Steve Sailer: iSteve: "Why Are Jews Liberals?"

October 25, 2009

"Why Are Jews Liberals?"

I review Norman Podhoretz's new book here in VDARE.com.

Comment upon it below.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

207 comments:

1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»

Richard Hoste said...: To his credit, the 79-year-old Podhoretz is keeping the faith by still denouncing after all these years the racial quotas that threatened his generation of Jewish government employees. Yet it’s increasingly a non-issue for younger Jews, who have better things to do than to compete with Non-Asian Minorities for jobs like Fire Lieutenant.

As I showed in my article on law school admissions, NAMs scoring at the 70th percentile of the LSAT are getting slots over non-NAMs with scores at the 97th percentile. The only place in American society I think an ice person would reasonably expect not to be harmed by AA is in high level math and science.

(Plus, of course, there’s no sign that quotas will be imposed to keep Jewish representation in, say, Ivy League colleges down to their proportion in the population, although quotas are a zero-sum game and this unquestionably means that, for example, white Catholics are crowded out.)

So what? You can always have more.

Jews suffer from AA, NAM crime, and an education system that caters to the stupid. You're right on their anti-Christianism, but I don't agree that their interests don't to a large extent overlap with whites'.; 10/25/09, 8:57 PM
Bob said...: "the left has for the last four decades been more anti-Semitic than the right."

Listen to any mainstream right-wing media source and you see endless attacks on: lawyers, hollywood, teacher unions, New York City, professors, etc.

It's not the mainstream right hates Jews per se, they just hate all the main Jew-heavy
demographics.; 10/25/09, 9:12 PM
Bob said...: "there’s no sign that quotas will be imposed to keep Jewish representation in, say, Ivy League colleges down"

The very top schools have informal policies under the rubric of economic and geographic diversity that help white gentiles at the expense of jews.

If you are a white guy from a middle class family in Boise you are a lot more likely to get in with the same test score and GPA than the kid of a jewish banker in New York.

The problem is there just aren't all that many top scoring non-jewish whites from the sticks.; 10/25/09, 9:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Steve, i'm against Affirmative Action--as you are but ...

there are times when I cringe raeding your stuff because you do TOO MUCH WHINING about AA.

you're doing the victimization game just like the ethnics and lefties do.

considering that the beneficiaries of AA have been opressed for most of american history..

do u think u can chill out with AA rant a bit??

AA really only gives them a small boost

why begrudge them taht??

i'm against AA btw.; 10/25/09, 9:27 PM
Giant Attitude said...: I have never had much time for the neocon/paleocon struggle.

For me, liberalism has always been the primary enemy.

I am both an individual of Jewish ancestry and a reactionary nut, and my eternal shame has always been the prevalence of Jewish liberalism.

I have always been proud of my ancestry and deeply and utterly ashamed of my contemporaries.

I commend the efforts of both Norman Podhoretz and Steve Sailer to come to grips with the shame that is the prevalence of Jewish liberalism.

But I still have not much time for the paleo/neo struggle.; 10/25/09, 9:27 PM
Bob said...: Let me put it this way: if the white mean is IQ 100 and Ashk. jewish mean is 115 and the standard deviations for both is 15, then a jew is 42.5 times more likely to have an IQ of 160.

If white gentiles are 65% of the U.S. population and Ashk jews 2% then the total white population with IQ > 160 is majority Jewish.; 10/25/09, 9:28 PM
Bob said...: "Thus Jewish demonization of immigration reform patriots..."

Unfortunately "immigration reform patriots" are a group that overlaps with and does not completely disavow anti-semites.

Big Mistake.

In politics you have to pick your fights.

"Don't f-- with the Jews is good advice." It really also applies to any group with high verbal IQ: gays, indians, etc.

If you can't find anything nice to say, and you actually care about your cause, then say nothing at all. I guess your excuse is you're a journalist first and a activist second.; 10/25/09, 9:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Great column Steve - one of your best.
Can't say the same about the comments so far. Maybe some informed smart people will start commenting. The first couple sound like they follow Rev. Hagee.; 10/25/09, 10:01 PM
TGGP said...: I said some similar things to Mencius Moldbug here. In addition to Slezkine, I think Ed Glaeser gives a good explanation as to why modern urbanites are liberal.; 10/25/09, 10:08 PM
Fred said...: "Many Jews therefore view enthusiastic Christian believers—no matter how reliably they support Israel and American Jews—as enemies by definition."

This misses the mark. First, most secular Zionist Jews and religious Jews welcome the support of Evangelists for Israel. They get along fine with them. This is because they are not threatened by their proselytizing. The religious Jew is secure in his faith, and the secular Zionist Jew has his Zionism instead of faith; he barely keeps up with Jewish rituals and has no interest learning another religion's dogma.

Christianity is a tempting religion. Judaism has fast days; Christianity has feast days; Judaism has unleavened bread; Christianity has Easter chocolates, etc. Many reform and middling-religious Jews feel threatened that their children will be tempted to convert. That's not the same has being anti-Christian. Two facts belie that. 1) Jews wouldn't live in a majority Christian country if they were anti-Christian. That just wouldn't make sense. 2) 50% of Jews marry outside the faith; the vast majority of them marry Christians. Again, that wouldn't make sense if Jews were anti-Christian.

There is one group of Jews that has contempt for one group of Christians, and that is the liberal elite Jews who have contempt for Evangelists -- not because they are Christians, but because the liberal elite Jews view them as the sort of anti-rational rubes who were big enough dupes to vote for Republicans like Bush. Liberal elite non-Jews have the same contempt for these Christians, for the same reasons.; 10/25/09, 10:09 PM
RKU said...: Pretty interesting column...

I'd say that while Podhoretz may have utterly failed in his attempt to convert the Jews to Republicanism, he totally succeeded in his parallel effort to convert the Republicans to "Judaism." Which may have been the primary goal all along.

I think that when future world historians (Chinese no doubt) teach the candid history of our era, none of their students will really believe them.; 10/25/09, 10:10 PM
Giant Attitude said...: High verbal IQ, Bob?

Gay activists have been engaging in a good deal of organized violence against the Mormon Church and fundamentalist Christian churches.

For years, they've been claiming that the plight of gays in the United States is akin to the plight of the blacks -- an outrageous claim which obviously the blacks themselves haven't bought into.

Opposition to the gay rights agenda is inevitably branded as hateful and intolerant and more recently, the activists have taken to using campaign disclosure laws as a means of outing their opponents and sometimes depriving them of their livelihoods.

Those aren't the actions of people who perceive themselves as believing that they can win their battles with rapier-like wit and charm.

Anyway, even if one's opponents possessed "verbal fluency", what sense does it make to say that you shouldn't defend your principles against them?; 10/25/09, 10:16 PM
Anonymous said...: You like us. You really, really like us!

More to the point, in all of your brilliant psychoanalytical send up of the world and everything in it, how is it that you've managed to never focus your analytical eye inward towards the glaringly obvious abandonment issue you suffer from. Jews care for ALL of their own... except for little ole you. Dontcha think this might be worth a meditative moment every now and again?; 10/25/09, 10:23 PM
RKU said...: "Don't f-- with the Jews is good advice." It really also applies to any group with high verbal IQ: gays, indians, etc.

Yes, indeed! I really think it's very important for "true conservatives" not to oppose all the endless crazy wars of the Jewish activists, or the Gay Marriage policies of the gay activists, or the D.B.A. of the Indian activists.

Conservatives should focus on what are their eternal, fundamental, core-principles, namely cutting taxes on all the rich people who live in NYC and SF, and giving the national treasury to Goldman Sachs and its employees.; 10/25/09, 10:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Jews are indeed a “religious” people, but this word is not well understood today. It literally means a “binding tie” or in other words the glue that holds a group of people together and unites them with a common worldview and a common self-interest. In order to achieve this affect, stories, narratives and myths are told, often in the guise of “history.” This is the true meaning of the observation that Jews are a “religious” people, and it means that Jews are a united people with a perception of a common self-interest and a story line that is spun to both motivate group cohesion and intimidate those on the outside of their community.; 10/25/09, 10:46 PM
Whiskey said...: Steve -- All in all, a poor column because it reflects your naive and fairly unrealistic view of the world. Jews vote Democrat because Harry Truman, over great opposition from State Dept. officials, recognized Israel. While Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan were cold to hostile to Israel. Moreover, support for Israel grew among non-Jews during the cultural realignments of the 1960's. Sarah Palin is not Jewish, but like most working class White conservatives supports its existence -- because they share the same enemies. Muslims, PC nuts, White elites, and so on. Jews vote Dem because they are liberal elites, for the most part.

This is possibly one of the dumbest things you ever wrote:

"Similarly, while the Neocons demand America bomb Iran to prevent it from someday brandishing a few nuclear weapons in Israel’s direction, the government of Israel created for its people the ultimate strategic deterrent. Israel acquired five submarines from the Germans and equipped them with cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads from its sizable arsenal."
----------------
It is dumb because Iran wants to USE nukes, and once Iran gets them the world will see a global nuclear arms race, with even minor tier nations like Chile and Argentina getting them. Iran wants not to merely "brandish" nukes in Israel's direction (something you know well) but rather to wipe Israel off the map (as Iran's leadership has repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN). Not because Iran's regime just hates Jews and Israelis (they do) but to make an example of them to their immediate objective: incorporating the Gulf as a Persian Lake, and essentially reconstituting the Persian Empire, stretching from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt in the West to Saudi Arabia in the South to Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan in the East. All fueled by nuclear blackmail (it's only effective if you've demonstrated it) to create oil at $400 a barrel or higher. Nukes are Iran's Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. It's Iran's only way out of a crashing population and economy and regional threats (Pakistan, China, Turkey). Conquer or die, made worse by Shia end-times ideology.

Your intellectual blind spot like Buchanon's is Israel and Muslims. America's problem is not Jews in Israel. It is the spread of technology creating equalizers that allow shaky regimes to corner the oil in the Gulf at extortionate prices, while spreading nukes like wildfire. Insuring nukes get used to kill Western cities (eventually, the regimes there view it as a "super car bomb") and ushering in a new Dark Age of poverty and conquest. If Israel *never* existed in the first place simply substitute Jordan or Egypt for Iran's ire and the issue would be the same.

Jews are relatively unimportant in Immigration, rather as the Daily Mail article showed in Britain, it is run by elites plus women who wanted to "stick it to conservatives" by creating a multicultural nightmare. [The Irish and Celts are better and more numerous storytellers than Jews as a general rule. This is fact not stereotype. Irish literature and diaspora literature dwarfs that of Jewish/diaspora literature in size, and quality. Elite Irishmen and Celts are as much to blame for pro-"Diversity" junk as anyone else. See LA Mayor Richard Riordan and the late Frank McCourt, LA Archbishop Roger Mahony.]

As for Iraq, while it lasted it was a good example out of Saddam, in a dangerous world, where appeasement and weakness invited attack. Iraq was cheap at twice the price in casualties -- making the point that America's serious long term enemies get whacked so other nations should avoid becoming serious long term enemies of America. If Obama bombed the hell out of Iran, his poll numbers would jump upwards and he'd get his Health Care passed. He won't of course, but most Americans figure Iran has it coming and know it is their enemy for the past thirty years.; 10/25/09, 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...: “As I showed in my article on law school admissions…The only place in American society I think an ice person would reasonably expect not to be harmed by AA is in high level math and science…So what? You can always have more…Jews suffer from AA, NAM crime, and an education system that caters to the stupid. You're right on their anti-Christianism, but I don't agree that their interests don't to a large extent overlap with whites'.”

You’re missing the point Richard. Imagine that you’re Jewish. Why not throw NAMs a bone in order to get their political support for the Democratic Party which enforces the regime of political correctness which also shields you from criticism (as opposed to the Republican Party which more acquiesces than enforces and can be bought off rather cheaply in any case to only offer token resistance) and also allows you to dominate its policy agenda (look at Obama’s administration)? After all, as long as you get to compete for the “white slots” (about 65%) and get around half of them for all the real goodies (Ivies, etc.), that ain’t bad for 2% of the population. As for NAM crime and a society that caters to the stupid, if you have money you can isolate yourself from it (think gated communities and private schools). Now, on the other hand, if you had a Buchananite party with power and influence, they just might notice that you’re taking half the white slots (and riling up the NAMs) and object. Better to keep a lid on it and buy off the NAMs to fill the battalions. Keep people focused on them.; 10/25/09, 11:06 PM
The International Jew said...: Jewish liberalism is inversely proportionate to the level of Jewish religious observance.
Case in point: 78% of American Jews voted for Obama; about 20% of American Jewry is estimated to be observant/Orthodox.; 10/25/09, 11:27 PM
green mamba said...: there’s no sign that quotas will be imposed to keep Jewish representation in, say, Ivy League colleges down to their proportion in the population

This would obviously be a very extreme measure, given Jews' extraodinary intellectual achievements and their very small numbers.

Nevertheless, quotas continue to affect individual Jews negatively. If two people apply to an Ivy League school - a black and a Jewish student - and they have approximately the same test scores and academic achievements, who do you think has a better chance of getting in?; 10/25/09, 11:48 PM
Hmmm said...: "Why Do Bears Sh*t in the Woods?"; 10/26/09, 12:00 AM
Anonymous said...: There are so many things that I would like to say to Grizzlie Antagonist & Fred, but none of it would pass muster with Komment Kontrol.

BTW - GA, are you grizzled, or are you antagonizing bears which weigh upwards of half a ton?

a most tremendious looking anamal, and extreemly hard to kill notwithstanding he had five balls through his lungs and five others in various parts he swam more than half the distance across the river to a sandbar, & it was at least twenty minutes before he died; 10/26/09, 12:16 AM
Anonymous said...: You are overly impressed by Israel's five subs, Steve.

A rough rule of thumb for subs is that for every 3 you have, 1 can be on patrol at any given time. (One will be in the shipyard being repaired, and the other will be returned from patrol but ready to deploy after a short time.)

Israel needs to keep a nuclear deterrent at sea at all times. This is going to be tough with 5 subs.

Do an analysis like the one you did here. Go grab a copy of Jane's Fighting Ships from the library, and do some thinking. Pay especial attention to where Israel's subs are based, and then consider how much of a deterrent they pose to Iran, especially when you consider the range of the missiles the Israelis can deploy on their subs when compared to the location of major Iranian targets-especially since the Strait of Hormuz poses some problems for Israeli subs.

Of course, since Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet (and probably won't for a few years), the Israelis have some time to work on this. As it stands, though, I don't think their sub fleet is a terribly impressive deterrent. It is, however, a wonderful element for crisis instability.

Former Nautical Persona; 10/26/09, 2:39 AM
Svigor said...: Pseudonym-happy Int'l Man-o-Mystery:

Jews vote Democrat because Harry Truman, over great opposition from State Dept. officials, recognized Israel. While Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan were cold to hostile to Israel.

Translation: Jews vote according to Israeli interests, but are so dumb they haven't noticed that Republicans are way more pro-Israel than Democrats, and have been for decades.

but like most working class White conservatives supports its existence -- because they share the same enemies. Muslims, PC nuts, White elites, and so on. Jews vote Dem because they are liberal elites, for the most part.

This is a tough call, but I think the most preposterous of your consistent implications is that people are rational actors, all the time. The media? WTF is that? Never heard of it. Groupthink? WTF is that? Never heard of it. People don't act like herds, that would be silly...

Meanwhile, back in the real world, a news flash: the average person does not make rational decisions based on access to all the facts when it comes to political issues in which elites take interest; they pick from among the advertising campaigns targeting their demographic.

Jews vote Dem because they are liberal elites, for the most part.

And Democrats are the best choice for serving Jewish interests (Jews have pretty much molded the party, liberalism, and swippleness in their own image over the past century)

Your intellectual blind spot like Buchanon's is Israel and Muslims.

Pot, meet kettle. "Buchanan" STILL has two "a"s, and no "o."

Jews are relatively unimportant in Immigration

Naked assertion

vs.

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

Tough one.

Jews give the lion's share of the political money in this country. They're passionately interested in the immigration question. How can they POSSIBLY be "relatively unimportant" to immigration policy?; 10/26/09, 3:15 AM
Svigor said...: The best part about this subject is its absurdity (no offense intended Steve, it's a great piece). Gee, why do they do what's not in their interests? Gee, y'think maybe the problem is the premise of your question? Y'think maybe they have a better handle on their interests than you do?

"Bear sh*ts in the woods" is the proper response for politically healthy, aware folks. Unfortunately, politically healthy and aware is no longer normal.; 10/26/09, 3:23 AM
Anonymous said...: And this demonization is the single most important reason that America’s immigration disaster is still above criticism, long after it has become obvious that it is a disaster, and despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are strongly opposed to it.

I'll admit, your articles have given me a new perspective on the Jews, but you focus on them to the exclusion of other groups that are pushing our demise. What about the Catholic hierarchy? You write more than a few posts that show you are sympathetic to Catholicism and yet you seem unwilling to look at the evils of this organization in your writing on this blog.; 10/26/09, 3:39 AM
Peter A said...: No, Whiskey, Iran does not want to USE nukes. They want the capability to use them but that's it. If Israel vanished tomorrow the Middle Eastern autocracies would need to invent it, no one is going to nuke Israel.; 10/26/09, 3:44 AM
l said...: RKU said...
Pretty interesting column...

I'd say that while Podhoretz may have utterly failed in his attempt to convert the Jews to Republicanism, he totally succeeded in his parallel effort to convert the Republicans to "Judaism." Which may have been the primary goal all along.

Now that there are two political parties whose foreign policies are dictated by dual citizens, the US will never get out of the Middle East/Southwest Asia.; 10/26/09, 3:56 AM
The Anti-Gnostic said...: Whiskey,

Jews vote Democrat because Harry Truman, over great opposition from State Dept. officials, recognized Israel.

Can you bring that cutting-edge analysis to bear on why Jewish Marxists started groups like the Frankfurt school and the NAACP?; 10/26/09, 4:29 AM
Richard Hoste said...: Not because Iran's regime just hates Jews and Israelis (they do) but to make an example of them to their immediate objective: incorporating the Gulf as a Persian Lake, and essentially reconstituting the Persian Empire, stretching from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt in the West to Saudi Arabia in the South to Afghanistan, and parts of Pakistan in the East.

Wow, that's a new one! Don't forget they have scores to settle from the Roman-Persian wars.

He won't of course, but most Americans figure Iran has it coming and know it is their enemy for the past thirty years.

Most Americans can't even find Iran on a map and probably wouldn't even be able to tell you if we already invaded the country or not.

You are a very disturbed young man.; 10/26/09, 6:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Twenty two comments in a few hours. I remember when only a slim minority of posts ever got 22 comments. The blogosphere is truly a meritocracy rewarding hard work. Sadly, with the expansion of the audience there is more of that "you are so stupid" comments, guilty of it myself.; 10/26/09, 6:41 AM
Anonymous said...: "If white gentiles are 65% of the U.S. population and Ashk jews 2% then the total white population with IQ > 160 is majority Jewish."

Hm, I'm not a statistician but do I agree with this statement? An IQ of >130 corresponds to the top 2%. An IQ of 115 is the top 15% say, since appx 70% of white Americans are 100+/-15. If 70% of Jews are 115+/-15, then about 15% of Jews and 2% of white gentiles have an IQ over 130. There are about 200 million white gentiles in the US, so 4 million have an IQ over 130. There are 6 million Jews, including the Sephardi who have more normal if not subnormal average IQs, so the upper limit of Jews with IQ over 130 is say 1 million. Hence I don't buy the claim that the majority of highly gifted Americans is Jewish. This is somewhat apparent in US math departments where genius is a minimum requirement and last names run the European and Asian gamut. In the sciences where grant writing is heavily rewarded, Jewish names do indeed seem to be overrepresented.

An IQ of 130 is actually meaningful because this is the average for US college professors -- and the professoriat is only 20 - 25% Jewish so this stat in itself would appear to contradict Bob's claim (and support my estimate). It would also seem to prove that there is considerable discrimination against white gentiles at Ivy League colleges, since Jews outnumber them, but should they really care? Ivy League colleges feature fairly lousy curriculum that leave their students unprepared for the real world. Better to go to Cal Tech, MIT, Carnegie, or Pomona and learn how to design and build cool stuff then learn how to sing "Fair Harvard" in a college that these days looks like a third world minstrel show sponsored by Hillel House and the Chinese consulate.; 10/26/09, 6:51 AM
Mr. Anon said...: "Richard Hoste said...

The only place in American society I think an ice person would reasonably expect not to be harmed by AA is in high level math and science."

Unless you then actually want to get a job. An increasing number of professorships go to chinese, indians, and pakistanis (often not very good ones either), so that the university can meet its diversity quotas. White men need not apply.; 10/26/09, 7:07 AM
Mr. Anon said...: "Anonymous said...

considering that the beneficiaries of AA have been opressed for most of american history."

Yeah, Pakistanis and Mexicans have been oppressed for most of American history.

But not by America. So why are they eligible for preferences?

Do you relize that AA now applies to (potentially) tens or hundreds of millions of people, who can step off an airplane or out of the back of a truck, and claim priveledges that a white American can not?; 10/26/09, 7:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon. said

> Jews are indeed a "religious” people, but this word is not well understood today. It literally means a "binding tie" or in other words the glue that holds a group of people together and unites them with a common worldview and a common self-interest. <

Could race be such a binding tie, such as among nonreligious Jews? Or even religious?

Bob said

> If you can't find anything nice to say [about aggressors], and you actually care about your cause, then say nothing at all <

We may be criminals, perverts, and wreckers but we're better bullsh-itters, so lie still and don't scream.

Fred said

> Christianity is a tempting religion.[...] Christianity has Easter chocolates <

Fred, I laughed my a off. Thank you.

Anon. said

> Being generous at the expense of someone else is rather the opposite of being "Liberal." <

It's the quintessence of the modern political liberal. E.g. transfer programs.

The gamer formerly known as Evil Neocon said

> to wipe Israel off the map (as Iran's leadership has repeated OVER AND OVER AGAIN) <

No, you have repeated it over and over again, and many here, and elsewhere, have pointed out for you over and over again that they've said no such thing.

The International Jew said

> Jewish liberalism is inversely proportionate to the level of Jewish religious observance.
Case in point: 78% of American Jews voted for Obama; about 20% of American Jewry is estimated to be observant/Orthodox. <

That is not an inversely proportional relationship. And the categories likely overlap. And the numbers are probably fudge. International, you are talking out of the back of your neck.

Green Mamba said

> "no sign that quotas will be imposed to keep Jewish representation in, say, Ivy League colleges down to their proportion in the population" This would obviously be a very extreme measure, given Jews' extraodinary [sic] intellectual achievements and their very small numbers. <

In a polity where such "extreme measures" were allowed, these extraordinary people could start their own university which would impose a quota entirely favorable to them...but they have (an example). So why the objection when others try to do the same thing? Could it be this extraordinary, vastly superior people need the gentile dregs with their meshugga institutions, for some reason? But why would a superior people need an inferior people so badly?; 10/26/09, 7:17 AM
Giant Attitude said...: The Grizzlies in my neighborhood are a seasonal phenomena since they are only present during the spring and summer months.

They are not quite so dangerous as the grizzlies encountered by Lewis & Clark since these walk on two legs and are roughly in the 6-foot 200 pound size group.

2008 NL Cy Young Award winner Tim Lincecum was one of them for a brief period of time.; 10/26/09, 7:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Some are liberals. Some are conservatives. Some are fascists. Some are communists. Some are libertarians. Some are neocons.

But all are Jews. Which means they are for Jews first and everyone else last.; 10/26/09, 7:19 AM
Mr. Anon said...: "Bob said...

Unfortunately "immigration reform patriots" are a group that overlaps with and does not completely disavow anti-semites."

I wasn't aware that a person has no right to be an anti-semite. I understand why jews wouldn't like anti-semites, but I don't understand why I should treat them any differently than someone who doesn't like blacks, mexicans, chinese, or any other group.

And jews should consider this:
A lot of the american, british, and russian soldiers who died to defeat naziism were anti-semites - not nazis mind you, just people who exhibited a not atypical level of anti-semitism for their era. I would be willing to bet that there were more such anti-semites who fought Hitler than did jews.; 10/26/09, 7:22 AM
Self-Deception said...: "[The Irish and Celts are better and more numerous storytellers than Jews as a general rule. This is fact not stereotype. Irish literature and diaspora literature dwarfs that of Jewish/diaspora literature in size, and quality. Elite Irishmen and Celts are as much to blame for pro-"Diversity" junk as anyone else. See LA Mayor Richard Riordan and the late Frank McCourt, LA Archbishop Roger Mahony.]"

Yes! I knew it! It's those godd*mn Irish!

All those gregarious, drunk Irishmen in pubs are waging ideological warfare and taking over the world, one story at a time!

And no, those "elite Irishmen and Celts" like Riordan, McCourt, and Mahony aren't just flunkies enforcing the line devised and imposed by their betters and superiors. They're running everything now!

Tammany not only lives on, but it has gone national and international, baby!; 10/26/09, 7:30 AM
Mercer said...: "But with border control unthinkable, the best plan they’ve come up with so far for persuading Muslims hotheads to not come over here and kill us is to elect President a black guy with the middle name of "Hussein"."

Great line. I will use this the next time I argue with someone who is strongly pro war and for open borders.; 10/26/09, 7:37 AM
Fred said...: "If we mean by Liberalism that a group is generous at its own expense, then Jews don’t appear very Liberal."

From a previous thread: Jews make ~25% of the American charitable donations of over $10 million. 90% of those large charitable donations made by Jews go to non-Jewish charities.

Most Jews donate their money to universal, not Jewish organizations and causes (e.g., such as hospitals, medical centers, non-Jewish universities, etc.):

"Two studies, both conducted in recent years but with different methodologies, show that Jewish philanthropists contribute the overwhelming majority of their dollars to universal, rather than Jewish, organizations and causes. In 1998, professor Jack Wertheimer studied the 232 foundations in America that self-identified as giving at least $200,000 to Jewish causes. He found that even these foundations gave nearly two-thirds of their annual funding, $487 million, to non-sectarian causes. Similarly, a 2003 report by Dr. Gary Tobin and colleagues at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research examined the 865 philanthropic gifts of $10 million or more made by all American donors between 1995 and 2000. While nearly 25 percent (188 gifts totaling $5.3 billion) were made by Jews, the Jewish mega-givers made fewer than 10 percent of their gifts to Jewish or Israeli organizations."

"There are so many things that I would like to say to Grizzlie Antagonist & Fred, but none of it would pass muster with Komment Kontrol."

Steve has a pretty liberal comment policy, but if you still feel constrained by it, perhaps you can write your more objectionable comment elsewhere and link to it via your comment here. Or perhaps you can rephrase it in a way that makes your point but is less hostile? Give it a try. I'd hate to see a voice such as yours silenced.; 10/26/09, 8:21 AM
David Blue said...: From time to time I run into something that changes my mind. That VDARE piece changed my mind.

I remain a very strong supporter of Israel, philosemitic, and entirely hostile to antisemites. But that is seriously troubling stuff.

Maybe being philosemitic is a bit like being Russophile. Yes, all that stuff about the greatness of Russian culture, history and so on holds up, but in the end the evidence suggests that the Russians aren't inclined to be our friends anyway, and rational policy-making is obliged to take Russian anti-Americanism into account. Sometimes it's not whether you like people that matters most, but whether they like you, and what policies they are inclined to support, and the practical effect of those policies.; 10/26/09, 8:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Norman Pod has it wrong of course, in that Jews aren’t Liberals at all. If we mean by Liberalism that a group is generous at its own expense, then Jews don’t appear very Liberal. Being generous at the expense of someone else is rather the opposite of being “Liberal.”
bingo. In group/outgroup strategy as alid out by Prof. MacDonald.; 10/26/09, 8:38 AM
Wow said...: Whiskey,

Your comment was such an impressive, awesome display of self-deception, dissimulation, cognitive dissonance, ignorance, and outright lying that you've now successfully joined the ranks of luminaries like "Truth."

You two are like partners in a buddy movie or something - Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon.; 10/26/09, 8:46 AM
Anonymous said...: "Nevertheless, quotas continue to affect individual Jews negatively. If two people apply to an Ivy League school - a black and a Jewish student - and they have approximately the same test scores and academic achievements, who do you think has a better chance of getting in?"

Nah, the Ivy will take both the black and the Jew and just reject a white gentile with similar scores (unless he can play football or lacrosse for them).

BTW, Bob, you assume that IQ is perfectly normally distributed. It's only approximately so. When you start making predictions 3 or 4 sigma from the mean, you start to get less acccurate.; 10/26/09, 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Very interesting post.

According to the graph, the Republican presidential candidates who did best with Jewish voters were Eisenhower and Reagan. These men were both conservative hard-line anti-communist nationalists without strong religious identification. Is that the type of Republican with whom Jews feel most comfortable?

-Black Death; 10/26/09, 8:48 AM
Anonymous said...: "Unfortunately "immigration reform patriots" are a group that overlaps with and does not completely disavow anti-semites."

Good point. Jews would never approve of someone who does not completely disavow anti-Semites. Especially someone who attended a church for 20 years where the pastor regularly mouths off about Jews.; 10/26/09, 8:54 AM
Dutch Boy said...: Whiskey should stick to his namesake and forsake the Neo-Con Koolaid.; 10/26/09, 9:04 AM
mark said...: Is it possible to give an article an A+ rating, yet still wish for a slightly greater precision, in at least one respect? I'm referring to Sailer's statement: "Podhoretz more or less implies that Judaism is, in essence, a faith focused upon one lineage, a religion of race."

Here's my problem: "faith" is used in a less than precise manner. The classic Christian idea of faith is that of "reasonable belief." If you don't believe me, read the New Testament. The point is, how does one have "faith" in "lineage" or "race"? What's going on here is an illustration of how Judaism has actually been influenced by some strands of Christianity, to the extent of borrowing vocabulary. As for many Protestants, however, "faith" is used as a defensive term: faith is not susceptible to reasoned discourse from outside the particular faith tradition, THEREFORE, well mannered people should not talk about their own faith to members of another faith--especially if we're talking about Christians and Jews. It's a personal thang, not a matter of reasoned belief. So back off.

In reality, Judaism is, as Sailer says, focused on lineage and race, which is to say, it is tribal in nature, an ethnic identity and way of life. Christian faith is a reasoned belief in the historicity of the claims of Jesus. As Michael Medved says in his remarkably incisive and frank comments re Jewish identity in the context of comments re Podhoretz' book (Sailer links to Medved's comments - find the link and read Medved), one can be a Jew and yet consider the premonarchical scriptures of Israel (Abraham, the Patriarchs and their covenants, the Exodus, the Conquest) as what they are: foundational myths of an ethnic, tribal grouping - not historical narratives. I mean, who would seriously believe that God came to Abraham out of the blue and offered Abraham a real estate contract by which Abraham and his descendants would cut off the foreskins from their penises in exchange for title in perpetuity to certain vaguely described Middle Eastern real estate? I could go on, but these sorts of narrative are patently foundational myth, not terribly different in form from the foundational myths of other tribes. This sort of thing is pefectly susceptible of rational enquiry, as is the question of whether the early Christian narratives differ from foundational myth (my considered view is that they do).

Sailer obviously has a pretty good handle on Jewish identity. My point is that by using the term "faith" to describe a tribal reality, the precise nature of Jewish identity is obscured. For example, Sailer and Medved's focus on what Sailer calls "anti-Christianism" is best explained not as a matter of faith--Medved in particular makes it clear that that is simply not an adequate explanation--but as hostility to traditional enemies of one's tribe, enmity for those who pose "a threat to the very essence of our Jewish identity." These are the words of Medved, who also speaks in the same context of the Jewish view of Christians as "enemies by definition," of "[t]he anti-Christian obsessions of American Jews," their propensity to vote against "causes and factions they loathe and fear." Tribal identity, not "faith" as traditionally understood, is the best explanation for this.

Anyway, A+.; 10/26/09, 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: "considering that the beneficiaries of AA have been opressed for most of american history.."

Wrong. Today's beneficiaries were largely born after Jim Crow laws were repealed, and even after 1964 Civil Rights laws. These beneficiaries are taking the jobs that would go to Whites born, also, after 1964 who NEVER had anything to do with the oppression of anybody. Just the opposite. They've been browbeaten since kindergarten with political correctness.
Why should young people be punished for something that went on in Granddad's day?
Or are you one of those nuts who believes "the sins of the father shall be visited upon the son"? Inherited guilt? Really?; 10/26/09, 9:23 AM
mark said...: Since the topic of Jewish IQ keeps coming up, it may be worth noting that, past the 85th percentile, there is no correlation between actual creativity and productivity and IQ. My father was for years on the graduate admissions committee for the psychology department at a very large university, and he said they kept coming up against that issue: applicants who had superior test scores but were duds in most other respects, as opposed to applicants with slightly lower test scores but the promise of real scholarly productivity. The temptation, of course, was for universities to pad their admission stats by going for the highest scoring applicants.

Medved's comments--the comments of one who attended Yale law, the most elite of elite law schools--also raise the issue of the wisdom of stocking elite educational institutions with persons drawn from a grouping with a deep seated hostility (his words) toward most of the rest of this country. That is not a recipe for social harmony, as compare Slezkine's account as well.; 10/26/09, 9:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Let me put it this way: if the white mean is IQ 100 and Ashk. jewish mean is 115 and the standard deviations for both is 15, then a jew is 42.5 times more likely to have an IQ of 160.

Even if we grant that all of your "if's" are correct, it's meaningless. People with IQ's of 160 have little to no impact on the worlds of politics and culture.

The Steveosphere tricks itself into believing otherwise because it thinks that IQ is vastly more significant than it actually is.; 10/26/09, 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Whiskey writes:

This is possibly one of the dumbest things you ever wrote

and then goes on to cut-and-paste his usual inane screed.

Whiskey, you're a spambot.; 10/26/09, 9:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Unfortunately "immigration reform patriots" are a group that overlaps with and does not completely disavow anti-semites.

So? The "open borders zealots" are a group which overlaps with and does not completely disavow anti-semites.

Some of you are casting about frantically for excuses for Jewish anti-whiteness. But they don't do what they do out of fear of "anti-semites", they do it in spite of such fears.; 10/26/09, 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Steve, could you source that Disraeli quote about D. O'C. I'm pretty sure he was speaking to someone else. How about that reading list?; 10/26/09, 9:48 AM
Anonymous said...: It's not the mainstream right hates Jews per se, they just hate all the main Jew-heavy
demographics.

Amazingly enough, all the main Jew-heavy demographics are intensely cultually left-wing, and frequently are also intensely fiscally left-wing. Which is to say, they hate the "right" with a passion.

It would take a Jew to pretend that opposition to the left-wing Jewish agenda constitutes "anti-semitism", which the poor Jews have no choice both to defend themselves against.

Here's a news flash for you. If Jews stopped trying to destroy the country, 99% of the supposed "anti-semitism" would vanish overnight.

It's the stupid and destructive things they do which people dislike, not their genes.; 10/26/09, 9:51 AM
Mark said...: Nevertheless, quotas continue to affect individual Jews negatively. If two people apply to an Ivy League school - a black and a Jewish student - and they have approximately the same test scores and academic achievements, who do you think has a better chance of getting in?

Neither. They will both get accepted. The quota spot will be taken from a conservative white Mormon from Idaho.

because the liberal elite Jews view [evangelicals] as the sort of anti-rational rubes who were big enough dupes to vote for Republicans like Bush. Liberal elite non-Jews have the same contempt for these Christians, for the same reasons. - Fred

Anti-rational rubes because, among other things, they don't believe in evolution. Because we all know that liberals are hard-core believers in evolution - except that they believe that some mystical force came into being 50,000 years ago and stopped evolution in its tracks, at least as it applies to human beings.

BTW, Fred - "evangelical" and "evangelist" are two very different things.; 10/26/09, 10:25 AM
stari_momak said...: Steve, love ya man, but please please let Brimelow used the blue pencil a little more.; 10/26/09, 11:11 AM
airtommy said...: Jews vote Democrat because Harry Truman, over great opposition from State Dept. officials, recognized Israel.

The State Department looked at the Middle East in terms of American interests, and thus they logically concluded that we should not recognize Israel. Truman, on the other hand, made his decision based on a different criterion: He had received a massive infusion of cash from Zionist Jews when his Presidential campaign was at rock bottom.; 10/26/09, 11:17 AM
not a hacker said...: The key to this issue is in understanding what Richard Hoste does not, i.e. that when you are even moderately successful(well short of a mil. per yr.), you have almost no contact with NAM's, and thus no acquaintance with the high probability of violence that ensues from rubbing up against them. Given this insulation, the temptation to cast blacks as the mascots for your sense of chivalry is nearly irresistible. Jews vote Dem. because that's the party of charity toward blacks. Jews know that absent the largesse the Dems ladel out, blacks would just sink. Someone should find out what percentage of public defenders and crim. defense attorneys are jewish.; 10/26/09, 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "Jews will do fine when they compete openly in the marketplace of ideas. They don’t have to rig the market as well."

Yeheidel! What would Bernie Madoff, and thousands like him, do for babes if they didn't rig the market?!?; 10/26/09, 1:32 PM
albertosaurus said...: Jews are about a standard drviation smarter than other whites. Blacks are about a standard deviation dumber.

There are a lot of differences among those three groups in terms of accomplishment and crime. This shouldn't surprise anyone who understands IQ.

The liberal attachment of Jews however doesn't seem to follow this pattern. We know that liberals are not more intelligent than conservatives. Political affilaition is apparently independent of intelligence. So the connection of Jews to liberalism is somehow a function of the group's personality.

That is to say it's a mystery.

Some parts of political preference are easy to explain - trial lawyers support Democrats and insurance companies support Republicans. Similarly there are interest differences in management versus labor and landlord versus tenant. But most of political alignment is hard to trace to some simple rational difference.

I speculate that it is due to inborn neurological differences which may be genetic or environmental (infectious). Cochran and Harpening have argued persuatively that male homosexuality is probably caused by an infection. They have also pointed out that Ashkenazi Jews have a number of genetic diseases that seem to correlate with their high IQs.

Maybe the Jewish brain has three differences - high IQ, Jewish diseases, and liberalism.; 10/26/09, 1:38 PM
Udolpho.com said...: Great article.; 10/26/09, 1:52 PM
Tim said...: Brute facts will force a conversation on immigration. WSJ is publishing editorials every week on Obama's big spending but is silent on the reason for the big spending. WSJ is living in a fairyland in which the latin americanization of the population will not lead to a latin americanization of the economy.; 10/26/09, 2:12 PM
Anonymous said...: The ability to understand that cooperation results in a bigger pie is positively correlated with intelligence (or perhaps the ability to think abstractly - same thing?). That is one (very small) reason that Jews are collectivist. Apart,we are five fingers, the most commonly broken bone in the body. Together, we are a fist. Smart people get that. Dumb people don't. Life is a team sport. It's rare, frankly, that I empathize with Jews but as a high IQ individual I can empathize with the Jews on this one and understand their frustration at other people who don't get this.

"If it's good for Jews", right? Well since they put themselves in an adversarial position with the population they dwell amongst, and since one's adversary's adversary is one's friend, then logically if it is bad for gentiles, Jews will support it.; 10/26/09, 2:30 PM
col said...: AA doesn't really affect Jewish people - well not any more since the early 1900's. Their disproportionate enrollment numbers in the 1920's at certain Ivy League schools worried admission officials that they began to include things like essays and character evaluations in their admissions process in order to increase the population of moneyed WASP types.; 10/26/09, 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do doctors in the Houston, Texas area want to give $$ to Nancy Pelosi when she came to Houston earlier this fall?

Maybe to cut them a special deal so as not to get screwed?

List here.

http://www.ktrh.com/pages/ObamacareDoctors.html; 10/26/09, 3:15 PM
Steve Sailer said...: "You are overly impressed by Israel's five subs, Steve."

Yes, and that's why they are buying a sixth.

And if the government of Israel thought they really needed more, they'd get more.; 10/26/09, 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: I for one welcome our new "Irish and Celt" storytelling overlords.; 10/26/09, 3:43 PM
Fred said...: Mark,

"Anti-rational rubes because, among other things, they don't believe in evolution. Because we all know that liberals are hard-core believers in evolution - except that they believe that some mystical force came into being 50,000 years ago and stopped evolution in its tracks, at least as it applies to human beings."

I agree that the liberal elite (Jewish and non-Jewish) view isn't rational or consistent, particularly WRT evolution. They are, as Saletan wrote before he was intimidated into semi-recanting, 'liberal creationists', or Darwinists from the neck down.

"BTW, Fred - "evangelical" and "evangelist" are two very different things."

Right, sloppy mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction.; 10/26/09, 3:51 PM
Anonymous said...: There are a lot of differences among those three groups in terms of accomplishment and crime. This shouldn't surprise anyone who understands IQ.

The liberal attachment of Jews however doesn't seem to follow this pattern. We know that liberals are not more intelligent than conservatives. Political affilaition is apparently independent of intelligence.

No, it is independent of IQ. As is intelligence.; 10/26/09, 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Israel needs to keep a nuclear deterrent at sea at all times. This is going to be tough with 5 subs.

You don't need subs to have a nuclear deterent. In fact that is a rather expensive way of going about it.; 10/26/09, 3:57 PM
slave to the Irish/Celt ruling class said...: BTW, Whiskey is absolutely correct regarding the elite Irish and Celtic rulers who have slowly but surely taken over the globe despite their predilection for song and drink, their short tempers, and their general lack of intrigue and Machiavellian intelligence. They have compensated by forging tight alliances with small, magical, gnome like creatures with access to hidden pots of gold.

Evidence of Irish and Celtic rule over the globe was discovered in Alabama:

Leprechaun in Mobile, Alabama; 10/26/09, 3:57 PM
David Blue said...: There's a lot of crazy anti-Jewish things being said in this thread, and in retrospect Steve's original post looks less good than it did.

The Jews are not trying to destroy America.

The problem with the Jews is that a liberal Jew is a liberal. That's all.; 10/26/09, 4:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I for one welcome our new "Irish and Celt" storytelling overlords.

All hail Barry O'Bama!; 10/26/09, 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Israel has Subs so that their nuclear threat is survivable from any attempt to attack the land based nukes they have (courtesy of the US government).

I think the Germans gave most of the subs to Israel for free, and US government aid more than makes up for whatever cost Israel might have had to bear for the subs.; 10/26/09, 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Steve has a pretty liberal comment policy, but if you still feel constrained by it, perhaps you can write your more objectionable comment elsewhere and link to it via your comment here. Or perhaps you can rephrase it in a way that makes your point but is less hostile? Give it a try. I'd hate to see a voice such as yours silenced.

It's nothing objectionable [unless maybe you were some sort of a fundamentalist talmudist].

Just wanted to try to carry on a conversation with you guys.

But on a good day about 50% of my comments make it through [on a bad day, anywhere from 0% to 33%], so I've kinda given up on the idea of making any substantive points around here.; 10/26/09, 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: The Jews are not trying to destroy America.

Can you elaborate on that?; 10/26/09, 4:21 PM
Dahlia said...: Steve,
I thought this was an extremely good article and I'm someone who shares Lawrence Auster's criticisms of the anti-Semitism on the Right. It was very honest and in good faith; it seems correct to me.

"...how is it that you've managed to never focus your analytical eye inward towards the glaringly obvious abandonment issue you suffer from. Jews care for ALL of their own... except for little ole you. Dontcha think this might be worth a meditative moment every now and again?"

Have you no shame? There was absolutely no need for such hatred. Steve is a national treasure and deserves more respect than he's been getting.; 10/26/09, 4:22 PM
general torpor said...: "Tammany not only lives on, but it has gone national and international, baby!"

Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed were not Irish. They reigned (1860s-1870s) before the Catholic Irish were a political force. Tammany Hall was home-grown.; 10/26/09, 4:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Israel has Subs so that their nuclear threat is survivable from any attempt to attack the land based nukes they have

That's silly, unless Israel expects to get involved in a nuclear war with China or Russia. Or some other country capable of allocating one nuke for every ten square miles of the country.; 10/26/09, 4:51 PM
tommy said...: Listen to any mainstream right-wing media source and you see endless attacks on: lawyers, hollywood, teacher unions, New York City, professors, etc.

Listen to lawyers, Hollywood, teacher unions, New York City, and professors and you'll hear nothing but contempt for middle America.; 10/26/09, 5:08 PM
Peter A said...: Political affiliation is apparently independent of intelligence.

Of course it is, as two seconds reflection should tell you. People's political beliefs reflect what are in their best interests, often narrowly defined. Very few people really have consistently thought out political beliefs that they follow uncompromisingly. For most of the 20th century Jews and other intelligent immigrant groups saw liberal/Democratic policies as the best way to break up the entrenched interests of the WASP elite. Who/whom in other words.; 10/26/09, 5:39 PM
tommy said...: OT.

More evidence our military no longer exists to fight wars:

Some shore commands in the Norfolk, Va., area report that up to 34 percent of their billets are filled by pregnant sailors, and commanders are complaining about a “lack of proper manning to conduct their mission,” according to a Naval Inspector General report.

Another triumph of feminism.; 10/26/09, 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed were not Irish. They reigned (1860s-1870s) before the Catholic Irish were a political force. Tammany Hall was home-grown.

Yeah, but Tammany Hall became heavily Irish by the 1870s and was that way for some time.; 10/26/09, 6:24 PM
Unknown said...: David:

In a polity where such "extreme measures" were allowed, these extraordinary people could start their own university which would impose a quota entirely favorable to them...but they have (an example)

Yeshiva University, I assume, is for traditional, religious Jews. There are also Christian theological universities. Most universities are not specialized or restricted in this way, nor should they be.

So why the objection when others try to do the same thing?

I object to AA university admissions for the same reason most on this site do: because they're unfair, favoring people who are not qualified over people who are, based on race.

I don't care if religious Jews or Mormons or whoever want to set up their own universities.

Kudos for pointing out my mis-typing of "extraordinary" as "extraodinary", btw. I must have slipped Odin in there due to my Scandinavian admixture.; 10/26/09, 6:35 PM
green mamba said...: but even with a 722 a white guy (Jewish or non-Jewish) probably wouldn't get in, because that average includes a significant number of women and minorities, few of whom probably scored higher than 650 on the test.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread and I have personal experience of it. Most of the posters here, however, seem to think there is active discrimination in favor of Jews when it comes to university admissions. I doubt this is the case. Jews are considered white and often cannot even be identified as Jews by their last names. Those who are not well above the average for admission get crowded out along with all the other whites.; 10/26/09, 6:45 PM
rec1man said...: Jews compete with white people
for the white quota, whereas Indians and Chinese compete for the Asian quota

To get into the Ivy league colleges, a white or jewish person needs 1460 on the SAT, whereas an Indian or Chinese guy needs 1600 SAT; 10/26/09, 6:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Only a small minority of Jews score so highly that they are beyond being handicapped by AA.

That point tends to get lost on this board, where many seem to think of all Jews as being gigantic disembodied brains.

Many Jews are prone to this delusion as well.; 10/26/09, 7:03 PM
Anonymous said...: The Irish and Celts are better and more numerous storytellers than Jews as a general rule.

I dunno, Whiskey, you spin a pretty good yarn yourself. Not a believable one, mind you, but it's sure entertaining.; 10/26/09, 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Fred is wrong (again) and note that Israel gets plenty of money from American taxpayers to pay for the minimal cost of the final sub shared with the Germans:

From a September 29, 2009 AFP news report:

Germany, which believes it has a historic responsibility to help Israel because of the mass murder of Jews in World War II, donated the first two submarines after the 1991 Gulf War.

It split the cost of the third with the Jewish state.

MORE FOLLOWS, SAME SOURCE:

"We have received two Dolphin-class submarines built in Germany," he said, on condition of anonymity.
The submarines, called U212s, can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, although when it confirmed the sale in 2006 the German government said the two vessels were not equipped to carry nuclear weapons.
The subs were ordered in 2005 and delivery was initially expected in 2010.
Including the two new ones, Israel has five German submarines -- the most expensive weapon platforms in Israel's arsenal.
Germany, which believes it has a historic responsibility to help Israel because of the mass murder of Jews in World War II, donated the first two submarines after the 1991 Gulf War.
It split the cost of the third with the Jewish state.
According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the U212s are designed for a crew of 35, have a range of 4,500 kilometres (2,810 miles) and can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads.
Israeli media have written that the Dolphin submarine could be key in any attack on arch-foe Iran's controversial nuclear sites.
An Israeli submarine recently used the Suez Canal for the first time in June, escorted by Egyptian navy vessels, in what Israeli media said was intended as a message to Iran.
Widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel suspects Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran denies.; 10/26/09, 7:38 PM
none of the above said...: At a guess, some large part of Jewish liberalism is a result of being a mostly urban population. Urbanites tend to be more liberal on various issues.; 10/26/09, 8:01 PM
TGGP said...: Jews vote Democrat because Harry Truman, over great opposition from State Dept. officials, recognized Israel.
I like to hold out for criticism, Whiskey, but usually for making bold statements in the absence of evidence. This is a statement in bold defiance of basic logic and evidence already presented in graph form in Steve's article. Jewish support for Dems DROPPED in the Truman/Eisenhower years. As Steve began his article noting, Jewish support for the Dems was as high in 1928 as it is today.; 10/26/09, 8:07 PM
Fred said...: "Fred is wrong (again)"

Thanks for the correction about the submarines. I prefaced that statement with an "I believe" because I wasn't sure of the facts on the submarine deal. Thanks for taking the time to look them up.; 10/26/09, 8:32 PM
RKU said...: The Irish and Celts are better and more numerous storytellers than Jews as a general rule.
...
I dunno, Whiskey, you spin a pretty good yarn yourself. Not a believable one, mind you, but it's sure entertaining.

Ha, ha! Well, naturally so, after all Evil Neocon a.k.a. Testing99 a.k.a. Whiskey keeps telling us he's a "Scots-Irishman." I suppose he must be one of those notorious "self-hating" Scots-Irishmen.

There's an old saying that "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog." However, it isn't quite true. Certain behavioral traits are nearly as distinctive as DNA.

It's also amusing how he keeps changing his name every now and then, presumably to provide additional concealment.

Ha, ha, ha...; 10/26/09, 9:16 PM
Bob said...: Responding to a few points (easier to do if people would pick a fake name rather than anon!):

My math saying that an Ashkenazim is 42.5 more likely than a gentile to have a 160 IQ is correct, the question is whether the assumptions are. The AshJ mean of 115 I think is pretty solid, but being a less diverse group they probably have a lower SD. The general point still stands, however, that at the very far right of the IQ curve is very very Jewish.

Second, sorry if you don't believe me that Jews are slightly discriminated against compared to gentiles in ivy admissions, but it is simply the case.

White gentiles are more likely to add economic and geographic diversity, more likely to be #1 in their HS class, and more likely to get athletic and music bonuses.; 10/26/09, 9:18 PM
Bob said...: Defending my point that paleos need to get their priorities straight and do a better job of choosing their enemies:

1. You don't need discuss Jews to oppose middle east wars. In fact doing so turns people off and weakens your argument. Funny Obama managed to vote against the war and run against it without attacking Jews. Funny the most effective anti-Wall Street congressman is the jew Alan Grayson.

2. To even consider wasting time and political capital on the meaningless issue of gay marriage when the country is hurtling towards demographic disaster is incredibly puerile and bigoted.

Looking over to Europe, the two most successful anti-immigration parties were actually led by a gay and a bisexual (Pim Fortuyn and Jorg Haider). In each case their parties were actually part of the ruling coalition and put into effect strong restrictions.

By contrast, over in the UK the anti-Semitic and anti-gay BNP is a joke that has never elected a single MP and gets 1 or 2% of the vote.

Young people are the most hurt by immigration but they are not going to vote for a party that focuses on cramming retrograde fuddy-duddy Christian morality down their throats.; 10/26/09, 9:31 PM
Mark said...: White gentiles are more likely to add economic and geographic diversity, more likely to be #1 in their HS class, and more likely to get athletic and music bonuses.

Non-Jews are more likely than Jews to get music bonuses? Sorry, but no.

And hate to break it to you, pal, but there are plenty of Jews in Aspen, Colorado, Park City, Utah, and Ketchum, Idaho ready and willing to qualify for those "geographic diversity" slots.; 10/26/09, 9:35 PM
Mark said...: To even consider wasting time and political capital on the meaningless issue of gay marriage when the country is hurtling towards demographic disaster is incredibly puerile and bigoted.

Bullshit. What is gay marriage about? Two dudes marrying each other.

But what is it really about? About the use and abuse of power by the establishment to foist it's values on the rest of us without our consent. Gay marriage in most states has been forced on the people by judges. If judges can get away with that, without our uttering a peep, they can get away with things like declaring immigration enforcement un-Constititutional (which they already have, to some degree).; 10/26/09, 10:05 PM
Fred said...: "The anti-rational balck and mestizo rubes tend to be uneducated, unemployed, and frequently in trouble with the law."

From liberal elites' perspectivs, blacks and Hispanics are a lot more rational than the white rubes. After all, the blacks and Hispanics vote Democratic, right? Democrats are the party of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; since most blacks and hispanics are poor, it's rational for them to vote Dem, as the liberal elites see it. The way the liberal elites see it, it would be rational for the white rubes to vote Dem too, because many of them are poor or at least economically insecure. But the GOP gets their votes by playing on their religiosity and their nationalism, getting them riled up about gay marriage, school prayer, or wars on terror.

"So in a word, hate. It's an odd sort of hate coming from an ethnic group sitting so pretty, but genetically engrained traits die hard."

And yet half of all Jews marry non-Jews, and in almost all cases these non-Jews are Christians. How do you reconcile that with the "genetically engrained [sic]" hate for Christians you allege we have?

Your insight about the oddness of hate coexisting with success is a good one. Those who are successful generally are not haters, you're right about that. You should perhaps turn the light of this insight on yourself. Might your (dare I say it?) hate for Jews be partly fueled by your own self pity?; 10/26/09, 10:15 PM
The International Jew said...: David -

My assertion of inverse proportionality was not meant as a statement scientific exactitude.

But since you brought it up, I'd like you to point me toward a few online Orthodox Jewish bloggers who support Obama. Oh, and vehement anti-Zionist lefties who lamely try to lend credence to their positions by claiming Orthodoxy don't really qualify, but I'll accept those, as well.

Shouldn't be too difficult, right?; 10/26/09, 10:20 PM
RKU said...: My math saying that an Ashkenazim is 42.5 more likely than a gentile to have a 160 IQ is correct, the question is whether the assumptions are. The AshJ mean of 115 I think is pretty solid, but being a less diverse group they probably have a lower SD. The general point still stands, however, that at the very far right of the IQ curve is very very Jewish.

I'd say an Ashk Jewish IQ=115 is a little high, but not by that much.

But here's a fascinating, massively under-reported detail. There's some evidence that the IQ of American white Episcopalians is actually *higher* than that of American Jews. And there are millions of white Episcopalians.

This may or may not be significant. It all depends whether the Episcopalian IQ is Gaussian or not. There are obviously also behavioral and cultural traits to consider.

But depending upon these open questions, it may render the massive and supposedly "meritocratic" overrepresentation of Jews at elite institutions, let alone in the media and Hollywood extraordinarily suspicious...

Here's a somewhat related point. I've seen some data that the overrepresentation of homosexuals at Harvard and Yale (and obviously in the media and Hollywood) is extraordinarily high, perhaps approaching that of Jewish overrepresentation. Yet there's not the slightest evidence that homosexuals have higher IQ. So the gigantic overrepresentation must be due to some other, totally "mysterious" factor...; 10/26/09, 10:23 PM
Anonymous said...: Ha, ha! Well, naturally so, after all Evil Neocon a.k.a. Testing99 a.k.a. Whiskey keeps telling us he's a "Scots-Irishman." I suppose he must be one of those notorious "self-hating" Scots-Irishmen.

Yeah, I think the (Scotch-Irish) jig is finally up.

He's probably about as Scotch-Irish as George Takei is.

The only Scotch-Irish in California are living in trailer parks in Victorville and Bakersfield. They probably don't even have internet access.

I used to take Whiskey's comments half seriously, until Roissy called him out on his act.; 10/26/09, 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...: "Unfortunately "immigration reform patriots" are a group that overlaps with and does not completely disavow anti-semites.

Big Mistake.

In politics you have to pick your fights.

"Don't f-- with the Jews is good advice." It really also applies to any group with high verbal IQ: gays, indians, etc."

Why, because they can whine very eloquently? I think you're the guy who's always lecturing Steve on the proper Machiavellian strategy to pursue in achieving immigration reform: ostracize the anti-Semites, the gay-bashers, and I guess the Indian-bashers now (so...no more complaining about H1B visas? Or...what are you actually saying?)

Yeah, so who actually executes this purge, and how, and even more importantly who does that leave? You and about twelve other people? If Steve wakes up after reading one of your posts and says "hey, wait, I need to start spouting namby-pamby pc bull---- about gays and Jews so they won't hate me anymore!" the only tangible result will be a smaller readership for isteve.

The more basic problem is that ideologies do always have an underlying logic. The motive force behind immigration opponents is resentment, of a minority that they see the elites preferring over themselves, and aiding at their own expense. That exact same resentment is what many of them feel for gays and Jews. Do you think immigration opponents should abstemiously train themselves not to follow through the logic that would lead them to resent Jews and gays, and only apply it to the special case of immigration...presumably because that particular case is more important to YOU? Or do you think we should scrap the whole bunch of current immigration opponents, nutjobs that they are, and replace them with a group of concerned, high-minded, homo-loving immigration opponents who are not motivated by something so base as resentment, but instead perhaps by...a desire to maximize GDP? Yes, that would do it. That's the stuff that gets a crowd storming the barricades.; 10/26/09, 10:30 PM
Truth said...: "Your comment was such an impressive, awesome display of self-deception, dissimulation, cognitive dissonance, ignorance, and outright lying that you've now successfully joined the ranks of luminaries like "Truth.""

Hey Tee, it looks like you've arrived.; 10/26/09, 10:45 PM
Svigor said...: Hm, I'm not a statistician but do I agree with this statement?

I'll try my take on it again:

Are Jews Smarter? by Jennifer Senior

Cochran and Harpending also cite studies claiming that Ashkenazim have the highest IQ of any ethnic group for which there’s reliable data, perhaps as much as a full standard deviation above the general European average, which means, at the far end of the spectrum, that 23 per thousand Ashkenazim have an IQ over 140, as opposed to 4 per thousand Northern Europeans.

Using 300 million as U.S. population, and estimating Euro population at 62% or 186 million, and Jewish population at 6 million, means:

744,000 Euros with an IQ over 140
138,000 Jews with an IQ over 140

Euros are 81% of the selected population, and Jews are 19%.

"WASPs" alone outnumber Jews in this population.

Balked at "Northern Europeans"? Okay, cut the population of Euros by half for the purposes of this exercise.

(Caveat: I didn't check to see if the quoted passage remains in the article linked; it's in the copy I have saved); 10/26/09, 11:01 PM
Anonymous said...: All the Jews here seem to have no problem at all when every other group under the sun is bashed.; 10/26/09, 11:03 PM
Giant Attitude said...: ----- To even consider wasting time and political capital on the meaningless issue of gay marriage when the country is hurtling towards demographic disaster is incredibly puerile and bigoted.-----

Stone the crows!

The gay lobby not has "verbal fluency" on its side but moral stature as well.

Insisting that the law reflect basic differences between straight and gay relationships is PUERILE.

It's not only PUERILE but it's -- gasp -- BIGOTED!

It's not only puerile, and it's not only bigoted, but it's puerile AND bigoted.

Meet Bob, the self-defined paleo, who favors mandatory sensitivity training for the boobs.

----- Looking over to Europe, the two most successful anti-immigration parties were actually led by a gay and a bisexual (Pim Fortuyn and Jorg Haider). In each case their parties were actually part of the ruling coalition and put into effect strong restrictions.-----

What does that have to do with the price of the tea in China?

How does approval of the actions of two politicans who happen to be gay/bisexual advance the case for the gay rights agenda one iota?

You might just as logically argue that devotees of Russell Kirk's original conservative philosophy are required to maintain an avid and abiding interest in spiritualism, as Kirk did.

You might just as well argue that one can't appreciate the works of Edgar Allan Poe without becoming an alcoholic and a gambling addict.; 10/26/09, 11:11 PM
Svigor said...: is best explained not as a matter of faith--Medved in particular makes it clear that that is simply not an adequate explanation--but as hostility to traditional enemies of one's tribe, enmity for those who pose "a threat to the very essence of our Jewish identity."

Yes, I was trying to say the same thing, but KK got me.

Christianity isn't a problem, white Christians are. Black Christians? Has anyone EVER seen the media crap on them? It'd be nice to have the proverbial exception that proves the rule, at least.; 10/26/09, 11:19 PM
Svigor said...: You're right on their anti-Christianism, but I don't agree that their interests don't to a large extent overlap with whites'.

Than it's a too bad that Jews are too stupid to understand that.

1) America with 2009 demographics
2) America with 1959 demographics

Which would most American Jews today choose?; 10/26/09, 11:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The Celtic conspiracy - see Halloween III - The Season of the Witch.; 10/26/09, 11:30 PM
Svigor said...: Here's a news flash for you. If Jews stopped trying to destroy the country, 99% of the supposed "anti-semitism" would vanish overnight.

It's the stupid and destructive things they do which people dislike, not their genes.

No, I assure you, it's Jews! We all woke up one day and said to ourselves, "hmmm, I need someone to irrationally hate and blame for my and my country's woes. Whom shall I scapegoat? Oh I know, the Jews! After all, there's no better way to win friends and influence people than anti-Semitism. And haha, the Jews are all nobodies so they'll be easy to push around. A win-win situation!"; 10/26/09, 11:30 PM
Svigor said...: I speculate that it is due to inborn neurological differences which may be genetic or environmental (infectious).

Roadblock ahead: American Jewry's politics vs. Israeli Jewry's. Any explanation of Jewish political tendencies has to explain this bifurcation. It's hard to do that without "is it good for us?"; 10/26/09, 11:42 PM
Svigor said...: The Jews are not trying to destroy America.

Depends on your point of view, doesn't it? But if you mean to say that Jews aren't trying to destroy America from their perspective, then I wholeheartedly agree.

Self-deception of the kind practiced by Jews is hard for NW Euros to wrap their heads around. For a pop culture example of how this works, watch Showtime's The Tudors (season 2 is even better than season 1 for this); Hank really believes his own bullshit.; 10/26/09, 11:49 PM
Svigor said...: Israel has Subs so that their nuclear threat is survivable from any attempt to attack the land based nukes they have (courtesy of the US government).

Source? I was under the impression the Frogs were the primary original suppliers of nuclear tech to Israel.; 10/26/09, 11:50 PM
follower of Whiskey said...: Stop criticizing Whiskey.

He should be praised for his great work in uncovering the truth.

He has finally exposed the Harvard/WASP + Irish & Celtic Raconteur + Persian Imperialist + female Muslim Super Mafia/Cabal that is running the entire world and seeks the destruction of the world - but especially the destruction of Israel.; 10/27/09, 12:33 AM
Giant Attitude said...: -----Young people are the most hurt by immigration but they are not going to vote for a party that focuses on cramming retrograde fuddy-duddy Christian morality down their throats.-----

I never worry about those little twerps. As long as I'm doing all right personally, I actually don't worry about larger society or the next generation. My feeling is that people get the leadership they deserve.

Young people voted for Obama. Now they can spend the rest of their lives paying for him.

But it won't be easy, not with a worthless degree (or -- especially in the case of many young males -- without any degree at all) and a skyrocketing youth unemployment rate.

Funny how Bob's arguments are completely steeped in realpolitik and completely divorced from considerations of right and wrong.

Earlier, he warned us not to contest gay activists because -- right or wrong -- gays had such a "high verbal IQ " that opposition to them was futile.

Now he suggests that we abandon the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule because those young Obama voters -- with their baseball caps on backward, their I-Pods blaring senseless music into their ears, and their regurgitating streams of thought on Facebook -- might not find traditional morality to be "cool" enough.

But -- on the other hand -- maybe, just maybe, they'll one day transcend Bob's realpolitik and decide that traditional morality is less expensive than the alternative and less expensive than Obama.; 10/27/09, 12:52 AM
Anonymous said...: All the Jews here seem to have no problem at all when every other group under the sun is bashed.

This is such an absurd and stupid statement that I can't believe Steve let it through.

For the record, I'm a Jew who sometimes points out to my non-Jewish white friends that they are being bashed in the media and elsewhere. Mostly they don't want to hear it and refuse to believe me.; 10/27/09, 12:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I was told that Israel stole nuke weapons tech from the US back during LBJ’s administration. I’ve seen that asserted elsewhere as well. This doesn’t mean the French didn’t help them too, but the US “help” was not “official”, but either from spies or basic US citizen assets of Israel.

Hell, if the Chinese can steal the US blind regarding nuke weapons tech and delivery tech (ICBM tech) it sure shouldn’t be a problem for Israel.; 10/27/09, 1:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Bob seems to be “confused” on the role of Jewish Neocons and the immigration reform movement.

Bob seems to think that if a Neocon punches an immigration reform patriot in the nose, that the immigration reformer has assaulted the Neocon’s fist.

In other words, immigration reformers just made their case, starting in the late 1980s. They didn’t mention “the Jews” much less attack them. But Jewish Neocons in particular, and their servants at their direction (e.g, ladies man Jack Kemp and Las Vegas Bill Bennett), attacked patriotic immigration reformers both in public and in private. For example, in the 1990s, several Jewish Neocons took action to get John O’Sullivan fired from National Review as well as all of the journalists he had hired at NR for them to write about immigration reform (i.e., reducing immigration). The reason the Jewish Neocons did this was because they were opposed to reducing immigration. They said as much. By cutting off the debate, it pretty much makes those shutting down the attempt to get the message out the issue.

If you don’t understand this Bob, then you are a refutation of the exaggerated claims of intelligence you have been making.; 10/27/09, 1:11 AM
Svigor said...: The key to this issue is in understanding what Richard Hoste does not, i.e. that when you are even moderately successful(well short of a mil. per yr.), you have almost no contact with NAM's, and thus no acquaintance with the high probability of violence that ensues from rubbing up against them.

(The following is my attempt to navigate the Byzantine corridors of Komment Kontrol; it's interesting to have a long post rejected, then work to submit the same points in bites. You get a feel for what KK choked on. The asterisks is an attempt to feel out KK's boundaries)

An example of a wider point I didn't get past KK: people really need to consider the fact that in w*r, it's not all about keeping your s*ldiers alive, it's also about k*lling the en*my. Now, we're in a culture w*r, not a sh**ting w*r, but the principle translates; policies that hurt us but hurt our competitors more are (or at least, can be) good for us. It's nonsensical to suggest that policies that fit this mold are by definition contrary to "is it good for us?"

The w*r analogy isn't meant to be provocative or suggestive. It's just apt. No gulag or g*nocide fantasies expressed or implied, quite the contrary (if some folks had had this kind of conversation in the past, tragedies might've been averted).; 10/27/09, 1:29 AM
Svigor said...: And yet half of all Jews marry non-Jews, and in almost all cases these non-Jews are Christians. How do you reconcile that with the "genetically engrained [sic]" hate for Christians you allege we have?

Your insight about the oddness of hate coexisting with success is a good one. Those who are successful generally are not haters, you're right about that. You should perhaps turn the light of this insight on yourself. Might your (dare I say it?) hate for Jews be partly fueled by your own self pity?

But this does fit with my point (KK got it) that Jewish "anti-Christian" sentiment isn't religous per se. As someone else pointed out, it's about competition; sorta hard to regard someone as competition if you're marrying them, so it's safe to say the Euros Jews are marrying get a pass.

The Jewish intermarriage question isn't as simple as some would make it out to be. First of all, the only stats we have come from Jewish activists, people dedicated to "is it good for the Jews?" on a professional level. They're exaggerated, tending toward one-drop assessments of Jewishness that pump up the threat of assimilation for various purposes (e.g., "the sky is falling! Send money now!" and, "stop the silent Holocaust"; the latter doesn't strike me as the pinnacle of amity). Perhaps most tellingly, the rates are never compared to other oranges. I.e., European intermarriage rates vs. Jewish-European intermarriage rates; the former are way higher than the latter, which show a relatively high resistance to intermarriage, rather the opposite of what the rate is usually claimed to indicate. As a footnote, Jewish-NAM intermarriage rates are a non-starter. I've never seen Jews discussing that subject, much less comparing the rates with those of Euros. It certainly isn't something Jews trumpet, like the Euro-Jew intermarriage rate.

Oh, in my original (KK-ed) response to Fred, I pointed out the absurdity of the idea that Jews must love Christians because they live around them. It wouldn't work to absolve white South Africans during Apartheid, British colonists in America, or anyone else, so why should it absolve Jews?; 10/27/09, 1:48 AM
pingpong said...: Thanks for that enlightening post, Steve. Understanding the "anti-Christianism" motive solved the riddle for me. I used to be a so-called Christian-Zionist, a contradiction in terms, retrospectively. Now everything makes sense, and I realize how reality fits in with the New Testament account of the experiences of Christ and the early church, in addition to much of recorded church history. The spiritual fundamentals have remained the same for 2000 years.; 10/27/09, 2:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Well, maybe Bob has a point. If those concerned about open borders and economic treason would just purge all those nasty “anti-semites” maybe they would get attention and approval from the MSM.

After all, the folks on the Left have done this, and that explains the political success they have had lately. Nobody on the Left would get anywhere if they associated with “anti-semites” like Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or the Minister Louis Farrakhan.

If someone on the left had donated over $100,000 to Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright’s church they would never have gotten anywhere near getting elected President of the United States!

After all, as Bob points out, in America radicalism doesn’t pay. Just ask Bill Ayres.; 10/27/09, 2:01 AM
noslir said...: Steve Sailer sed:
Yes, and that's why they are buying a sixth.

You got the "buying" part wrong. Israel is having the German taxpayer pay for them. Apparently the had to fit extra wide torpedo tubes for the nuclear missiles. Any disagreement and the Germans get called nazis again.; 10/27/09, 2:02 AM
Anonymous said...: follower of Whiskey said...

Stop criticizing Whiskey.

He should be praised for his great work in uncovering the truth.

He has finally exposed the Harvard/WASP + Irish & Celtic Raconteur + Persian Imperialist + female Muslim Super Mafia/Cabal that is running the entire world and seeks the destruction of the world - but especially the destruction of Israel.

How right you are. From whiskey's comment linked above, I just learned that the Weather Underground was comprised of WASPs, not Jews.; 10/27/09, 2:04 AM
headache said...: Ronduck, I agree that the Catholic Church is also an evil playa when it comes to immigration. Berlusconi, for instance, has some of the toughest anti-immigrant laws on the books [it was his only chance to get re-elected]. He is very popular on account of this. The liberal establishment, Murdoch, EU and Catholic Church are hounding him. Why? Coz they know that if these laws are on the books for even a little while, people will begin to realize they work. And then the One World game is over. So they try to get him out NOW in order to repeal those laws before they start to have a positive effect. I’m a fan of the Pope, but he is dead wrong on immigration.; 10/27/09, 2:11 AM
Bob said...: RKU: I think it is fairly obvious that gay males have verbal iq's above the mean for their respective ethnic groups. Arther Hu makes the point on that large page full of stats he has. My guess is about a third of a SD.; 10/27/09, 3:00 AM
Anonymous said...: There appear to be two Davids commenting here. I am the one with the hobby blog "The Passing Parade." The other is without a profile. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. One of us should change names.

Perhaps I will soon be going by "The Genuine, Original, and Finest David."; 10/27/09, 6:04 AM
Svigor said...: Self-deception of the kind practiced by Jews is hard for NW Euros to wrap their heads around.

Actually, who am I kidding? Typical NW Euros are masters at self-deception. The difference is in the particulars (Dead White Males, AA is OK, Race does not exist, etc.).; 10/27/09, 6:13 AM
Mark said...: For the record, I'm a Jew who sometimes points out to my non-Jewish white friends that they are being bashed in the media and elsewhere. Mostly they don't want to hear it and refuse to believe me.

Yes, because if there's anything someone hates these days it's being told they are a victim. Americans just hate victims! "Victims" gain no political advantage from being "victims."

You can routinely hear Jews disaparaging whole groups as anti-Semitic, from conservatives to Christians to, yes, even blacks. Entire groups. "Not that we're stereotyping or anything, we're just sayin'..."

But doesn't the theory of racial equality demand that, since all groups are equal in every way, that therefore all groups are equally inclined to hate?

If you look around the one thing you see is that Jewish politicians are routinely amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of increased immigration, and that the more power they obtain the more immigration tends to increase. It was Emanuel Celler who wrote the 1965 immigration act, and it was during Bill Clinton's heavily Jewish-run administration - by far the most Jewish dominated presidency in American history - that the wheels really came off on immigration. Immigration skyrocketed. In the 1990 Census 80.3% percent of Americans were white. In the 2000 Census it fell all the way to 75.1%.

But it's not that it was a deliberate policy of the government to overrun whites or anything. We know that no government would ever intentionally do that - at least not an American government, unlike the Labour government in Britain, which did so in 2000 under an Immigration Minister named Barbara Roche (ne Margolis).

Then of course it's a total coincidence that the neocon dominated administration of George W Bush continued those policies.

And it's completely coincidental that two of the most heavily Jewish-dominated industries benefited enormously during the Clinton Administration - the financial sector watching it's profits soar from their historical norms of 16% of domestic profits to over 30%, and the huge number of bills, from copyright extension to free bandwidth grants, that were passed on behalf of the media/entertainment industrial complex during the Clinton years, without question.

And it's total coincidence, really, that during the Clinton and Bush administrations that the Jewish share of the Forbes 400 increased by a rather massive 50%.

Yep, it's all just a big coincidence.; 10/27/09, 6:22 AM
Mark said...: Here's a news flash for you. If Jews stopped trying to destroy the country, 99% of the supposed "anti-semitism" would vanish overnight.

Hmmmm. Well maybe not that much. Anti-semitism has a lengthy history, and has managed to appear in every country where Jews have settled. It's a fair statement that a very large portion of that is due to simply, dumb envy. Yet at the same time isn't it also fair to say that other, more legitimate reasons may exist, like, say, the fact that Jews might being using, alone or in concert with each other, their disproportionate political influence to tilt the scales of power in their favor?

Remember folks: "Y is for Yahoo."

But the GOP gets their votes by playing on their religiosity and their nationalism, getting them riled up about gay marriage, school prayer, or wars on terror.

Certainly true in many cases, yet most "anti-rational" whites are, in fact, solidly middle class. They know that for them a larger welfare state would be more or less a wash, that a poor black/mestizo underclass even more enabled by government handouts would only make their own lives worse, and that long term a larger welfare state would be bad for most everyone. Can't have anyone stupid enough to think about the greater good, can we?

The jingoism and mock religiosity of guys like George W Bush and Mike Huckabee is about the only handout these guys are getting from either party, so why wouldn't they take it?

Showing more contempt for white evangelicals than for superstitious blacks and mestizos makes no real sense whatsoever. I don't know where white evangelicals stand, relative to other whites, on matters of education, employment, welfare dependency, or crime, but it's surely a hell of a lot better than blacks and mestizos.

And yet half of all Jews marry non-Jews, and in almost all cases these non-Jews are Christians. How do you reconcile that with the "genetically engrained [sic]" hate for Christians you allege we have?

I wasn't stereotyping all Jews, and the reference to genetically engrained traits like hate referred to all people, not just Jews.

Those who are successful generally are not haters, you're right about that.

I've noticed that my most successful friends, even the liberal ones, are in fact more likely than the others to express un-PC beliefs.; 10/27/09, 6:22 AM
Anonymous said...: This is such an absurd and stupid statement that I can't believe Steve let it through.

For the record, I'm a Jew...

Given that this will probably prove to be yet another lousy day for me with Komment Kontrol, I'm not even going to add any commentary.; 10/27/09, 6:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Cochran and Harpending also cite studies claiming that Ashkenazim have the highest IQ of any ethnic group for which there’s reliable data

I don't know about that. I've seen data, I think at Gene Expression, claiming that the highest IQ group in America are Episcopalians, followed by Jews. Are they an "ethnic group"? In reality, probably yes.; 10/27/09, 6:26 AM
RKU said...: RKU: I think it is fairly obvious that gay males have verbal iq's above the mean for their respective ethnic groups. Arther Hu makes the point on that large page full of stats he has. My guess is about a third of a SD.

Okay, maybe I'll buy 1/3 of an SD...

A few years ago, Richard Berke, then the NYT's chief political reporter, was keynoting at a conference of the Gay Journalists Association, of which he was a prominent member.

In his speech, he bragged that the previous day, every single front-page story in the New York Times had been written by a homosexual.

It's really pretty remarkable how much impact a 1/3 SD advantage can have in distributional results.; 10/27/09, 6:30 AM
Anonymous said...: But depending upon these open questions, it may render the massive and supposedly "meritocratic" overrepresentation of Jews at elite institutions, let alone in the media and Hollywood extraordinarily suspicious...

Yes, the great fiction of our time is that Jewish overrepresentation in the elite institutions is due entirely to their extraordinary intelligence and not to their extraordinary clannishness.; 10/27/09, 6:34 AM
Anonymous said...: And yet half of all Jews marry non-Jews, and in almost all cases these non-Jews are Christians.

I think you are using the words "Jew" and "Christian" here in a very non-traditional sense. You probably mean "atheist ethnic Jew" and "atheist goy".; 10/27/09, 6:45 AM
Kijkfaas McGee said...: Good review. But not subtle enough on one major point: American Jewry's resistance to Christianity is not anti-Christianity per se, but a deep and maybe unconscious recognition that apostasy into Christianity -- whether by active conversion or by the far more likely, and therefore disturbing, passive absorption into putatively Christian populations -- is understood as the total negation of Jewishness, unlike taking on Buddhist chanting or whatever. This is the source of the Jewish preoccupation with separation of church and state. It is not the religious Jews, but the secular Jews who demand this. This, of course, makes no sense -- after all, why should secular Jews care more than secular Christians? -- except that it is precisely secular Jews who are most at risk of losing all identity whatsoever. Their separationism is not an expression of anti-Christianity but an expression of their concern over ethnic dissolution.; 10/27/09, 6:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Anon said

> Apart,we are five fingers, the most commonly broken bone in the body. Together, we are a fist. <

You can't shake hands with a fist.

The International Jew said

> since you brought it up, I'd like you to point me toward a few online Orthodox Jewish bloggers who support Obama. <

I did no such thing. It was your attempt to prove your point by blathering that was objectionable. But to your point: Orthodox Jewish communities were for McCain? Or Paul? Hard to believe. But if so, please enlighten me (please cite polls, not bloggers). Thank you.

RKU said

> the overrepresentation of homosexuals at Harvard and Yale [...] is extraordinarily high, perhaps approaching that of Jewish overrepresentation. Yet there's not the slightest evidence that homosexuals have higher IQ. So the gigantic overrepresentation must be due to some other, totally "mysterious" factor... <

Watch that dangerous talk about "one hand washes another," "birds of a feather flock together," etc. It's conspiracy theorizing! Which we know is lunacy...the world operates entirely on the basis of cold technical criteria, and always has.; 10/27/09, 6:52 AM
Anonymous said...: I think it is fairly obvious that gay males have verbal iq's above the mean for their respective ethnic groups.

I don't have any data on that, but a further point of commonality between gays and Jews is that both are exceptionally tightly knit communities which have an "us against the world" mentality.

Such an outlook might well result in members of these groups, even if possessed of moderate intellect, being helped up the ladder by their more intelligent peers, and thus result in the exceptional degree of overrepresentation they enjoy in positions of influence.; 10/27/09, 6:53 AM
Fred said...: "As someone else pointed out, it's about competition; sorta hard to regard someone as competition if you're marrying them, so it's safe to say the Euros Jews are marrying get a pass."

OK, so this your attempt to explain that Jews marrying Christians in large numbers does not invalidate the claim that Jews hate Christians? If so, it's a pretty weak try. Wouldn't it just be easier to concede the point here?

"Oh, in my original (KK-ed) response to Fred, I pointed out the absurdity of the idea that Jews must love Christians because they live around them. It wouldn't work to absolve white South Africans during Apartheid, British colonists in America, or anyone else, so why should it absolve Jews?"

Come on, Svigor. I know you're a bright guy from previous comments of yours, but it would be hard to tell from this one. Maybe "KK" (why not "CC"?) did you a favor in not letting your original comment through.

First, I didn't say Jews "must love" Christians. I said that living among Christians and marrying them in large numbers belied the claim that Jews hate Christians.

How, exactly does bringing apartheid-era white South Africans into this support your argument? Did the South African whites live among the blacks? If you're not sure, you can find a clue within the word "apartheid" itself -- the "apart" part. Blacks were largely consigned to their own squalid townships. I don't believe a lot of apartheid-era whites had black neighbors let alone married blacks in large numbers.; 10/27/09, 10:07 AM
Middletown Girl said...: Israel's fear of Iran's future nukes isn't really about nukes but about how they may affect Israel's conventional capability. There's no way a nuclear-armed Iran will shoot nukes at Israel first as it would be national suicide. The loud-mouth Holocaust Denier in Iran isn't really even the most powerful man in the country.

No, what Israel fears is that if Iran has nukes--and if other Arab nations attain them in due time--, it will greatly weaken Israel's conventional arms superiority. Israel won't be able to send jets or tanks to intimidate Arab or Muslim countries lest it trigger a nuclear holocaust in the region.

Suppose both Poland and Germany had nukes in 1939. Though the German army was many times stronger, would Hitler have bullied or invaded a nuclear-armed Poland? Hitler would have hesitated because there would have been the chance of Poland blowing Berlin and Munich sky-high.

This is why Israel fears Iran having nukes. Not because Iran will strike Israel first, but because there's always the possibility--no matter how small--of Iran using nukes IF Israel were to strike Iran or its allies with conventional arms.

Israel wants an open option to attack and intimidate its neighbors. This mindset especially goes back to 1967 when Israel's conventional arms defeated a whole bunch of Arab nations and taught them who's the BOSS in the region. Israel wants this military status quo--Israel as the only regional superpower--to continue. 1967 war would not have been possible if Nasser had nukes, and it will never be possible again if Iran and other Muslim countries gain nukes.

And, would US have invaded Iraq if Hussein had nukes? NO! Though US conventional military force was 1000x mightier than Hussein's, US would not have invaded Iraq out of fear that Hussein, driven to desperation, would have shot nukes at Israel.

I wonder if there's another reason for Israel's drumming up support for war with Iran. Israel has huge problems with its Palestinian population. If a war breaks out with Iran(and its allies) and if Palestinians rise up in Israel and Occupied Territories, it will give Israel the green light and the cover of war to enact wholesale deportations of Arabs in their midst. War 'justifies' a lot of things in the name of national security and vengeance, even the wholesale expulsion of Germans from Eastern Lands after during/after WWII, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the ethnic cleanings in Yugoslavia and more recently in Iraq. Perhaps, there are some elements in Israel who plan to use the war with Iran the same way. Palestinians might be dumb enough to fall for this trap and start a massive uprising during the war, whereupon Israelis will finally throw most of them out of the Israel and the occupied territories in the plan to create GREATER ISRAEL.; 10/27/09, 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Their separationism is not an expression of anti-Christianity but an expression of their concern over ethnic dissolution.

No doubt. But one of the axioms of modern liberalism, of which secular Jews are the high priests, is that concern over ethnic dissolution is de facto fascist.; 10/27/09, 1:33 PM
Anonymous said...: Although Steve lives in L.A., I don't get the feeling he actually knows any Jews.; 10/27/09, 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Black Christians? Has anyone EVER seen the media crap on them? It'd be nice to have the proverbial exception that proves the rule, at least.

Bill Maher might be that exception you're looking for. He has crapped on black and Hispanic Christians in his film "Religulous" and on his TV show.

A lot of SWPLs were riled up with the NAM churches after Prop. 8 passed in California but I'm not sure this made it to the mass media.; 10/27/09, 2:12 PM
Fred said...: "It's really pretty remarkable how much impact a 1/3 SD advantage can have in distributional results."

Probably not on it's own. I would think there are other factors that correlate with higher gay IQ that increase the numbers of them in certain professions.; 10/27/09, 2:14 PM
donald said...: Speaking of high verbal intelligence, anybody ever see this interesting study:

"Liars' Brains Wired Differently"

“Our argument is that the more networking there is in the prefrontal cortex, the more the person has an upper hand in lying. Their verbal skills are higher. They’ve almost got a natural advantage.”; 10/27/09, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: RKU said:

“But here's a fascinating, massively under-reported detail. There's some evidence that the IQ of American white Episcopalians is actually *higher* than that of American Jews. And there are millions of white Episcopalians.

This may or may not be significant. It all depends whether the Episcopalian IQ is Gaussian or not. There are obviously also behavioral and cultural traits to consider.”

Do we even know if the Jewish IQ distribution is close to Gaussian or not? I haven’t seen any reports on this one way or another at all. The only little tidbit about the structure of the Jewish distribution that I’ve seen was mentioned in passing by Charles Murray in Commentary where he estimated the S.D. to be about 13 (and the mean at about 110 – and no Bob, your guess of 115 for Jews in not “pretty solid” – no more than about 110 is defensible based on the larger, representative samples (i.e., not those drawn from private school)), but said it was only a guess. The Jewish distribution may look rather truncated, like, say, the white gentile distribution minus the working and underclass (i.e., maximal values aren’t really much higher – just a narrower distribution with few dummies and a lot more people who are just rather smart (in the range of the typical professional or engineer)).

“I don't know about that. I've seen data, I think at Gene Expression, claiming that the highest IQ group in America are Episcopalians, followed by Jews. Are they an "ethnic group"? In reality, probably yes.”

You’d probably have to add white Quakers and Unitarians to Episcopalians. In one respect, they are different from the Jews and not an ethnic group. Although they would be disproportionately British Isles descent, Episcopalians, Quakers and Unitarians were more open to outsiders joining and, as elite religions, they probably have high IQs because successful people tended joined them after becoming successful (which happened big time before the mid-20th C.) than due to a Cochran-Harpending style evolutionary selection pressure working on a closed gene pool over the centuries.; 10/27/09, 3:45 PM
Harry Baldwin said...: Annymous said: "A lot of SWPLs were riled up with the NAM churches after Prop. 8 passed in California but I'm not sure this made it to the mass media."

My relentlessly liberal sister-in-law blames the Mormons, and ONLY the Mormons. Blacks (good) in opposition to gays (good)? Does not compute.; 10/27/09, 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: My relentlessly liberal sister-in-law blames the Mormons, and ONLY the Mormons. Blacks (good) in opposition to gays (good)? Does not compute.

And she's probably not even Jewish (tell me if I'm wrong).; 10/27/09, 5:15 PM
Middletown Girl said...: "...sorry if you don't believe me that Jews are slightly discriminated against compared to gentiles in ivy admissions, but it is simply the case.
White gentiles are more likely to add economic and geographic diversity, more likely to be #1 in their HS class, and more likely to get athletic and music bonuses."

This is true, and David Mamet has written about this in BAMBI vs GODZILLA. Less intelligent whites benefit from geographical affirmative action over Jews concentrated in NY and big cities. Bill Bradley once defended the policy of geographical diversity, admitting that he would not have gone to Ivy League schools otherwise. (Bigger scam, however, is children of alumni getting preferential treatment in the name of TRADITION. Worse is the children of foreign leaders and ministers getting in through... bribery or status?)

If we got rid of geographical affirmative action, Jewish representation would be even higher at top schools. But, I don't think Jews complain too much because they are already vastly over-represented in the Ivy League--enough to remain dominant in the academia and intellectual/cultural life. Besides, if Ivy League became 70% Jewish, even Philosemites might start grumbling. (There's also affirmative action via special consideration for extracurricular activities, especially sports. This probably helps Catholics over Jews.)
Also, Jews probably know that, in the end, they will win. Even if a smart Jewish guy isn't admitted to Harvard or Yale and instead attends Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, or University of Michigan, by the time graduate school comes around, the smart Jew at U of Michigan will probably be favored for Harvard or Yale grad school over a less intelligent gentile who got admitted to undergrad school at Yale or Harvard(if he didn't drop out already).
At least, this is true in prestigious departments as opposed to stuff like sociolgy, black studies, or leisure studies.

Though it's been reported that Jews make up 25-30% of professors at Ivy League schools, the percentage is certainly higher if we ignore stupid departments which have been taken over by PC idiocy. Once prestigious Humanities Department is now the den of gay radicals, black power 'poets', neo-Marxists, and people who look/think/act like that young woman in David Mamet's Oleanna.; 10/27/09, 5:30 PM
Hereward said...: Anonymous,
Thanks for the link to the article by Mark Rudd. Is that a real person, or did Kevin McDonald invent him to illustrate his thesis? The combination of cluelessness and moral conceit on display is quite mind-boggling. I especially like how he refers to (and names his article after) Cuddihy's Ordeal of Civility, but misses the main point of that interesting book. Rudd's issue with Israel is illuminating: its founding made Jews too much like any other nation, when their real historical duty is to be the finger waggling in the face of whatever society they've glommed onto. Feh!; 10/27/09, 5:35 PM
rec1man said...: Jews can be legally outcompeted

http://www.stefangeens.com/wsj.html

From the Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, May 27, 2003:
Indians Unseat Antwerp's Jews As the Biggest Diamond Traders
Lower-Cost Production in Bombay, Gujarat Has Facilitated the Change

By DAN BILEFSKY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

ANTWERP, Belgium -- In what was once a predominantly Jewish neighborhood near Antwerp's central station, young Indians in Armani suits haggle with Hasidic diamond buyers in long black coats, side curls and skullcaps. Hoveniersstraat, a street once celebrated for its kosher restaurants, now offers the best curry in town.

The orthodox European Jews who established the world's most famous diamond district are being supplanted by Indians -- who, among other things, aren't required by their religion to close their businesses from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

"Many of the Hasidim have failed to keep up with globalization," says Ramesh Mehta, an avuncular diamond trader and one of the pioneers of Antwerp's Indian community, who has helped 50 Indian families set up their own diamond businesses here since the early 1990s.

Indians are among the world's most successful newcomers. They have reinvigorated the jewelry districts in New York and Hong Kong and revived the U.S. motel industry; they are among the programmers of choice in Silicon Valley and Berlin. In the global diamond world, Indians have been so successful that they are challenging Jewish dealers, even in Tel Aviv. About 80% of all polished diamonds sold world-wide pass through Indian hands.

Such a shift seldom takes place without some tension, and in Antwerp, that struggle is happening now. Many Jews who used to trade diamonds in the public hall of Antwerp's imposing Diamond Beurs are so worried about the new competitive pressure that they now prefer to meet clients in the privacy of their own offices for fear that Indians or other Jewish traders will poach their business. Many have changed their manufacturing practices, moving their cutting and polishing factories from Belgium to lower-cost centers such as Thailand and China. And in the retail-jewelry sector, some secular Jews are breaking ranks with the Hasidim and keeping their businesses open on the Sabbath.

"The secular Jews are not enchanted when the rabbis knock on their doors and tell them to shut down, but they don't listen," says Henri Rubens, a Jewish community leader and former diamond trader, who is now in the real-estate business. "Nor are the Hasidim enchanted by other Jews who put business ahead of religion."

In Antwerp, Indians' share of the $26 billion-a-year (€22 billion) diamond revenues has grown to roughly 65% from about 25% in the past 20 years, while the Jewish share has fallen to about 25% from 70%, according to both Indian and Jewish consultants who study the global-diamond trade.

The new economic power of the Indian diamantaires (as Antwerp diamond traders are called) has spilled over to the U.S. diamond market. After gaining a foothold in Antwerp, many of the Indian traders have expanded their businesses globally, to include California and New York.

While the Jews try to stem their decline, the Indians are demanding that their influence in the Antwerp diamond world mirror their economic might. They want better representation on Antwerp's High Diamond Council, the powerful body that regulates the city's diamond industry. In February, the first two Indians were elected to the council's board of directors, but many Indian dealers dismiss it as a token gesture -- the board has 20 members.

But more and more, it feels like Bombay. The Indian traders began arriving in the 1970s, drawn by the lucrative diamond business and Belgium's liberal immigration laws. They are also religious, practicing Jainism, an Indian religion that emphasizes nonviolence, vegetarianism and respect for all living creatures.; 10/27/09, 5:46 PM
TCO said...: Steve:

Just a small stats thing, but it sticks out that the percentages were lower in Eisenhower and Reaga's elections. Unlike the below, I think Ike was relatively centrist at least in tone, while Reagan at least epitomized hard corps conservatism. What is similar about them, though is both got a lot of votes IN GENERAL. So normalize the graphs. What you want to look at is the constancy of Jewish predeliction to vote Democrat and not confound it with the general popularity of the Democrats to the nation overall in a particular year.; 10/27/09, 6:35 PM
TCO said...: It would be interesting to hear about Jews and military service as well. They are very under-represented as military officers. Yet Israel is a martial country. What of someone like Rahm Emanuael who chose to serve in Israel, yet not in the US. Despite the ticket punching benefit for a political career? You could even weave in some allusions to that recent Brad Pitt movie.; 10/27/09, 7:20 PM
Wales said...: rec1man,

Interesting article.

Incidentally, speaking of Jews and Indians, there was an interesting piece in Haaretz in 2006.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060701180908/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/730443.html

Fri., June 30, 2006 Tamuz 4, 5766
Questions of Survival
By Shmuel Rosner

[...]

"Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents' Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the "thinkers," as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others.

The Institute for Policy Planning of the Jewish People had organized this gathering. It had a somewhat ambitious aim - a strategic debate about the future of the Jewish people. In actuality, it focused on three issues: the challenge posed by Islam, the situation in Israel, and the weighty question of whether the Jewish people are on the rise or on the wane.

Their conclusions, in brief: The future is unclear. And in greater detail: There are many risks, and it is time to roll up our sleeves.

One of the papers that was prepared in advance and presented to the participants in the conferences was that written by Dr. Shalom Wald. He chose 14 well-known historians, from Thucydides to Gibbon, Spangler, Toynbee and Kennedy, and examined their theories concerning the circumstances in which civilizations flourish or collapse. Then he tried to examine how these theories can be applied to the context of the Jewish people.

Several of his conclusions provoked disagreement. For example: "Getting all Jews into the same shape and country, even if it is Israel, as recently advocated by an Israeli [writer, A.B. Yehoshua - S.R.] is not the best survival strategy." Some of the Israeli participants did not like that idea. Granting official legitimacy to the Diaspora would be a mistake, Meridor said, according to some of those who participated. That would be the end of Zionism as we know it.

The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future. How should this be done? That will have to be the topic of discussion in the next gatherings already being planned."

[...]; 10/27/09, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Because of Jewish control of culture, media, and politics, we all have Jews swimming in and out of our eyes and ears 24/7.

Knowing a people through the media is different than knowing individuals belonging to that group personally. Because Europeans are subject to a great deal of American media, they feel they "know" Americans better than they actually do, and often develop strange prejudices as a result.; 10/27/09, 8:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Svigor, you may not realize this, but Steve also censors posts defending Jews on occasion. Philosemites might even have more trouble, proportionally, with Komment Kontrol here, since there are so few of them.; 10/27/09, 8:41 PM
Middletown Girl said...: "Knowing a people through the media is different than knowing individuals belonging to that group personally. Because Europeans are subject to a great deal of American media, they feel they 'know' Americans better than they actually do, and often develop strange prejudices as a result."

Europeans can't possibly know Americans since Americans don't control the media or Hollywood. The world sees America as liberal Jews see it or want us to see it.

But, since Jews do run the media, we do get a pretty good glimpse of how Jews see the world or seek to manipulate the perception of the world. I'm not interested in WHAT Hollywood shows but HOW it shows.

Take IRON MAN. What is it but AIPAC war porn? Its message? Downey is a quasi-Jewish genius with quicks wits and ingenuity, and we are supposed to admire him for his riches, brilliance, and life-style. He's not only smart and rich but conscientious to boot--liberal Jewish moral vanity: we don't only about money and power but humanity, boo hoo hoo.
Jews want us to see them this way.

There is a black guy who's Downey/Stark's best friend. Message is Jews and blacks are buddies. Gentile women are presented mostly as bimbos strutting around sexily before Downey, the message being pretty dimwit blondes ought to put out to rich Jews--and the black friend of the Jewish guy(in the deleted scene on the dvd).

White males are presented two ways: soldiers in Afghanistan obedient, subservient, and starstruck before Downey/Stark. In other words, be good goyboys and fight our neocon wars. ("White goyboys, go fight our wars; white goygirls, come here and shake your T&A like porn stars.")
But, there is the EVIL WHITE MALE played by Jeff Bridges who's an amalgam of Nazi scientists and anti-communist conservatives in the 1950s who took the nuclear technology away from leftist Jewish scientists.
As for Arabs and Muslims, they are scum to be blown up, rah rah rah!!!

Of course, Rober Stark character is not blatantly Jewish, but he's supposed to be a Jew-esque figure, and if we see the movie from this angle, all the pieces all into place. It is Neocon/AIPAC war porn. (This is what National Review praises as a CONSERVATIVE movie nowadays. Oy vey!)

I've known plenty of Jews in real life, but most have been smart decent people. But, ones who become prominent tend to be chutzpahistic types, and Alan Dershowitz is a perfect illustration.; 10/27/09, 9:03 PM
Duh said...: Philosemites might even have more trouble, proportionally, with Komment Kontrol here, since there are so few of them.

Well, this is virtual reality. All the philosemites are out there in the real world, where it counts.; 10/27/09, 9:05 PM
Anonymous said...: I've known plenty of Jews in real life, but most have been smart decent people. But, ones who become prominent tend to be chutzpahistic types...

That's pretty much what I was getting at. But couldn't the same be said of prominent gentiles as well?; 10/27/09, 9:17 PM
Middletown Girl said...: "That's pretty much what I was getting at. But couldn't the same be said of prominent gentiles as well?"

When Jewish chutzpah meets gentile hubris, chutzpah wins.
Ever see Duck Soup where Harpo, Groucho, and Chico square off against squarehead gentiles? Whether it's over a lemonade stand or fate of nations, Jewish wit bugs-bunnies the relatively clueless Yosemite Sams and Elmer Fudds of the gentile order.
Also, this is more a nation of lawyers than nation of laws. Those who make or manipulate the laws rig the system in their favor. Guess who the top legal scholars and lawyers are?; 10/27/09, 10:14 PM
David Blue said...: David said...

There appear to be two Davids commenting here. I am the one with the hobby blog "The Passing Parade." The other is without a profile. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. One of us should change names.

I will.; 10/27/09, 10:31 PM
Svigor said...: I guess a lot of the posters here will be converting to Episcopalianism to get that Jew-chip off their shoulder.

But that would still leave those of us born and raised Episcopalian. :)

You could give a sense of nation as strong as Jews have to a million groups that would then come to rule to world within a few decades. If I waved a magic wand that would make everyone with a PhD in physics feel intensely tribal, atavistic unity they'd be cracking the whip over our heads by the Thanksgiving after next.

Thank you, more or less my point. The most salient characteristics of Jews is not their IQ, it's their will to power.

An Ashkenazim with IQ of 95, for example, is probably more likely to take the test because of family expectations than a gentile, thereby depressing their scores.

He's also more likely to study, inflating his score (mine went up 100 points after I did a bit of studying and took it again).

Fred:

Come on, Svigor. I know you're a bright guy from previous comments of yours, but it would be hard to tell from this one. Maybe "KK" (why not "CC"?) did you a favor in not letting your original comment through.

First, I didn't say Jews "must love" Christians. I said that living among Christians and marrying them in large numbers belied the claim that Jews hate Christians.

No, you made two points, 1) that living amongst Christians "belies" animus against Christians in Jews, which I showed to be absurd, and 2) that intermarriage with Christians belies said animus, which I showed to be less than the full story.

How, exactly does bringing apartheid-era white South Africans into this support your argument? Did the South African whites live among the blacks? If you're not sure, you can find a clue within the word "apartheid" itself -- the "apart" part. Blacks were largely consigned to their own squalid townships. I don't believe a lot of apartheid-era whites had black neighbors let alone married blacks in large numbers.

Jews aren't exactly randomly spread throughout the Euro population, either. Eliminate NYC and Los Angeles from consideration and the Jewish population of America is what, half a million maybe? And now the Orthodox don't exist any more? A minute ago they were 20% of the Jewish population.

The difference is not binary, which is what you'd seem to have me believe, but one of degree. The picture the facts paint shows that yes, Jews do show evidence of not liking the rest of the Euro population as much as the rest of the Euro population does. Irish intermarry at a rate of 70% or thereabouts, with only a tiny minority like Travelers to serve as analogies to the Haredim.

It would be interesting to hear about Jews and military service as well. They are very under-represented as military officers. Yet Israel is a martial country. What of someone like Rahm Emanuael who chose to serve in Israel, yet not in the US. Despite the ticket punching benefit for a political career? You could even weave in some allusions to that recent Brad Pitt movie.

I made my poor effort at this years ago, but here it is:

http://svyatoslav.50megs.com/JEWS&LOYALTY.HTML

Svigor, you may not realize this, but Steve also censors posts defending Jews on occasion. Philosemites might even have more trouble, proportionally, with Komment Kontrol here, since there are so few of them.

I don't doubt KK gets Jews, too.

Any reasonable reading of the data from genetic studies shows that the Ashkenazim "have kept their sacred bloodlines largely intact" from about after the fall of the Roman Empire until about the mid-20th C. After that they've "been doing the nasty with the filthy goys on a pretty regular basis."

Which, if you read Kevin MacDonald, you know to be in no way a contradiction of Jews & non-Jews doing the nasty ; one-way gene flow.; 10/27/09, 11:32 PM
Tanstaafl said...: Fred writes: Might your (dare I say it?) hate for Jews be partly fueled by your own self pity?

Congratulations on that epic projection.; 10/28/09, 12:30 AM
Tanstaafl said...: Kijkfaas McGee writes: American Jewry's resistance to Christianity is not anti-Christianity per se, but a deep and maybe unconscious recognition that apostasy into Christianity -- whether by active conversion or by the far more likely, and therefore disturbing, passive absorption into putatively Christian populations -- is understood as the total negation of Jewishness

Ah, I see. It's not anti-Christianity, it's anti-putatively-Christian-population, because Christianity is the "total negation of jewishness".

I'm so glad you clarified that.; 10/28/09, 12:30 AM
Anonymous said...: David Blue - Is your new handle a reference to the folksinger David Blue?; 10/28/09, 2:56 AM
headache said...: Kijkfaas McGee,
Thanks that was an interesting perspective worth dwelling on.; 10/28/09, 4:33 AM
Anonymous said...: The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy.

Cognitive dissonance in overdrive. Who has been primarily pushing for this decline? Sheeesh.; 10/28/09, 4:48 AM
Anonymous said...: > those who believe that Jews have kept their sacred bloodlines largely intact across thousands of years, and those who think they'e been doing the nasty with the filthy goys on a pretty regular basis <

Isn't the strict answer to "who is a Jew?" someone who has a Jewish mother? It's matrilineal descent all the way. So Gentile male/Jewish female pairings may resemble colonization more than they resemble dissolution.; 10/28/09, 6:02 AM
Anonymous said...: Any reasonable reading of the data from genetic studies shows that the Ashkenazim "have kept their sacred bloodlines largely intact" from about after the fall of the Roman Empire until about the mid-20th C.

See? That's what I mean. It supposes that the Ashkenazim were already genetically distinct from the Sephardic Jews by the time of the fall of Rome in the Fifty Century. It supposes that the Ashkenazim were Jews with a Mediterranean genetic mixture.

It ignores the fact that Ashkenazi Jews look identical to Northern Europeans, and that the very word "Ashkenazim" means "German". It ignores the fact that the IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is very close to that of Germans, and a significant distance from that of Sephadic Jews.

If the data tells you that the Ashkenazim
have kept their sacred blooodlines largely intact from the end of the Roman Empie until the mid 20th century, then the data is wrong, a not uncommon occurence in science.; 10/28/09, 6:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said...

"David Blue - Is your new handle a reference to the folksinger David Blue?"

No, it's my name. I'm the same everywhere, unless it's at a site where they specifically ask for a "handle" that's not your name, or there's a problem like needing a handle that's one word. In this case, I gave Google a first name David and and a last name Blue, but only the first name got used. Giving myself a "nickname" David Blue solved the problem.

I've posted some at Winds of Change, which is a moderate (liberal/conservative) blog. That's a reflection of my real opinions. They seem fairly consistent to me (give or take calling the events of the week as I see them and not as my ideology would lead me to expect them to be), but they don't map neatly onto "conservative vs. liberal". I'm surely "conservative" according to most people's checklists nowadays, as I'm very pro-life and I go to the Robert Spencer / Diana West school on Islam, but I feel that's more a mater of people changing which positions define you ideologically than me having moved right.

I also commented a few times at Stormfront, till I realized they were antisemitic and I wanted nothing to do with them. Jew-haters are the most boring people on Earth, because they keep bringing everything back to a topic on which they are invincibly prejudiced and ignorant, or so prejudiced that they might as well be ignorant. (That is, they might be able to read but they can't process facts that conflict with their prejudice.)

I don't play "racial cooties" and "six degrees of Nazism". I judge people by what they commit to, not by who they've never talked to and what arguments they've never considered.

I'm a big fan of John Stuart Mill, and his view that he who only knows his own side of the argument doesn't even know that very well.

I'm interested in religious minorities and the demographics of dying peoples, e.g. the Parsis. I'm curious about revivalist and reconstructionist movements. How does this work? Who decides to fight fate, e.g. by making converts in defiance of tradition, and how is is that ancient and justly proud peoples effectively give up and die? What certainly fails, what might work, with luck?

I like Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in a Christian America, and I think Elliott Abrams' prescriptions are perfectly ethical and well-founded. I also think it's fine for non-Jewish populations that are facing bleak futures if they don't change the game to take a similar attitude.

Back on topic. Jews do not automatically regard Christianity or Christians as enemies, especially not as enemies to be harmed. They need not be crazy liberals, and the more observant and Orthodox they are the more likely it is that they believe in, practice and vote healthy values. Jews do not present and cannot present the kind of demographic and ultimately eliminationist threat that Islam does. Jews do not necessarily know their collective best interests and act on them; if they did, diaspora demographics would be entirely different. "Jews are for Jews first and everybody else last" is an extremely poor description of Jewish ethics in theory and practice, and it can't stand beside the Jewish culture of charity, for one thing.

Wanda: "Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up."
- A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

"Why don't the Jews stop trying to destroy America?" is not a serious question.

"What happens when deep, lasting, highly salient traditions of charity and intellectual activism are radically perverted by leftist formulas and tightly held unspoken assumptions about what's good for the Jews, and also hyper-empowered by wealth and media influence?" That's a serious question.; 10/28/09, 7:25 AM
David Blue said...: David said...

"Isn't the strict answer to "who is a Jew?" someone who has a Jewish mother? It's matrilineal descent all the way."

Not quite. First, there's conversion, relatively rare as it may be. Second, there's the question of which mothers are really Jewish. Third, you really need to be thinking about the character and influence of the Jewish breeding pool, and for this even a correct answer to "Who is is a Jew?" is inadequate; you also need to know something about the rules of mamzer and their influence.

David said...

"So Gentile male/Jewish female pairings may resemble colonization more than they resemble dissolution."

That would be the most threatening possibility, but it's not the reality - certainly not when Jewish parents mourn their out-marrying daughter as dead, effectively throwing her wholly on the charity and resources of the Christian groom's family.

When it comes to the Jews and their customs, there's no need to accept ignorance and assume the worst out of caution. Jews can't shut up, or quit arguing with each other, and debate is enlightening. If you care to put the library time in and talk to your Jewish friends, you can know how things are. Usually it's good news. Sometimes it isn't. But there's no dark mystery about it.; 10/28/09, 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: It ignores the fact that Ashkenazi Jews look identical to Northern Europeans, and that the very word "Ashkenazim" means "German".

No. "Identical" is way too strong. See the following:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/08/jews-tend-to-look-jewish.html; 10/28/09, 8:21 AM
Mandy said...: Half Sigma has a post on this called "Comments on Jews and Liberalism."

He culled what he claims are the "good comments" from this thread.

Apparently, the only good comments here came from Bob, Grizzlie Antagonist, Fred, and Whiskey.; 10/28/09, 8:29 AM
Anonymous said...: Anybody see Lawrence Auster's recent post titled "Sailer on Podhoretz"?

Auster suggests that Sailer is an anti-Semite:

"and if bigotry against Israel is anti-Semitism then Sailer is himself an anti-Semite"

"But is Sailer, who consistently exhibits a bigoted animus against the state of Israel"

He says that "Jews have gotten away with these vile attitudes [i.e. open borders, anti-majority politics, etc.] for decades, in some cases perhaps never realizing how vile they were, because no one criticizes them for them."

And he also says that criticism on the part of paleocons has been a cover for anti-Semitism: "If paleocons are going to propose a program of rational criticism of Jews, and not just use the word "criticism" as a cover for their anti-Semitism"

And finally, he calls for...a purge: "they [paleocons, but presumably others as well] need to purge the anti-Semites from their ranks and the anti-Semitism from their hearts."; 10/28/09, 8:56 AM
Anonymous said...: It ignores the fact that Ashkenazi Jews look identical to Northern Europeans

When did you dream up this fact?; 10/28/09, 9:47 AM
Top said...: "I've known plenty of Jews in real life, but most have been smart decent people. But, ones who become prominent tend to be chutzpahistic types, and Alan Dershowitz is a perfect illustration."

It's the same problem with Islam. For 90% of the people it really is a religion of peace. But just try building a church in one of their countries! Islam just happens to be a religion which could never control its extremists. Common sense game theory would predict that the for best results have the following: few extremists cooperating and doing the dirty work and the rest has to only give silent consent. That's how most societies work. The West is the exception in that it actually actively opposes its extremists. If it didn't the world may no longer be populated.

The problem is this: the West has controlled its extremists since WW2 because subconsciously people are still traumatized from the destruction and they realise that extremists plus nukes equal the end. That's the good part. The bad part is that no one else has bought into this new way of thinking - Israel is pretty much running a fascist state - and we all know that if the Arabs get the nukes it's the end for somebody. The biggest problem is that at some point Euros may lose their subconsious fear and make the decision that if their populations have no future in the world they might as well go out with a bang. Why control the extremists if you know your country is run by other ethnic groups' mafias, you are constatly ridiculed and critisized in the propaganda outlets, your young women are treated like prostitutes, and you are being actively discriminated against in the institutions you built?

Hmmm... from that perspective Russia, USA, UK, France look ripe for the extremist picking. Not in that new ones will arise (they have always been there) but in that the general population will lose interest in controlling them. In that type of scenario it will either be nukes used by extremists factions or large scale killings in gulags (native elite) concentration camps (minority cleansing).

That is why it more important then ever for ALL groups to control their extremists. If whites see that no one else is doing it then they will stop doing it.; 10/28/09, 12:10 PM
Pseudothyrum said...: green mamba:"This would obviously be a very extreme measure, given Jews' extraodinary intellectual achievements and their very small numbers."

Yeah, "extraordinary achievements" all made in White/European nations.

No one is claiming that Jews are not disproportionately intelligent, especially verbally and when it comes to the written word.

However, nearly all Jewish accomplishments have been made in European-majority nations, in an entirely European/White milieu: think about it -- Jews used European universities, European cities, European-invented technologies, European languages, and the knowledge-base that had been previously built up by Europeans.

Does that make sense? Would Jews have been as similarly successful if they would have never been allowed to settle in Europe or other White nations such as the USA, Australia, Argentina, etc?; 10/28/09, 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon:"I don't have any data on that, but a further point of commonality between gays and Jews is that both are exceptionally tightly knit communities which have an "us against the world" mentality."

Speaking of commonalities between Jews and gays -- has anyone noticed that a disproportionate number of gays in the USA are ethnically Jewish? Not talking only about the gay Jews in Hollywood, NYC, or San Fran here, but ALL over America, especially in major urban areas.; 10/28/09, 1:21 PM
Anonymous said...: BTW, Auster changed some of the words from his "Sailer on Podhoretz" post.

"purge" became "remove" for example.; 10/28/09, 3:38 PM
James said...: I don't think Disraeli was talking only about Ireland which maybe you're implying.; 10/28/09, 4:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon:"It ignores the fact that Ashkenazi Jews look identical to Northern Europeans"

Yea right! Dude, what have you been smoking?

SOME Jews look like Northern Euros because they have a certain amount of Northern European genes. But if you look at the 'purest' Ashkenazi Jewish groups, the Ultra-Orthodox, Haredi, and Hasidic Jews, nearly all of them look like Near Eastern Semites.; 10/28/09, 4:38 PM
David Blue said...: tommy, I have a much better idea for winning Jewish votes. Make an offer to the "black hats".

You won't get money from them, because they aren't the ones with the money to spare. (What they have, they spend on their many kids.) The highly assimilated and liberal Jews that you will never win over (no way, no how) are the ones with the money.

The "black hats" can give you their votes, and some goodwill. They can take the "cooties" off you to some extent. And their policy preferences are good for families (like theirs) and probably good for you anyway.

Highly conservative, Orthodox or Hasidic Jews are most of the Jewish votes that conservatives pick up already. Proof of concept.; 10/28/09, 6:56 PM
Ben Franklin said...: Larry Auster has written things himself indicating that he is somewhat aware of the role that Jewish Neocons have played in shutting down those who would support immigration reform/reduction on the Right. Maybe Auster forgot he wrote things like this, that he might consider “bigoted” against Neocons.

FROM AUSTER:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/001287.html

What Frum has said here is identical to the Big Lie purveyed by Jonah Goldberg last year in his Los Angeles Times article attacking immigration restrictionists. Goldberg's piece stated that the paleo immigration restrictionists had "hijacked"--and thus killed--the immigration debate. Goldberg's implication was that the neocons have all along wanted to have immigration reform, but that those paleocons have rendered the issue radioactive through their supposed extremism, particularly their emphasis on the importance of ethnicity and culture. In February 2002 I wrote a running commentary on the Goldberg piece and sent it to several correspondents. Here is ... my commentary:

Goldberg has now gone over the top in his audacity and dishonesty. When have he and his fellow neocons, minicons and microcons ever asked what unprecedented levels of immigration are doing to our culture? It is the people he's now attacking who have been asking that question for many years--and getting kicked in the teeth and expelled from respectable society for their trouble. This is Orwellian.

Pat Robertson said the other day that the problem was that immigration had been directed away from Europe and toward the Islamic world. If more people began speaking SIMPLE TRUTHS like that, and DID NOT RETREAT WHEN ATTACKED, this whole issue could turn around. It's the Goldbergs of the world who make that impossible; 10/28/09, 7:38 PM
RKU said...: tommy, I have a much better idea for winning Jewish votes. Make an offer to the "black hats"...You won't get money from them, because they aren't the ones with the money to spare...The highly assimilated and liberal Jews that you will never win over (no way, no how) are the ones with the money...The "black hats" can give you their votes, and some goodwill.

Frankly, this is an exceptionally silly idea...

All American Jews together probably aren't more than about 3% of the vote, which leaves the "Black Hat" Jews down at maybe 0.5%.

Jewish votes have almost no importance in American politics. What matters is Jewish money and Jewish media. The Black Hats have no money and no media, hence no importance. Furthermore, they mostly live in the NYC area, hardly a political "swing region." Frankly, I think going after the Black Hat Amish might make more political sense.

I'm glad the two Davids separated their names so we can remember that it's "David Blue" who's the silly David...; 10/28/09, 9:14 PM
Amman said...: If you can say that then either you've never seen any Hasidim or you've never seen any Semitic people from the near east.

I've traveled extensively in the Middle East. There are Arabs (especially in the Levant) that look more white than Ashkenazim. And there are Arabs that look less white than Ashkenazim.

Constantly linking to pictures of Natalie Portman and/or Maxim magazine models doesn't prove anything about populations.

You might as well link to pictures of sumo wrestlers to prove that the Japanese, one of the slimmest peoples in the world, are obese.; 10/28/09, 10:21 PM
David Blue said...: Anonymous said...

"The beards and funny clothes aside, Hasidic Jews look remarkably white."

There's been a ferocious selection in favor of being able to pass for non-Jewish.; 10/29/09, 12:23 AM
David Blue said...: RKU said...

"Jewish votes have almost no importance in American politics. What matters is Jewish money and Jewish media. The Black Hats have no money and no media, hence no importance."

I disagree. The internal workings of the Jewish people also matter, and a thread sparked by "Why are Jews liberals?" is the right place to raise issues related to that. I think babies matter, family histories matter, and attitudes passed on from parents and grandparents matter.

The black hats are the demographic "upstream" of Judaism, without which the destructive liberal ways that assimilated Jews not only advocate and press on others but practice themselves would long ago have made them fade away. Changing the messages handed down through the generations is desirable. It's a worthwhile goal that there be no Jewish consensus against white conservatives.

RKU said...

"I'm glad the two Davids separated their names so we can remember that it's "David Blue" who's the silly David..."

(Sigh.) I'm all in favor of neutral language and refraining from personal attacks and insults. But attacking people with no reply is inherently rewarding. Therefore, in order not to undermine civility by consistently rewarding the opposite, it's necessary to at least hold up a mirror to bad behavior. So to hold up a mirror to a bit of entirely unprovoked witless insolence...

It's good there's only one RKU, because he's very silly and it would be a shame if someone so silly was mistaken for someone intelligent.; 10/29/09, 12:46 AM
Anonymous said...: "If I hadn't already known Sailer to be an obsessive anti-Semite, I would have drawn that conclusion on the basis of that VDare article alone. When he thinks of Jews (and he does a great deal of thinking about Jews), he invariably imagines not flesh and blood human beings, but sinister intellectuals, high-ranking Goldman-Sachs employees, Forbes 400 CEOs and influential pundits. Altogether absent from the awareness of Sailer and his ilk is the great mass of Jews, who are ordinary, down-to-earth people. What I got out of his article is that, (1) "The Jews" are to be held responsible for America's, if not indeed the world's problems, and (2) Jews lamentably have it too good in America regardless of the party in power. Some of the logic he uses in the article, e.g., "it does not matter to Jews which party is in power because Goldman-Sachs has done well under both," is worthy of an intellectual sub-normal. Or consider his equal part sinister and equal part laughable mischaracterization of Leon Trotsky as a "mass murderer" (if Trotsky is simply a murderer, then so are Napoleon and Cromwell--as a concise depiction this is so tendentious and so off the mark that it is, as Lee Smolin said of string theory, "not even wrong"). His claims regarding Israel likewise tend to be as stupid as they are bigoted, such as his statement that Israel's security was "assured" after the Six-Day War. Perhaps he forgot that Israel was nearly destroyed just six years and four months later. Sailer is quite mistaken when he thinks that he has the right to use the word "complicit" and be taken seriously when talking about "the Jews" and the pre-war Soviet Union. In short, everything about his article, every paragraph, nearly every sentence is filled with drivel. Sailer certainly didn't disappoint."; 10/29/09, 2:45 AM
Bruce said...: Svigor,

We've argued before, never very productively. I saw a comment of yours addressed to someone in a recent ISTEVE post along the lines of “my explanation (Kevin MacDonald-ism) fits the facts better than yours (Jews actually believe leftism/liberalism).” My question to you is: Why is it either or ? I can accept that many Jews, particularly powerful ones, have been and are ethnocentric. But I think the great majority of Jews actually believe Leftist ideas.; 10/29/09, 5:55 AM
Anonymous said...: I've traveled extensively in the Middle East.

I live in NYC and have seen Hasidic Jews all my life.

I have never seen such white looking people, and that includes the trip I took to Ireland. The Irish are dusky by comparison.

The notion that these people are strongly Semitic is simply absurd.; 10/29/09, 8:51 AM
Anonymous said...: I'd say that half the people I know are Jewish. Only one, a Sephardic Jew whose parents are from Greece, looks remotely like the Jewish stereotype - slightly swarthy complexion, dark eyes, prominent nose, wiry build.

All the others look like "normal" white people and the only way you'd know they are Jewish is if they told you. Two of them have red hair. In general you could set them down in the middle of Kansas, England, or Germany and they'd blend right in with everyone else.; 10/29/09, 9:02 AM
PW said...: In my opinion, the biggest issue with Jews is their cosmopolitanism -- their cosmopolitanism is obviously the root cause of their liberalism.

We need to re-evaluate the increasingly menacing role which major cities play in the economy and culture of The West. It seems to me that they are becoming more and more destructive, especially socially, politically, and ecologically.

Many Western cities hardly export anything anymore except far-left politics and anti-Western mass-media junk, while at the same time they take in huge amounts of food, water, metals, energy, and so on -- and they also export a lot of literal sewage to the surrounding countryside too. Overall, in their present condition most cities seem to me to be highly parasitic and their existence antithetical to the goals of a healthy nation and culture. Thus, the Jewish ideal of cosmopolitanism is entirely unsustainable on a multitude of levels.

With the advent of advanced transportation, the internet, and other technologies, there is no need for humans to crowd in to cities or mass-suburbs anymore. Humans ought to live more ecologically-friendly lives, which means NOT crowding in to huge and unsustainable cosmopolitan centers. Farming, ranching, and manufacturing ought to be decentralized, and the huge cities at least partially depopulated in an organized fashion so that they can begin to heal from being severely environmentally damaged in the last few centuries of insane and anarchic urbanization/industrialization

FDR also desired this when he said back in 1937:

In September 1937, it was this leader, President Roosevelt, who delivered a speech of dedication beneath the dark crags of the Columbia Gorge, the river of which in its change now foretold a change for the mighty stream of the American people. ... The North-West, consisting of the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and the section of Montana west of the crest of the Rockies, offers an opportunity, said the President, 'to avoid some of the mistakes and wasteful exploitation of resources that have caused such serious problems in other parts of the country'. The North-West should not be a land of new 'Pittsburgs'. The President continued: 'It is because I am thinking of the nation and the region fifty years from now that I venture the further prophecy that as the time passes we will do everything to encourage the building up of smaller communities of the United States. To-day many people are beginning to realize that there is an inherent weakness in cities which become too large, and inherent strength in a wider geographical distribution of the population.' - http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/Wrench_Recon/Wrench_Recon_20.html

In the same link Thomas Jefferson said:

"The fear of the great metropolitan city is so ingrained in the thought of the people, writes Mr. Richard Neuberger in Free America, August 1940, in a quite triumphant article from which I have taken my information, that during the struggle over the Bonneville power rates, the words of President Jefferson (1743-1820) appeared in many local papers: 'I view great cities as pestilential to the health, the morals and the liberty of mankind.' That saying was directed against financial and industrial magnates, ambitious politicians and demagogues, who arise in cities and only by cities are made possible. The logical end of metropolitan civilization,and its most complete, one-piece form, is totalitarianism which is confessedly and in action 'pestilential to the liberties of mankind'."; 10/29/09, 12:37 PM
Middletown Girl said...: "Jewish votes have almost no importance in American politics. What matters is Jewish money and Jewish media. The Black Hats have no money and no media, hence no importance. Furthermore, they mostly live in the NYC area, hardly a political 'swing region.'"

But, every Jewish vote is crucial in Florida.; 10/29/09, 4:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I live in NYC and have seen Hasidic Jews all my life.

All the others look like "normal" white people and the only way you'd know they are Jewish is if they told you. Two of them have red hair. In general you could set them down in the middle of Kansas, England, or Germany and they'd blend right in with everyone else.

Hasids and the Amish dress basically the same.

If you took groups of both of them and shuffled them around, you would still be able to distinguish between them.; 10/29/09, 9:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Conservatives should focus on what are their eternal, fundamental, core-principles, namely cutting taxes on all the rich people who live in NYC and SF, and giving the national treasury to Goldman Sachs and its employees.

Fanny, Freddie, and Obama
By The Prowler
on 9.8.08 @ 12:08AM
spectator.org

When President George W. Bush nominated Henry Paulson to serve as Treasury Secretary, Republicans raised a red flag that Paulson, who, along with his wife, has strong ties to the Democrat party, would not be an honest broker with Republicans.

That seems to have been borne out, with sources inside of Treasury reporting that Paulson briefed Sen. Barack Obama and his campaign advisers on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout plan before offering such a briefing to the McCain campaign...

**********

Paulson and Obama
By The Prowler
on 9.26.08 @ 9:49AM
spectator.org

When Sen. Barack Obama was given the floor to speak during White House negotiations, according to White House aides, he did so raising concerns about a House Republican alternative to the Paulson/Bernanke $700 billion bailout. But those concerns weren't necessarily his, as he was not aware of the GOP plan before reviewing notes provided him by Paulson loyalists in Treasury prior to entering the meeting.

According to an Obama campaign source, the notes were passed to Obama via senior aides traveling with him, who had been emailed the document via a current Goldman Sachs employee and Wall Street fundraiser for the Obama campaign. "It was made clear that the memo was from 'friends' and was reliable," says the campaign source.

The memo allowed Obama and his fellow Democrats to box in Republican attendees and essentially took what President Bush had billed as a negotiating meeting off the rails

"Paulson and his team have not acted in good faith for this President or the administration for which they serve," says a House Republican leader...

**********

Bush didn't understand Paulson's bailout
James Forsyth
Tuesday, 15th September 2009, 8:57pm
spectator.co.uk

Latimer: "...the president was clearly confused about how the government would buy these securities. He repeated his belief that the government was going to "buy low and sell high," and he still didn't understand why we hadn't put that into the speech like he'd asked us to. When it was explained to him that his concept of the bailout proposal wasn't correct, the president was momentarily speechless. He threw up his hands in frustration.

"Why did I sign on to this proposal if I don't understand what it does?" he asked."

Forsyth: Indeed, Latimer reports White House gossip that at one meeting, an exasperated Bush told Paulson, "You've got to tell me what you're doing."; 10/29/09, 11:11 PM
Svigor said...: There's been a ferocious selection in favor of being able to pass for non-Jewish.

The "ferocious" part has always given me pause. I can understand that there was selection pressure in this direction, but "ferocious" pressure? I'm skeptical.; 10/30/09, 6:24 AM
Svigor said...: Svigor,

We've argued before, never very productively. I saw a comment of yours addressed to someone in a recent ISTEVE post along the lines of “my explanation (Kevin MacDonald-ism) fits the facts better than yours (Jews actually believe leftism/liberalism).” My question to you is: Why is it either or ? I can accept that many Jews, particularly powerful ones, have been and are ethnocentric. But I think the great majority of Jews actually believe Leftist ideas.

Because Jews don't behave as consistently vis-a-vis the latter as they do the former. How does leftism explain the America/Israel dichotomy? How does liberalism explain the one-way culture of critique?

I think many, if not most, American Jews do believe their liberalism to be genuine, but their behavior tells another story. Who/whom just works better.; 10/30/09, 6:33 AM
Svigor said...: If I hadn't already known Sailer to be an obsessive anti-Semite...

Unusual to see that many words strung together that don't contain an argument.

Some people have deactivated the buttons you're pushing. E.g., the "the Jews" button. Dead on this end, sorry.

Oh wait, there was one argument, the Six Day War thing. My bad.; 10/30/09, 6:40 AM
Svigor said...: But, every Jewish vote is crucial in Florida.

Are any of them Haredi?; 10/30/09, 6:41 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»

Steve Sailer: iSteve

October 25, 2009

"Why Are Jews Liberals?"

207 comments:

Panhandling

Links

Search This Blog

Recent Comments

Classic Steve Sailer articles

Rough Cut

"What Is Winter Good For?"

Blog Archive

My Book:

Labels

Popular Posts

Contribute money to iSteve

Flattr this blog

Translate

Stats

Total Pageviews

Site Meter

Steve Sailer: iSteve

October 25, 2009

"Why Are Jews Liberals?"

207 comments:

Panhandling

Subscribe To iSteve

Links

Search This Blog

Recent Comments

Classic Steve Sailer articles

Subscribe To

Rough Cut

Subscribe To iSteve

"What Is Winter Good For?"

Blog Archive

My Book:

Labels

Popular Posts

Contribute money to iSteve

Flattr this blog

Translate

Stats

Total Pageviews

Subscribe To iSteve

Site Meter