
forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord's
command. So the Lord said to Solomon, since this is your attitude and you
have not kept My covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will
most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your
subordinates." (1 King's 11:9-11)

It is true that Solomon was worshiping the gods of his foreign wives.
However, the Lord does not punish him for having foreign wives, he had
hundreds. One can have foreign wives if: 1) they were taken from distant
lands, 2) their kin are not allowed to live among you (with their "detestable
practices" that could take one away from Yahweh, and 3) you do not adopt
their religious beliefs. The danger of foreign wives is that they will turn
the Jew away from his God toward worshiping other gods. Solomon actually
built temples to these other gods. Now that's the kind of thing that gets
the Old Guy ticked.

This type of misreading of the Bible occurs repeatedly. For another
example, MacDonald states

"... Moses orders the execution of Israelite men who consort with Moabite
women" (Num. 25:1-13).

Again, that is not what occurred. It is true that the Bible says that "the
people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab" (Num. 25:1), but
that is not what got God angry. What follows that MacDonald left out shows
us the concerns of God (or of the priestly redactors of the Bible):

"And they [the Moabite women] called the people unto the sacrifices of
their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And
Israel joined himself unto Baal of Peor: and the anger of the LORD was
kindled against Israel. And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads
of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the
fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said
unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto
Baal of Peor." (Num. 25:2-5)

In each case when God is angered by something to do with foreign concubines
or wives, the issue is almost always ideological impurity or disloyalty to
God. Again, this is highly consistent with Kriegman and Kriegman's theory
which emphasizes ideological purity for the effective use of religion in
intergroup conflict. And it makes far more sense from an evolutionary
perspective in which the primary purpose of going to war is to enhance
one's reproductive success.

Steve Richter said...

Hispanic immigration serves the Jews in that it reduces the percentage of the population held by the non Jewish Whites. Once there is no one group with a majority the Jews are first amoung equals in the country.

Bert said...

White and Jewish liberals have an amazing ability to not understand anything about the average black or Mexican guy on the street. They don't really see anyone as actual people with desires, motives, and dedication. They only see props which they will use to lift themselves up above all others and build their ideal utopia. They are in for a rude awakening.

One of the untold stories of the Obama years is the massive sea-change that is occurring within the Democratic Party and the liberal intelligentsia as a whole. The aging cohort of condescending white and Jewish liberals concerned about the environment and "ending racism" is on the way out. Replacing them is a ragtag group of Mexican and Asian ethnic activists, with some blacks thrown in here and there. Folks like Dennis Kucinich and Anthony Weiner are the past. Folks like Luis Gutierrez and Julian Castro are the future.

White liberals have no future.

Anonymous said...

Koch was the same way, ironically--he was an advocate for Israel and New York City.

What is ironic about Bloomberg and Koch being advocates for Israel and NYC?

Anonymous said...

I haven't gotten the sense that Bloomberg has especially strong Jewish loyalties. He seemed indifferent to organized Jewry on the 51 Park Place mosque, and though he gets worked up about a number of issues, I haven't known him to be interested in any Jewish issues, per se. I could have missed something. But accepting an award doesn't seem like a pledge of very much allegiance to the award-givers.

He's nominally supposed to be the impartial leader of a cosmopolitan population. He would have to "seem indifferent." To promote particular interests in a cosmopolitan environment, you have to at least appear impartial and neutral.

Anonymous said...


"perhaps liberals are even more tribal, and don't see their fellow countrymen as their fellow countrymen."

Liberals become conservatives very quickly when their own turf is threatened. Had to laugh tonight at the fatuous Geraldo Rivera who cried and cried "foul" at that "racially profiling racist" George Zimmerman.

Tonight he yelled "Bravo" to the judge who overturned the other judge who ruled "stop and frisk" was illegal.

Rivera said he thought the policy was wonderful because it had saved thousands of lives.

George Zimmerman, in his own gated community, called the cops when he saw an unfamiliar teen wandering around aimlessly in the rain. He generally matched the description of several suspects who had robbed homes in the community.

Had the cops arrived a few minutes earlier, the kid would probably be alive, but they would have stopped and frisked him.

Anonymous said...

Except Steve Bloomie does not matter any more. He can't be mayor again. He is not going to be Gov or Senator. Nor President. He has less power than Cory Booker or Ted Cruz. His business news empire is under threat. That reporters can look up usage caused a lot of dumping. He's another rich bored guy like Bill Gates.

No man worth $30 billion can be described as not mattering anymore. Are you serious? You have a man who is in the media, obviously media savvy, still energetic for his age, who is opinionated and has a bankroll of $30 billion.

Speaking as one who does not share his views, that frightens the hell out of me. Just look at how Sheldon Adelson influenced the GOP primaries with a measly $20 million. I really don't want to find out what $30 billion could buy.

normann said...

I'm not sure the divided loyalty issue was foremost in Larry Summers's mind when he declined to serve as the governor of the Bank of Israel. And it is not that unusual for a foreign national to serve as the governor of a central bank (Mark Carney, the current governor of the Bank of England and former governor of the Bank of Canada, is a Canadian). My guess is that Netanyahu wanted somebody neutral, not identified with any particular political faction, because even though the Israeli central bank is independent by law (since 2010), it isn't really and inflation (and not just cheap credit) has powerful constituencies. I can imagine what meetings of the BOI Monetary Policy Committee must be like, and I'm sure that Larry Summers can too. Who needs it?

Unanimous said...

"OMG, what is the world coming to? First, Mayor Bloomberg sticking up for law and order in the Big Apple. Now it's an aging Bill Gross of Pimco channeling his inner Jimmy Hoffa, sticking up for the working stiffs against the capitalists."

If you are a prisoner, the noise from the construction of a gallows has a way of focusing the mind. I suspect guys like Bloomberg, Gross and Buffett want to end up on the right side of history when time runs out, and they believe they don't have much time left.

Anonymous said...

o/t but relevant to Steve's interest in high-powered families - two Telegraph obituaries

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10415455/Professor-Michael-Neuberger.html

"The youngest of four sons, Michael Samuel Neuberger was born in London on November 2 1953 into an extraordinarily gifted family. His father Albert, who had moved to Britain from Germany after Hitler came to power, became a professor of chemical pathology at St Mary’s Hospital, London University, and was the first scientist to prove the existence of glycoproteins – substances which perform an important role in the interactions between living cells. Albert was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1951 and when Michael achieved the same accolade in 1993 it represented a rare case of both father and son becoming fellows.

Michael’s older brothers, too, would go on to eminence in different fields; the Cabinet Office minister Oliver Letwin, who attended the same Hampstead prep school, recalls feeling more than a little put out by the fact that the school walls were covered by boards celebrating their achievements. James Neuberger is now a professor of medicine at the University of Birmingham and Associate Medical Director for NHS Blood and Transplant; Anthony is a Professor of Finance at City University and is married to Rabbi Julia Neuberger; while his brother David, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, is president of the Supreme Court. Michael also had a younger sister, Janet, who was born with Down’s syndrome and died in her late 20s. "


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/technology-obituaries/10421780/Jonathan-Minns.html

"The second of three brothers, Jonathan Ellis Minns was born on October 12 1938 into a family steeped in engineering. His father, the engineer Anthony Minns, kept a shed in the garden and taught his sons about wheels, cogs and rigging; an uncle was the hovercraft inventor Sir Christopher Cockerell; and his maternal grandfather, Sir Sidney Cockerell, was director of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (his other grandfather, Sir Ellis Minns, was Dean of Pembroke College)."

Henry Canaday said...

I don’t know that Bloomberg personally made any difference in the Appeals Court decision other than as a bellwether of the opinion of the vast majority of New Yorkers, the vast majority of powerful, influential New Yorkers whom judges are likely to know and respect, the vast majority of Jewish New Yorkers and perhaps the vast majority of even Jewish New Yorkers who are liberal on most matters.

It’s worth remembering that the crime policies and their catastrophic consequences that preceded Rudolph Giuliani were not the result of democratic decisions, by mayors, city councils, state or national legislatures. They were the result of court decisions, most prominently in the case of search and seizure the Supreme Court’s Mapp v. Ohio decision and its exclusionary rule.

It took almost a third of century for New York prosecutors to figure out, and for New York judges to become desperate enough to accept, a method of formally obeying Mapp while evading its substance by redefining “probable cause.” That combination of formal obedience and practical evasion is what the Appeals Court has at least temporarily preserved.

Now the apparent next mayor of New York says he want to end the stop-and-frisk policy. So Bloomberg’s retirement from Gracie Mansion will matter. But not in the way botched Constitutional decisions by the courts matter. The next mayor will be held responsible by voters for the crime consequences of any change in policing and, most important, officials responsible to voters can reverse or adjust mistakes in policing. That was not possible for the third of a century during which cops and courts were essentially set on automatic pilot by the Supreme Court though the violence of the late 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s.

NOTA said...

Cnservative and liberal true believers are overwhelmingly followers, with somewhat different values and even personality types. Conservative and liberal leaders are overwhelmingly sociopaths who will say anything to gain and keep power, and the higher you go, the more the true believers tend to get replaced by the sociopaths. At the very top, you get guys who will do anything to keep power--start a pointless war, pass laws they know will do no good and lots of harm, sabotage military and other government operations to make the other side look bad, etc.

NOTA said...

Dan:

Could he have been elected mayor of NYC on an anti-gun-control position?

Anonymous said...

OMG, what is the world coming to? First, Mayor Bloomberg sticking up for law and order in the Big Apple. Now it's an aging Bill Gross of Pimco channeling his inner Jimmy Hoffa, sticking up for the working stiffs against the capitalists

Bill Gross is admitting that the tax code has been set up to the advantage of capital over labor for the last 30 years. Others need to step forward to shame the 1% and motivate the 99% to change the tax code accordingly. Shaming is required, otherwise even lefties like Obama will align themselves with the Wall St. money.

Anonymous said...

new york city mayor is a career killer.
Linsay, Kock, Gilliauni, Wagner, etc never held public office again.

pat said...

I think there is something to your characterization of liberalism versus conservatism but it misses some other dimensions.

The most misunderstood dimension in the liberal-conservative property space is the idea of progress - or orientation towards the future. The liberals like to call themselves progressives but that is only true in a Marxist sense. It is historicism not true progressivism.

When a liberal calls himself a progressive he means that he believes like Marx in a knowable pattern of future events and he embraces those inevitable changes. Whereas a conservative opposes any change and just tries to bring about delay.

But all those liberals like Mayor Bloomberg are just trying to effect an ever greater centralization of authority. Central authority is not a new idea. In fact all the ancient hydraulic empires vested all power in a central potentate. Sargon and Khufu were comfortable with the nanny state. Augustus established cities where he was worshiped as a God. Obama would be comfortable with this sort of thing one suspects.

When I could still eat marmalade the jar used to say "By Appointment to Her Majesty". This is the systems that America rejected in the revolution. Now Obama and his cohorts wants to re-institute product and services contracts to court favorites.

The founding fathers thought to 'make the world anew'. They wanted to move to a kind of government that focused on the individual. Now we have a generation of liberals who fight to return government to the courtiers and well connected sycophants - and they call it progress.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

Here is a man to have on your side: Ben Carson. A black, conservative, ghetto-born, genuinely Christian, self-made star pediatric neurosurgeon and academic without identity issues. Does that sound like a near-opposite of somebody?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

This guy should be an American hero and possibly on the 2016 GOP ticket, but just wait for him to be vilified by the left.

You should do a profile series on people like this guy and Thomas Sowell. They have really interesting backgrounds in their own right, but it's also good fighting against The Narrative.

Titus Didius Tacitus said...

Steve Richter: "Once there is no one group with a majority the Jews are first amoung equals in the country."

They already are first, and there is no equality about it. Yet the push to replace whites with non-whites only gets stronger.

Anonymous said...

"The past may have been theirs, but the future belongs to others."

Why doesn't he just come out and say it belongs to us? Let's cut to the chase.

Anonymous said...

If Mars attacked, conservatives would be reflexively Earthist.

By the same token, if the police attacked their drug lord brother, they'd reflexively be for their brother... (NOT?)

In contrast, modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know (or in the case of profoundly liberal sci-fi movies such as Avatar, other 10-foot-tall blue space creatures they barely know).

That's not leapfrogging loyalty, it's just not loyalty in any sense (it may be altruism).

Still, it kind of half gets to the point - Avatar is, I think, about some space marine guy who lives with a foreign culture (effectively), gets to know them, and bonds with them, and dispenses with his old loyalties and devotes himself to his new people.

That's not a conservative story, because conservatives would maintain their old loyalties to the folks that they "come from" even though they aren't near to them any more. They wouldn't pick or found a new group, because that would be "disloyal". Their loyalty does not fluctuate.

Conservatives don't go through periods where they slough off old loyalties and then build new ones (that suit where they actually are in life), they just keep the old loyalties, pretty much forever, even if they don't actually match the "landscape of fact".

That doesn't mean that they're less opportunistic or use their groups less for personal gain, but they have to work within their existing "loyalties", such as they are.

Anonymous said...

The New York media can be pleased that they can now continue their ethnic cleansing of black people from Manhattan.

Obviously this will mean lots of stories attacking white europeans in other parts of the country to deflect attention from what is happening in New York.

In the meantime this is why the mass immigration promoted by globalist billionaires like Bloomberg is destroying all the western economies while enriching globalist billionaires like Bloomberg:

http://bankstastuff.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/how-mass-immigration-destroys-economy.html

Anonymous said...

"What Jonathan Haidt never quite gets across is that conservatives typically define their groups concentrically"

This is the great flaw in Republican politicians talking about other groups as being "naturally conservative."

It's true but generally speaking the more conservative they are the more hostile / distrustful they'll be towards the majority population.

DYork said...

Whiskey said...

Except Steve Bloomie does not matter any more. He can't be mayor again. He is not going to be Gov or Senator. Nor President. He has less power than Cory Booker or Ted Cruz.


Riiiiight. Because one man with $30 billion dollars!!!! is nothing compared to two relatively powerless Senators among 100 other Senators.

What's a little old man gonna do with merely.....$30 BILLION DOLLARS!!!!

ATBOTL said...

"I favor using carrots of public praise and sticks of public criticism to incline powerful men toward backing the interests of their fellow American citizens over the other interest groups clamoring for their support. "

This will have no effect. You think these people care about your concerns? The only solution is to have all of the important positions in our society held by loyal members of our own people.

That's what we are fighting for.

Anonymous said...

OT, linked from Douthat's column:

Why Casinos Matter

Ties into Steve's theme of Elite Liberation...

The 1960s: Elite Lib

Everything Steve wrote about the Sexual Revolution seems to also apply to the Casino Revolution.

Libertarians say: "Legalized gambling? A Tax on Stupidity, har har," because they don't care about low-IQ people.

(To tie back into the present post...) Bloomberg militates against fast food, but casinos cause the same type of social problem as fast food (a Tax on Stupidity from which the lower classes suffer). Yet Bloomberg does not militate against casino gambling. Why not?

Steve wrote about Elite Lib:

So, by removing social indoctrination of the masses, the post-Sexual Revolution system selects even more than the earlier system for social success by individuals who are intelligent and cold-blooded. In contrast, people of impulsive temperaments and less ability to foresee the consequences of giving into their impulses are now much more on their own with far less guidance from the culture...

After all, individualistic self-determination works fine for the upper middle class....In truth, [the 1960s cultural revolution] was for the benefit of upper middle class whites, and was very much at the expense of people farther down the social scale.

Anonymous said...

In 1096, Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows against Christians because they were capable of penetrating the plate armor worn by the aristocracy (knights).

No European knight was wearing plate armour in 1096, and for that matter, those crossbows sufficiently powerful enough to penetrate plate required a slow and cumbersome windlass to draw the string back, limiting their utility outside of the sort of well-trained and disciplined military force that could reliably protect the crossbowmen while they drew their bows.

Anonymous said...

"And the loudest screams are coming not from those whose fortunes are rising, but from those over whom the engines locomotives of history are rolling."

I'm not certain I want to imagine if one could construct a more gleefully sadistic and homicidal metaphor...

Anonymous said...

>> But on the national level it is very much dominated by ethnic Jews

Correlation is not causation. The pre-eminance of Africanos in the NBA is not due to any conspiratorial plan, but because they have genetic advantages in that field.

Similarly with the Vietnamese completely controlling the nail-salon industry.

Similarly with the Filipino-Americans dominating the US Merchant Marine manpower cadre.

In all 3 cases, it is crystal clear that no one else is "excluded" or even formally disadvantaged from entry.

A careful study of history-of-Hollywood shows that Show Biz really is quite similar to the nail-salon industry. Those who have the correct natural talents AND deliver the best samples of what the market wants.... will attain pre-emanance.

You ==had== your chance (still do, really), to create a Hollywood buit around (say for example) realistic and educational presentations of the best ways to
run a mid-size cow-calf operation in fly-over country. You never even tried to fill the niche.

Jew-dominated Hollywood liberal-shmiberal show biz exists for ONLY one reason.... the masses lap it up.

We Hebrews didn't invent bread and circuses, my friends.

Anonymous said...

Steve when you go on hiatus I wish you wouldn't make your last entry something ridiculous. I don't want Bloomberg on my side. I don't even want him on my side on a wide-bodied airliner. I don't want a single chance of looking at the scumbag.

Anonymous said...

Concentricive is not same as conservative.

Teachers in the Teachers' Union may be concentricive in serving their own interests, but the agenda they push is still anti-conservative.

Radical college professors may concentricively serve their professional and economic interests, but that doesn't make them 'conservative'.

Dave Pinsen said...

I'd known of and been impressed by Carson for a long time, but following him on Twitter (e.g.), now I wonder if there's less there than meets the eye.

That conservatives are hoping he'll run in 2016 is a triumph of hope over experience.

Harry Baldwin said...

Linsay, Kock, Gilliauni, Wagner, etc never held public office again.

What's the matter, couldn't think of a way to misspell Wagner?

Mr. Anon said...

"Whiskey said...

Except Steve Bloomie does not matter any more."

He matters far more than you or I do. Anyone with a lot of money is - by definition - NOT irrelevant. Money gives one the possibility of buying the future one desires. The outcome is never guaranteed. But he has more chance of securing a future to his liking than do we. If you do not understand that, then you are a fool. Oh, sorry,....I forgot.

Mr. Anon said...

"pat said...

The founding fathers thought to 'make the world anew'. They wanted to move to a kind of government that focused on the individual. Now we have a generation of liberals who fight to return government to the courtiers and well connected sycophants - and they call it progress.

Albertosaurus"

Interesting post, and well said. I have often thought much the same myself. Liberals always claim to be for the common man, but what really gets thier mojo goin'? Dynasties. They love the Clintons, and - boy! - do they ever love the Kennedys. The imperial Presidency was just peachy, as long as the emperor was JFK. Scratch the surface of a liberal, and you'll find a monarchist at heart.

Anonymous said...

When I could still eat marmalade the jar used to say "By Appointment to Her Majesty". This is the systems that America rejected in the revolution. Now Obama and his cohorts wants to re-institute product and services contracts to court favorites.

The founding fathers thought to 'make the world anew'. They wanted to move to a kind of government that focused on the individual. Now we have a generation of liberals who fight to return government to the courtiers and well connected sycophants - and they call it progress.


To be respond Britishly about this, was it was really about the "individual" or was about getting rid of impediments to the American-born "natural aristocracy", such as restrictions on local protectionism and expansionism?

I think natural aristocrats, who succeed on their own "merit", tend to look solely out for their interests no less than the "unnatural" kind, and no one should be too quick to give them power of any sort...

And how is pork-barrel contracting (military, etc.) by the US government a new thing from "Obama and his cohorts"?

Anonymous said...

This guy predicts that Bill de Blasio is going to destroy New York.

I wonder if Bloomberg will be pleased?

Anonymous said...

Diversity is strength! It's also: massive Medicare fraud...

http://www.miamiherald.com/static/media/projects/rogues-of-medicare-database/

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/02/3728534/stealing-medicare-blind-at-a-cost.html

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/02/3728532/fbi-tracking-down-medicare-fraud.html

Noah172 said...

In contrast, modern liberals’ defining trait is making a public spectacle of how their loyalties leapfrog over some unworthy folks relatively close to them in favor of other people they barely know

This is true as a general rule, but as with all rules, there are exceptions.

White evangelicals in the US disdain Mormons and claim to love, love, love Jews (usually without knowing any Jews or anything about Jews that isn't Zionist propaganda), even though the former group is obviously much, much closer theologically, culturally, and politically to evangelicals than the latter group.

pat said...

I don't know if it's wholesome to speculate on what would happen if Mars were to attack Earth. There is this false image of alien attack that has sold a lot of movie tickets over the years but which is deeply preposterous. Thinking seriously about such things contributes, I suspect, to poor mental health.

Spielberg just remade 'War of the Worlds'. This is the HG Wells late Victorian invasion from Mars story. In the original the Martians landed and deployed aluminum tripods which spread poison gas. When Gene Barry opposed them in the fifties their ships were no longer tripods - they floated. And they could not be brought down by simple artillery the way the ones in the books could. The new Martians had force fields. But they still landed in space ships.

Spielberg must have realized that today we would spot space ships from Mars so he had most of the Martians long buried under the Earth. But of course no one ever dug one up in thousands of years so that wasn't much of a solution.

Spielberg dropped George Pal's levitation and reverted to more original walking tripods. But the story has become too creaky now that we have all seen footage of Martian probes. There are no Martians bigger than a microbe - if there are any at all.

Most modern movies go for interstellar rather that interplanetary aliens. But that's even worse. It is not clear that humans are capable of actually ever getting to another star. Maybe we could make a machine that make the voyage but an actual human? Who knows?

In the recent Ridley Scott Sci-Fi film 'Prometheus' a team of privately funded adventurers sleep for two years to get somewhere or other. Where would that be? Proxima Centauri is more than four light years away. Assuming that the craft could manage 10% of light speed it would take more than forty years to get there assuming that that was where the 'engineers' were from. In the movie the star system was shown as being deep into some cluster - say 100 light years away or a thousand year sleep.

The simple size of space trumps interstellar empire building unless you cheat by invoking 'worm holes' or 'warp drive'.

If there were a galaxy spanning race who wanted Earth there would be no invasion - just a quick extermination. It's simple to kill all the people on Earth without firing a shot. Just drop some incurable pathogen somewhere and wait.

A germ from space that kills everyone makes a lousy movie plot but is a lot more plausible than aliens landing in LA and taking on the Marines with small arms. Or having giant saucers hover over world cities until they blow them up.

Devising a pathogen that would quickly kill all of Earth's humans should be a child's school exercise for a star spanning species.

White people currently dominate North America largely because of the smallpox virus. There's a lesson there.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

He seemed indifferent to organized Jewry on the 51 Park Place mosque,
a small - very small - element of the jewish elite sees muslims as a threat- most look as moorish spain as their' golden age' and far white christians far far far more than muslims.

The fear that those one goose step away midwestern church going christians would successfully stop a mosque would mean jews are next and its 1933, then auswitz all over again.

I didn't say it was rational.

Anonymous said...

Much of current politics can be summed up thus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkFx3TaOunA

Anonymous said...

What’s next - checkpoints into the Upper East Side?

Bloomberg prefers to use force over goodness. How can we have a good world when the Bloomberg types make the false promise that the might of government run by them will protect us from the bad guys? Does that really work for all - does that really make things better? Is meaner safer or is better safer?

If we want a good kind world - don’t we have to actually build, make, and create it? Does the high and mighty Bloomberg love his neighbors - or does he look down on them. Does he try to make things better for all, or does he try to make things better for his narrow culture and kind?

What has Bloomberg done to make things better in the areas where his troops stop and search people? What has he done to commercially develop those areas? What about schooling - what has he done to improve the schools in those areas? Or are those people just low life animals that need a STRONG hand? Why spend the 1%’s money on them, when a few shock troops will do the job?

The truth is obvious - Bloomberg loves the strong hand!

Is this proclivity to use force against others, inculcated in him by his heritage?

p.s. Besides smashing heads is easy politics. Pushing fear and dividing groups is a proven path to power. Bloomberg and company know these methods of controlling a populous all to well. (Controlling the media doesn’t hurt.)

Anonymous said...

Next thing you know, Silicon Valley will want to employ murderers and sex offenders because they are so cheap.

E. Rekshun said...

OT: NYT, 11/02/13, Boy, 9, Is Killed by S.U.V. in Brooklyn.

"A 9-year-old boy was killed and three other people were hurt when a sport utility vehicle jumped the curb at an intersection in Fort Greene, Brooklyn..."

Those damn murderous SUVs!

Anonymous said...

The great moral issue of our time.

http://youtu.be/U_CRZrytSYE?t=4m42s

Anonymous said...

If Mars attacked, conservatives would be reflexively Earthist. As Ronald Reagan pointed out to the UN in 1987, “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

Then Jerry Falwell or Jack Chick would step in, declare the alien invaders to be demons from Hell, call for a holy crusade to stop them invading the Center of the Universe, then bring upon them mass genocide.

Silver said...

Bert,
"The aging cohort of condescending white and Jewish liberals concerned about the environment and "ending racism" is on the way out. Replacing them is a ragtag group of Mexican and Asian ethnic activists, with some blacks thrown in here and there."

I don't think that being a sideshow is the role blacks were expecting for themselves. Perhaps they're expecting to be able to bully hispanics into giving them a starring role the way they did with white liberals, but surely there must be some awareness among them of how unlikely that is given the ever shrinking proportions of white democrats. It'll be very interesting to see the way it all shakes out.

Anonymous said...

all riot on the western front

Anonymous said...

>> like Bloomberg is destroying all the western economies while enriching globalist billionaires like Bloomberg


by the way, how/why are you MORE DESERVING of an additional $10,000/year of income than Bloomberg is?

What makes you such a special snowflake?

David Davenport said...

What makes you such a special snowflake?

Steve is a culturally Christian, patriotic American who doesn't have dual loyalties.

He's a spokesman and member of the American national folk community.

Bert said...

"I don't think that being a sideshow is the role blacks were expecting for themselves. Perhaps they're expecting to be able to bully hispanics into giving them a starring role the way they did with white liberals, but surely there must be some awareness among them of how unlikely that is given the ever shrinking proportions of white democrats. It'll be very interesting to see the way it all shakes out."

Oh I'm sure that's not what they're expecting, but it's exactly what they'll get. Here in California where I live, blacks have been pretty thoroughly neutered politically and demographically. Historically black neighborhoods like Watts are now majority Mexican, while in the Bay Area black areas are being gentrified by aggressive Chinese businessmen. They've been scattered to so many different places that they've voices aren't really heard anymore. There's no chance the state will ever have a black governor, and even less chance that LA will ever have another black mayor. They're even openly admitting that within the next ten years the state will not have any black congressmen.

Anonymous said...

If there were a galaxy spanning race who wanted Earth there would be no invasion - just a quick extermination. It's simple to kill all the people on Earth without firing a shot. Just drop some incurable pathogen somewhere and wait.

Or the aliens would simply use mind-control to make humans obedient slaves - as in THEY LIVE.

Anonymous said...

White evangelicals in the US disdain Mormons and claim to love, love, love Jews (usually without knowing any Jews or anything about Jews that isn't Zionist propaganda), even though the former group is obviously much, much closer theologically, culturally, and politically to evangelicals than the latter group.

The same could be said about Muslims. I suspect much of the Christo-conservative hatred towards Muslims is based on nothing more then envy. Muslims keep out unwanted immigrants, keep up their values, and raise affordable families much better than white evangelicals in the US.

Anonymous said...

I should add that Mormons, despite being technically Protestant, did jettison their dehumanizing Calvinist baggage. Evangelicals never did. And Catholics, Orthodoxes, and Muslims never had any to begin with. Neither did Jews - but Calvinism is a great tool for them to control Protestants.

Anonymous said...

>> He's a spokesman and member of the American national folk community

And Seinfeld is not? Paula Abdul is not? Commodore Levy was not?

Let's ask: how many Americans know the NAME of Steve Sailor? How many Americans would nominate him as their spokesman?

"a member of the American national folk community". What's that, a group that does exhibitions of the Texas Two-Step during State-Department-sponsored cultural visits to Mongolia?

Let's ask: this (mostly internet talk) movement to establish "Pioneering Little Europes".... do they have "dual loyalties" to Europe?



PS: I agree with 99% of the things Steve Sailor writes - and I sent him a cash donation.

Anonymous said...

> Is this proclivity to use force against others, inculcated in him by his heritage?


You mean he has Viking blood?

Anonymous said...

>> a culturally Christian

just before entering the USA, the 9/11 attackers spent time in Manila. They were receiving money from Al Quaida, and sent reports back to its HQ mentioning all the great jihad preaching they were acomplishing.

In reality (as we now know), they were hanging out in bars on del Pilar and Mabini streets, drinking lots of alcohol and shtupping lots of hookers.

So were they "culturally Christian"?

Silver said...

White people currently dominate North America largely because of the smallpox virus. There's a lesson there.


That's bullshit. Diseases certainly killed many, but had they had a mind to (and in those days that they did), whites would have dominated even without the aid of diseases.

What's the "lesson"?

Melendwyr said...

" whites would have dominated even without the aid of diseases."

The way they did in Africa? Oh, wait...

Silver said...

"The way they did in Africa? Oh, wait..."

Come off it, there were vastly fewer Indians in N. America and vastly more white settlers compared to the numbers of native blacks and white settler in Africa.

Anonymous said...

"You ==had== your chance (still do, really), to create a Hollywood"

The original Hollywood pioneers were gangstered out by people leaving New York because of the restrictions on making porn.

.

"We Hebrews didn't invent bread and circuses, my friends."

The arenas were probably invented by whoever dominated the slave trade in Rome at the time. How do you make money from slaves in a recession when no one is buying new slaves?

You make them kill each other and charge people to watch.

.

"by the way, how/why are you MORE DESERVING of an additional $10,000/year of income than Bloomberg is?"

I didn't say I was. Globalist billionaires aren't impoverishing their fellow citizens simply by being rich. They're impoverishing them through successfully advocating policies that impoverish their fellow citizens.

.

"What makes you such a special snowflake?"

Reciprocal morality.

Anonymous said...

Steve, your old buddy, Barry Ritholtz, is at it again over at Bloomberg, this time with a column titled Meet Uncle Sam, Your Partner in Crime.

Anonymous said...

" whites would have dominated even without the aid of diseases."

The way they did in Africa? Oh, wait...


Mel, the story of Africa's one of diseases killing the shit out of Whites.

It's not the absence of diseases, under which conditions you'd get something more like South Africa, which would've been more of a big deal if the Whites didn't have better places to go, like America, where they didn't have as many dumb and dangerous neighbors on the borderlands.