The Senate Judiciary Committee is charged with the serious ruling-class responsibility — or masquerade as it turns out– of vetting Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Given the supremacy of the Democratic Party these days, there are 12 Democrats and only 7 Republicans on the committee; and I count seven of my people among the Democrats: Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Cardin, Franken, Schumer and Specter. (Yes I misidentified Specter as a Republican the other day). An eighth senator, Kaufman, has Jewish heritage.
Whatever the standing of the Christian right in the Republican Party (and Frank Rich and I say it has sat down), there are as many Jews on this committee as there are Republicans; and many of these Jews have expressed an identification with Israel. Franken, locked in an election dispute last January, defended Israel's savage actions in Gaza (as did his opponent, Norm Coleman, a former Senator, also Jewish). The fact that non-Jewish politicians express the same sentiments has a lot to do with Jewish power in the Establishment, in political giving, in the media, in thinktanks, in lobbies–and in turn with Jewish identity, which has been constructed in the last 50 years to entail what Dershowitz calls the "secular religion" of supporting a militarist state that treats its minority as second-class citizens and worse.
Back to sociology. These numbers should prompt Jews to reflect: How much power do we have in American society? Is it appropriate to think of ourselves as outsiders, or "a minority"? How significant is anti-Semitism (the basis of the Zionist idea) in America? Do those of us in the media who write about sociological issues have a responsibility to address these issues? (And yes I mean David Brooks, socio-trend-tracker par excellence, who has been to Israel 12 times out of "gooey-eyed" identification, and who can spot a WASP at 1000 meters and write about his drinking habits and other mannerisms.)
And what if those seven Jewish senators all said to their children, in line with Jewish organizational edicts, I don't want you to marry non-Jews? I wonder what Sonia Sotomayor would make of that.
(Notice I haven't said a word about wealth, another important indicator of power in a capitalist society, and of marital attraction, too… some other time.)
Related posts:
- Jews, Including Noah Feldman, Need to Emulate the WASPs’ Discourse of Privilege
- Specter hops from religious right’s party to the religious left’s
- The Persecution of Larry Craig (Yes, There’s a Jewish Angle)
- WASPs Are the New Secularists, Jews the New Parochialists
- CAIR says Specter has backed out of Islamophobic conference
{ 80 comments }
If we are going to deal with the reality of Jewish influence, then we have to deal with what Jews do with their power. Are Jews driving immigration policy, foreign policy, economic policy and domestic policies that alienate the majority and destroy the traditional fabric of the nation? Are Jews a people who feel they have the right to change a society to favor thier perceived interests against those of the majority, just because they have found themselves in a powerful position? Gaining power and keeping power are two diferent things. Is a minority that lords over the majority somehow better than a majority that lords over a minority? The minority in power is, at best, much less utilitarian! I believe the Jewish influence is far worse than simply being less utilitarian.
if repulicans want to win the white house ever again they must stop ailenating the hispanic people in places like florida ( i went to miami and its like mini cuba if you speek english to taxi drivers they look out if you are from another planet ) , and colorado ……..
Phillip: This post gives me an opportunity to air a pet view. I'd say Jews have all the last century been AMONG the establishment but only since WWII have they BEEN "the establishment." The anti-semitic thing permitted them to leapfrog ahead in America and elsewhere and shed the historical truth of their elite (and somewhat murderous) reputation in the old USSR. Who talks of the Ukraine thing while the H. is so big? But all of this diverts attention from what I see is their MAIN tool. (I can't use the word "thing" another time, can I?) It is finance, specifically complicated, high tech finance, as on high display lately in America. I call it usury and subscribe entirely to the ((old) Christian (and Islamic) negative view of it. We have been on a Jews-driven 500-year-long drive to exploit the world. I call if the Age of the Usury Paradigm. It is more generally known as the age of Capitalism. I am here to announce it is now over; its death will be long in coming and very painful, but it is coming. Where that will leave the Jews, who can say? Tom White
That's been tried, and it's called hispandering. It failed, even with reports of large numbers of illegal hispanics voting. If Republicans want to win, they will have to actually keep their promises to look after the interests of their base. Miami is one city, and legal white voters alone outnumber legal hispanic voters by such a wide margin nationally that the hispanic vote shouldn't mean much to Republicans. If amnesty of illegals goes through, the story changes. We just have to ask why the illegals (and legals) are allowed here in the first place when the vast majority of Americans never wanted them, and would love to see them sent packing. Who decided to change the demographics and culture of the nation, why did they do so and how do they benefit?
Quite a lot of Cuban originating Hispanics (especially the older ones) favour Republicans because of their tough attitude towards the Castro regime. —– Jews, especially in the US and Britain, have essentially been part of the establishment for my whole life and presumably a lot longer.
The most disturbing aspect about tribal-minded Jews with a lot of power (and I would put nearly all Jewish Zionists in the tribal category, including Franken) is their deep sub-conscious hostility towards non-Jews, and the manifestations of that hostility in terms of policy. It’s no accident that the more power that tribal Jews have gathered for themselves, the further the U.S., which is now going the way of the Soviet Union, has fallen. (The Soviet Union had a lot of Jews in powerful positions, as well.) Phil seem to believe that once tribal Jews lose their insecurity, this hostility will disappear. But the tribal Jewish culture actually conditions both hostility and insecurity towards goys, along with a supremacist complex (a poisonous mix). And so those attitudes won’t disappear, because they are by design. Powerful Jews never dropped their programmed hostility and paranoia in Soviet Russia, either. In fact, the more power the accumulated, the worse it appears to have gotten.
Todd… other than the fact that there are many Jews who support Israel and Zionism and use their influence to promote the displacement (ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians… what is it about Jews that pisses you off so much? What exactly is it that Jews are doing in regards to immigration, economic and domestic policies that alienate people? To be honest when I hear the psychosis of Americans in regards to immigration, economic and domestic policies more likely than not the policies that leave me feeling repulsed and concerned come from non-Jewish sources like Tancredo, Limbaugh, Bush, the non-Jews that are interrogating Sotomayor for being a wise Latina woman, etc. I'm all for blaming the Zionists for what they are responsible for but that doesn't let non-Jewish Americans off the hook for anything. It's amazing that these jackals continue to ask her if being a woman or a Latina will prejudice her ability to be a supreme court justice, I'd like to see Christian Zionist lunatics interrogated about whether their backwards religious ideology will make them prejudiced against the United States when dealing with all foreign policy issues regarding the usurping entity.
Lazy Americans decided that they wanted "the illegals" here when they hired them for cheap labor that they were unwilling and incapable of doing for themselves: cooking, cleaning, raising their children, etc.
That's simply not true. You aren't dealing with the issue honestly. Very few Americans use illegals to raise their children and do their cooking and cleaning. I've yet to see a public opinion poll that shows that Americans favor the illegal and legal immigration we have. It's not even close!
Again, This is the low level of your content Phil. Its NOT self-reflective, nor inviting of self-reflection. Or, as my earlier post was "reviewed", is this thread meant to exclude Jews from participation?
I you think that Jewish influence stops with the Palestinian issue, you aren't familiar with America. And if you think that Americans aren't negatively affected by being forced to support Israel, and by the wasted money, wasted lives and corruotion that comes with it, you don't see the issue fully. If Jews are major power players, then we have to give them some credit for what is being done beyond Palestine. I don't care if you don't like the discussion. As for the WASPs in positions of influence, they all tow the line of Israel. They are owned in every way imaginable. Your comments on Sotomayor make no sense. Associating with LaRaza alone should bar her from being on the Supreme Court. Combine her group associations with her repeated "wise Latina" comments and biased ruling in the Ricci case, and the case against her should be a slam dunk.
"(Notice I haven't said a word about wealth, another important indicator of power in a capitalist society, and of marital attraction, too… some other time.)" I think you make a mistake when claiming that Jewish wealth in a capitalist society is major driving force behind Jewish success in America. I accept the claim that capitalism has largely been a spent force in America and Europe since the 20s and 30s, at least, and that managers and financiers are guiding the state with a facade of capitalism. I would guess that unknown bureaucrats, wonks and lawyers have more influence within the government than T. Boone Pickens or Ross Perot would have. cont…
Todd, have you ever eaten at a restaurant? Stayed at a hotel? Needed to utilize a house cleaning service? I have and I don't think I have ever stayed at a hotel and not had a Mexican woman show up to clean my room. Very hard to go to a restaurant in California and not find Latinos working the kitchen and the mops. But I am not complaining, I don't have the same views on immigration as you do. I live in occupied Aztlan.
If anything, Jews had an organizational advantage over many Americans by coming from activist and organizational backgrounds in heavily bureaucratic states like Russia and Germany, and merging with the merchant and financial class of Jews already in the U.S. Some questions are whether or not the situation is beneficial for traditional Americans (since there is no law stating that we have to drop our culture and traditional way of government just because Jews are influential at the moment), how long the situation is likely to last, and what Jewish intentions are. It's a two-way street.
***Also, I felt that way before I stumbled upon Phil and Adam or any other Jews so you can't blame them!
And California is in very good shape because of the situation. I actually worked as a landscaper as a teen and have worked in restaurants, and Mexicans were not an issue in my area at the time. Guess what? We did fine without them. You don't find many Americans doing landscaping or working in restaurants these days because the wages and working conditions have been lowered due to immigration. I personally know many people who lost jobs and businesses that made a decent life possible because they either can't or will not compete with the large firms who rely on immigrant labor, or because they didn't want the lower standard of living and work that goes along with competing with illegal and legal immigrants who are here just because they were easy to exploit at one time.
"I you think that Jewish influence stops with the Palestinian issue, you aren't familiar with America." I’ve never done extensive research to find out what the role of Jews has been in all issues that I care about or are important to me. But in many of the social issues not related to Palestine that I do care about I find myself in agreement with Jews more often than with Christian conservatives that morally repulse me. “And if you think that Americans aren't negatively affected by being forced to support Israel, and by the wasted money, wasted lives and corruotion that comes with it, you don't see the issue fully.” I agree with you and I think that support of Israel is detrimental to the U.S. “If Jews are major power players, then we have to give them some credit for what is being done beyond Palestine. I don't care if you don't like the discussion.” Huh? “As for the WASPs in positions of influence, they all tow the line of Israel. They are owned in every way imaginable.” No, I disagree. I don’t believe that Jews control the country, I think it’s absurd actually. This country is responsible for a lot of disgusting deeds way before the first pocket of Jews arrived. I believe that the power structure allows Jews to control the discourse about Palestine because they believe it is in the best interest of the United States to continue to have America’s pit bull in the region as an ally and they don’t want to take the blame for what that means: ethnic cleansing, land theft, extrajudicial assassination, routine violation of human rights, illegal detentions, etc. “Your comments on Sotomayor make no sense. Associating with LaRaza alone should bar her from being on the Supreme Court. Combine her group associations with her repeated "wise Latina" comments and biased ruling in the Ricci case, and the case against her should be a slam dunk.” I am not afraid of wise Latinas nor am I afraid of La Raza. I think minorities should empower themselves, if that means joining La Raza then so be it.
I agree with Todd. Unless you think the 1965 Immigration Act has been a total plus for the USA, and unless you think that Affirmative Action has been a total plus for the USA, and unless you think the status quo Fed Reserve-Treasury-Wall St partnership is a total plus for the USA, perhaps you should study the full impact on such items as well as you study the impact of the USA rubber-stamping of Israeli policy on all parties concerned. Re seham's: "interrogating Sotomayor for being a wise Latina woman, etc." She was not being questioned (a legal requirement BTW) for being a wise Latina woman; rather she was being questioned for what she has said in public multiple times, as Todd says. Any white who made identical statements in reverse, even in private, would be canned ASAP from whatever governmental slot they had or aspired to. Sessions was barred from being a federal judge candidate because somebody alleged he called him "boy," which was denied by various witnesses there at the time, and for calling the NAACP "un-American." Sotomayer also stated many times she felt the role of the federal judge was to make policy. This is all of record, though she denies it now. She told Sessions her role in the Ricci case was she applied judicial precedent from Second Circuit and Supreme Court. In fact even the Supreme Court says in its opinion there was no such precedent to apply.
Even Phil admits that Jews have influence far beyond the issue of Palestine. I don't need a manifesto to make the claim, but it is obvious. And if WASPs get the blame for past wrongs or controversial actions, I certainly think that Jews should answer for the power they wield. As far as Sotomayor goes, LaRaza is every bit a divisive as the modern klan, and klan ties would be way more than enough to sink any white candidate, as would any comment about the virtues of whites. Also, LaRaza covers for people who are illegally! Should a Supreme Coure justice have such associations? Exactly who does have to obey the law?
Senator Kyle–check out the Q & A between him and Sotomayer. The 1965 Immigration Act check out the official congressional record on the passage of that act, which includes who was behind its passage. Kennedy was just a front man. Re our economic system-monetary, study what Wall St & Acorn, ad Fannie Mae did and how; and read The Creature From Jekyll Island, note the key players in the Fed Reserve over time, and check out in conjunction, Peter Schiff's Crash Proof. Wake up.
Illegal immigrants are not to blame for the state of CA's economy. If Americans don't want to pay decent living wages for Americans to mow lawns and work in restaurants why should you hate on Mexicans that are willing to do anything to feed their children?
Witty, do you point out the low-level of content on other blogs you frequent? If you do, then I understand. But is some of your 'advice' to Phil, motivated by your political differences?
I find affiliation with La Raza to be much more benign than the politics of some of the justices who wish that they could mandate what I do with my body.
Most Americans rarely eat at a restaurant other than McDonald's type chains–plenty of young whites working there across the land; most have at most stayed once a great while at a shabby motel, not a hotel, and few have ever had a house cleaning service. Large corporations employ the bulk of illegal Mexicans to pick their crops, etc; read the History for god-sakes of how they originally start coming in droves and why–it's always been a way to avoid minimum official US labor demands. In short, lazy Americans did not decide they wanted the illegals (no quotation marks; they are illegal) here for cheap labor, but rather corporate business diluted enforcement of US immigration laws via moneybags lobbying so they could make a huge profit by skirting minimum wage and union mandates.
"Even Phil admits that Jews have influence far beyond the issue of Palestine." Ok but I think Chomsky agrees with me.
You are correct that finance has been the great weapon of the Jews for ages; they took advantage of the fact Christians were forbidden to so occupy their time at least since the European early Middle Ages (and the Jews were forbidden to own land, but not to manage it for Christian, as they did their money; everybody made out nicely except the overwhelming masses of goy serfs or peasants. I notice Obama's new reforms of credit card business DOES NOT include putting any cap on usury–most US states use to have such caps… BTW, the Jews were not allowed to deal financially with fellow jews as they did with gentiles–even to this day this is a jewish shadow law, witness why the Jews rally hate Madoff–no such swell of Jewish outrage over any of the past American Jewish high finance swindlers–check it out.
Then Chomsky is probably wrong.
Texas has one of the highest numbers of illegal immigrants and the Texans (most of whom are Republican) are perfectly happy having them. It's a myth that illegal immigrants lower wages – the economics of Labour simply doesn't work like that.
So funny that this stuff goes under the radar in the MSM! Jews comprise like 2 percent of the population! Phil this is so funny that your the only one reporting this!
I think the 1965 Immigration Act was inevitable – How can you decry Israel's favouring of Jewish immigration if American immigration policies discriminate against race. I agree with you about Affirmative action – it's a stupid idea. But neither of these got through because of 'Jewish' influence. As far as I know the Immigration Act passed with a huge majority in both houses of Congress
The proposer was Jewish – so what? All the other major supporters were gentiles
Its motivated by the observation of his audience and tone, and the high likelihood of racist commentary. It seems that he is asking Jews to self-reflect. But, he's NOT asking it of Jews, by posting here. He's staked out a different audience in his combination of fixations.
That's where you are wrong. This is exactly the audience he preaches to. Something happened to him in his very privileged life, which has severely damaged him.
A question asking whether Islam is in inherently violent or intolerant is likely to attract racist posters. Does that mean it shouldn't be asked? And I don't think he's asking this question solely to Jews, he's asking everyone about their perceptions of Jews. Personally, up until very recently, I couldn't tell the difference between WASPs and Jews and neither can quite a lot of people. The likelihood of someone discriminating against someone because they're Jewish or have a Jewish sounding name is minimal. In the US especially, Jews are over-represented in areas such as politics, business and finance – obviously this is due to their own hard work but it's kinda feeble to claim that Jews are still the 'little man'
Conspiracy theories against Jews…
Seham, obviously if a Jewish plutocracy in conspiracy with a Jewish intelligentsia managed to render the USA a dependent and intimidated client state, they would make sure that common wisdom corresponded more or less to your beliefs:
The Wise Latina issue is a distraction. The disproportionate role of Zionist Jews in judgships threatens the whole judicial system as much as corrupt Jewish social networking has ruined the financial system. Here is a Jewish judge ruling on the basis of Zionist propaganda: Red Herring: Resisting Islamic Law. Americans need to have a serious discussion about purging the judiciary of Zionists.
The scary part is the effect of so much power: it makes Jews more nervous and fearful of gentiles. Hence all the hate crime stuff. Gentiles have to be engineered or intimidated not to notice. Only thing is gentiles ARE going to notice (eventually), and pretending otherwise doesn't help. And making it a crime to notice REALLY doesn't help. Who wrote that book "The Fatal Embrace"? We are seeing a repeat of the same pattern here. I look at South africa and Zimbabwe and Indonesia and all the other places where westerners dominated, did good things for the people and were eventually asked to leave. It shouldn't have beena surprise. No one likes to be dominated by outsiders in their own country, even by those who share many of the same values. Market Dominant Minorities will always suffer. And that (contrary to the "2000 year hate" rhetoric) is what has happened over and over again. No conspiracies, Jewish or otherwise, are necessary, just superior group intelligence and the ability to craft a good argument and lead a lesser people in a direction you prefer.
I don't know about Texas, but I know many people who have had their neighborhoods turned upside down because of a massive influx of immigrants, legal and illegal. If illegals are so welcome, why do other groups often move out when illegals start to move in? It isn't just racism! Also, I know that immigrants often lower wages. I've personally seen it happen. It's no big secret!
Yes Thors, I understand what the conspiracy is and I don't deny that there is a concerted effort by Zionists to alter the facts on the ground in the U.S. to create an environment in which they will hope that their shitty little Zionist endeavor is forever supported by this country. I get that. But all that I am saying is that I don't think they are pulling the wool over anyone's eyes (is that how that saying goes, I'm so bad at those things) and that I think that they are "allowed" to do what they do because Americans think it's in their best interest to have Israel as an ally. But you all seem to think that the magic recipe to fix the U.S. is to erase Zionism and it's influence and I think that Zionism is only one facet of what is wrong with the U.S. I read history you know, I know that the U.S. pre-Zionism was not the wonderland that you think it was.
No just truth telling. Conspiracies can be real. This is one of them.
While I recognize that this doesn't exactly go to Phil's point and that in fact the issue that a lot of people are talking about here is about the association of jewish politicians and jews as regards *substantive* issues, I think it's deeply unfair to make an association between the *character* of jewish politicians and the character of jews generally. And while I don't know that I've seen it here consciously, I think that's a danger when you start talking about specific jewish names in politics and some other fields especially as has been done here. No different than how unfair it is to associate the character of any politician or high-financier with the character of those with whom they share some racial, ethnic or other tribal characteristic. Just as you wouldn't associate the character of Irish-Catholic Americans with the character of Teddy Kennedy. Or associate the character of all Italian-Americans with that of Charles Ponzi. Politics and other jobs have their inherent nature, and politics and high finance have their inherently rough, nasty natures making the character of *all* politicians and high-financiers at least a little rough and nasty. But that overwhelmingly if not totally comes from those individual's desire and decision to play in those sandboxes, not from their genes or blood or culture even. *Substantive* stands on issues are different I think, and fair game. But I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate people looking at politicians coming from my ethnic background and imputing their character to me.
Illegals aren't welcome, but legals are. An amnesty for all illegal immigrants makes most sense. By legitimising them, they'll settle down, pay taxes and companies employing them will have to increase their wages in line with average Americans. By limiting legal immigration, you increase the illegal sort. There's no way to stop immigration completely, the fence being built along the Rio Grande is useless, so it makes most sense to promote legal immigration, which have many more advantages than disadavantages. It's kinda hypocritical for you to say Americans don't want immigrants when your whole nation is based on immigration, first from Western Europe, then from Eastern Europe, South and East Asia and now from Latin America. And illegal immigrants do offer lower wages, but only in jobs that native Americans don't want to do. Low-skilled jobs will always offer low wages. This pushes Americans onto higher skilled and better paid jobs, where there's no way they can compete on higher skilled jobs. How much extra would you be willing to pay at a restaurant that employed only Americans? How much extra would you be willing to pay for your groceries if they were picked only by Americans? It's no surprise that Texas, which is the most migrant friendly out of the border states, has the brightest future economy wise. California on the other hand, which has done its utmost to keep them out… I assume you're free-marketeers, but what I don't understand is why you're against a free labour market. Finally, you say people's neighbourhoods have been 'turned upside down by immigrants', what do you mean exactly by that?
Amnesty would only cement the fact that the law means only what the powerful want it to mean, and will only be applied when the powerful wish to apply the law. Few people want the massive legal and illegal immigration. When the nation is rapidly dividing along racial and ethnic lines, what sense does it make to to allow a foreign born and unassimilable group of people amounting to around 10% of the population to move here legally or illegally? We can debate the founding of America all you want, but it isn't true that the nation was based on massive non-Western immigration for most of its history, and most of the immigration (not colonization or settling) was done exactly for cheap labor. It seems that every time the masses make some gains, our overlords are there to flood us with cheap labor. That's been an issue sine the 1820s or 30s. cont…
I have to disagree with you, Shafiq, when you say that immigrants only do jobs that Amricans refuse to do, and that immigrants don't drive wages down. I know too many people who have been driven from construction, landscaping and manufacturing (non-union) because they can't compete with people who are willing to live 2 or 3 families to a home, or in some way take a drastic cut in living conditions. Its all coming home to roost now that the economy is shaking the non-essential jobs loose. Basically, you can look at the jobs that immigrants do, and you can see the jobs that haven't kept pace with inflation. The jobs that I had while working through college pay about the same as they did when I was in college, but the same apartment has almost doubled in rent, and tuition and books are much higher, as are most things. Most of those jobs are performed by immigrants now.
"I call if the Age of the Usury Paradigm" – yes exactly, I could not agree more. What do you envision replacing it?
Bill, I do not think it is a question of intelligence or Israel would not have the problems it does, it is a question of group dynamics. "The book concludes that, not only will collective action by large groups be difficult to achieve even when they have interests in common, but situations could also occur where the minority (bound together by concentrated selective incentives) can dominate the majority." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collect...
But Sin, if there was not some truth in stereotypes, then there wouldn't be stereotypes. You more or less say this when you speak of politicians and financiers. Perhaps their desire to play in those sandboxes comes at some level from genetics or background.
"Finally, you say people's neighbourhoods have been 'turned upside down by immigrants', what do you mean exactly by that?" Overcrowding and culture clash are big issues. I know older people who sold homes that they owned during the housing bubble to escape overcrowding and the transient atmosphere of immigrants. I graduated high school with many of the same people I attended kindergarten with, but some schools in the same district now have a yearly turnover rate of 50%, and more in one case. For some people, it's literally like living in the baracks of a work camp. I know one case where a house was occupied by so many people that electricity was extended to the crawl space under the house so that more people could live there. I know of other similar situations, so I don't think it's that unusual. And the cases I mention were in what was considered lower middle to middle class neighborhoods not long ago. I have a hard time believing that the people refusing to enforce the law, or making money off the situation would put up with similar situations–and I didn't even mention the crime.
I understand that generalizing can lead to problems, but it isn't unfair to say that groups of similar people often, at least, perceive that they have similar interests, and work together towards common goals. It's perfectly clear from early on that there would have been no support for Israel without Jewish support and lobbying. Do you think that it isn't fair to question Jewish roles? I think it is fair to say that La Cosa Nostra was largely an Italian group, just as I think it is fair to say that neocons are largely Jews working for what they believe are Jewish interests. Who has a problem stating that WASP elites worked together in the past? Whatever the differences are between groups, they do exist, and often in ways that aren't harmonious. And the differences aren't just political or financial. Is it fair to say that Jewish influence in entertainment and media reflect common Jewish traits? If the problem is just one of networking Jewish politicians and megalomaniacs serving their own interests behind a Jewish facade, it's still a very corrosive situation.
At the moment, it's the powerful that are unwilling to declare an amnesty, but it is the right thing to do, both economically and morally for the reasons I've outlined above. The US (along with Western Europe) has always divided along racial lines. Little Chinas, Little Italies etc. or divisions along religious lines have been in existence since the foundation of the US. Over time however, these melt away as the descendants of immigrants assimilate. With Hispanics, it's going to be exactly the same. Hispanic-Americans have a lot more in common with you than they have with their cousins back home. 'The West' has had a different meaning over time – in the 1900s, Italian immigrants would not have been classified as Western and their immigration to the US was greeted with exactly the same reaction.
Without the powerful, there would be no call for amnesty. Do you believe that it is average Americans who are beating the drums and using the media to shout down anyone who disagrees with amnesty, immigration and multiculturalism as a racist? I've yet to see a survey that didn't show a vast majority of Americans coming out against amnesty. And Amnesty is not the right thing to do. It is morally wrong for U.S. politicians and power brokers to line their pockets and subvert laws at the expense of the American masses. It's bogus to claim that I have much in comon with hispanics, because I don't. To be honest, every wave of immigrants has changed the nation, and there has never been a wave as large and as different–and coming at a time when American cultural identity is under constant attack, at that! Western identity has remained stable for a very long time, but attempting to include everyone who comes here is more likely to destroy the identity than anything else.
I don't know if I buy Jewish superiority, either. Unless I have only met the dumbest Jews, most seem pretty average to me. I even think the polish and training that characterized the group in the past is starting to slip.
No one else is concerned with MondoBullshit.
I guess you are if you're reading it, dumb-dumb. yeah, that was quite stupid.
Hi Todd (responding to my earlier comment) and Laurie: I'm not sure I see any real disagreement with what I wrote from either of you except to the extent that both of you seem to feel that maybe some … "genetics or background" issues as Laurie puts it gives at least a little validity to some stereotypes. In response I guess I'd first just want to make clear that my sole point was that it isn't fair to impute to an entire tribe the character of just a few of its members who happen to be prominent. From there then the closest I see to a disagreement is where Laurie interestingly suggests that people may play in certain sandboxes "from genetics or background" and Todd talks a bit of culture too which I guess could be taken to argue that, for instance, you might make some valid inferences about the character of Irish-Americans by looking at the character of prominent Irish-American cops. And as to this I'd firstly just observe that it only goes to my issue in a very indirect route. I.e., that Irish-Americans, out of "genetics or background," are or were drawn for some reason to be cops, and therefore there's some parallels likely between the character of Irish-American cops and Irish-American's generally. I think everyone would agree that there does seem to be some sense to the idea that, for whatever reason(s), at least at one time Irish-Americans were indeed drawn to be cops, so that seems to be a fair point. (And let's call those reasons "cultural" to keep to Laurie's "background" point but also to dismiss the "genetic" speculation. Humans have only lived in the modern age with its different occupations existing for a measly few thousand years at most, whereas our genetic makeup was formed over millions of years. So I don't think any genes exist predisposing anyone towards, say, barbering or farming or politicking or etc. Culture is the thing that does that.) So anyway okay, but to validly start to get to the next point of inferring things about Irish-Americans in general I think is a difficult two-step process. First of course you'd have to look at a *lot* of Irish-American cops to try to perceive of any common aspects they share amongst *themselves*, right? (Which still doesn't argue with my point because of course I was talking about inferring things about jews generally from just a few prominent jews.) And then at the very *least* you have to try to suss out whether those common aspects they share didn't arise from some common particularity only *they* share and not from some general "Irish" cultural attrribute or etc. E.g., the Irish cops became cops because they were just the ones in the Irish population drawn to active, semi-dangerous lifestyles as opposed to some generalized Irish affection for having an orderly society or etc. But you might still be able to validly do that, so that, for instance, you look at the number of American jews in the past or present who are or were comics and you might be able to validly say "hey, there's a kind of a modern jewish cultural component at work here. These guys (and now increasingly female jewish comics too) have some representativeness of modern American jewish culture." And of course you can see lots of expressions from jews saying and being proud of just that about this very phenenomenon, talking proudly about how it's somewhat of a reflection of the jewish love of humor and seeing the world's comic, tragic side and etc. (With most of comedy being rooted in at least some form of tragedy I think, interestingly enough, even if it's just pratfalls.) But I think you still have to be very careful here too, because *every* cultural group has its laudable attributes and its ugly ones, and, moreover, what is one person's "laudable" attribute is another person's ugly one. For instance, one attribute commonly associated with my ethnic group is "mulish dumbness" or "stubborness," and yet viewed in a slightly different light that becomes "determinedness" instead, or "resoluteness," or "indominableness," or even "romantic, reckless courageousness." Same with the pride jews have in keeping their bonds together through all the centuries. To them—and to me to a great extent—what a helluva admirable thing.To others, it's raw, ugly tribalism or racism. Depends on how it's expressed, and the circumstances, don't it? I.e., one man's meat is another's poison, and it depends on the age and the circumstances, doesn't it?
Just to go back to the Texan thing, many ordinary Texans want an amnesty and want free immigration. There are many jobs available that Americans won't do anymore – picking crops for example. Multiculturalism is a different concept, which I don't agree with – especially in a country that's meant to be a melting pot. And it's not bogus to claim that you have much in common with Hispanics – you do. You have much more in common with them, than you have in common with Brits or Canadians. Just like African-Americans have nothing in common with Africans. An Amnesty is cheaper and actually benefits the American masses – immigrants are more likely to pay tax and are less likely to demand much from welfare (despite all the propaganda). It's not racist to oppose immigration – but it is misguided. Western ideas evolve like everything else – it's certainly not static. The role of women in society, the way the West interacts with the rest of the world, Western ideas of economics, the meaning of 'liberty', the concept of punishment – all have evolved over time. The concept and definition of the 'West' has itself evolved.
I'll start with the manufacturing example – If we assume that immigration is stopped completely, that American wages remain high, and that the job is low-skilled (immigrants aren't likely to compete at high-skilled ones), then this is what will happen: – The wages of Americans will remain artificially high, making them uncompetitive in the world market. – Foreign made goods with cheaper labour will prevail over their home-made counterparts. – American factories close, Americans are laid off, overall wages for factory workers reduce. If you have immigration: – Immigrants on low-skilled jobs compete on wages against Americans – Immigrants win, Americans are laid off. – Americans then decide to either start their own business or upskill themselves, moving on to a higher-level on the labour ladder, with higher wages. You know we live in a time where Chinese workers can assemble components made in and shipped from Latin America to be shipped back to the US to be sold. Americans can't compete on wages, which is why they have to compete on skill – Immigration makes no difference whatsoever. And if a person wants their lawn mown for $3 dollars, then they'll get an immigrant to do it or maybe they'll get their kid to do it. If they want a quality garden, then they'll get a proffessional landscape gardener, who doesn't have to lower his prices.
Nearly all of these problems (minus the culture clash) would be solved by an amnesty. Legal immigrants are there to stay and do not want to stay in overcrowded homes. Their kids will stay in school, they'll get a nice home etc,. Illegal immigrants on the other hand, have to constantly move to avoid detection from Law enforcement agencies. The culture clash that you mention is something that requires time. Over time, they'll incorporate American culture whilst you will incorporate some of their culture into yours.
"I don't think any genes exist predisposing anyone towards, say, barbering or farming or politicking" – Well, lets think about this. There have been studies done on identical twins that were separated at birth and what was found were remarkable similarities in attitudes, temperament and tastes (clothing styles etc.) which are manifestations of personality. I have read that up to 90% of personality is genetic. Certain diseases are prominent in certain groups. If disease can be genetically linked (and no one denies that now days), why not personality traits which would mean certain groups would be abundantly represented in certain fields. This doesn't negate your point that all groups hold the various personality types. What is does say is certain personality types are found more in some groups than others and if a group has a lot of these types, well it just stands to reason you will find them more in some fields rather than others. As far as judging any personality type as good or bad, I leave that up to the culture that is judging it. When in Rome, one must do as the Romans. Tribalism, in and of itself I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the Jewish propensity to cry racist or bigot when white people engage in it. I call that hypocrisy. And in my value system that is about as bad as you can get because it is intellectually dishonest. I have a right to judge cultural groups according to my values. I do not have a right to try to change them to my liking any more then they have a right to change me, at least this is a value I hold. However, there are cultures that believe it is their right and duty (see Richard W.) to change others and so there will be conflict. The "Let me help you be better" mentality.
I never had union jobs, so I'm not talking about jobs where I was paid very well. In other words, my wages were not artificially high, unless you would like to see Americans doing skilled or semi-skilled jobs for minimum wage or less. Still, I was able to support myself and pay tuition. If you see a reason to compete with the prison and almost slave labor of China, then you can expect to see most Americans reduced to Chinese living standards. If you believe that is the future, then I believe we should look for ways around it. Also, many skilled Americans do lose businesses because they don't compete with other businesses who employ cheap labor. How Americans benefit from a constant cycle low wage immigration is beyond me. It doesn't happen in reality. All that has happened is that wages and living standards have stagnated for those who have been thrown into competition for jobs. Do you have a solution other than destroying the nation?
Texas may be different than the rest of the nation because amnesty is not a popular idea. Also, picking crops shouldn't entitle a person to ciizenship. Anyone can pick crops. Iv'e done agricultural and random jobs in Israel and Eurpoe to pay for travel, and it never crossed my mind to demand citizenship, and I'm sure there was never any consideration to make an offer to me.. And it is bogus to claim that I have much in common with hispanics. I've lived and worked with Brits and Canadians, and it was pretty natural. We shared language and many cultural traits that are absent when I deal with hispanics. I don't know that the actual figures on illegal tax revenues exist, but I doubt that many willingly sumit to taxation. I also doubt the claim that they pay more tan they consume. The strain put forth by remedial education, prison costs, extra law enforcement, medical and social welfare alone would probably sink your claims.
I was talking about unskilled jobs, which is what most immigrants apply for. It's unlikely that an employer is going to pick an unskilled immigrant over an American to do a skilled job over wages. And it's not about choosing to compete with China, it's about not having a choice, especially in a world where free trade rules. The future for American workers is to move into high skilled jobs, where immigrants or foreign labour can't compete. This is my solution and it is the only solution for all developed economies. Skilled and unskilled people work in completely different markets and don't really affect each other.
You know you're right, that is something to think about. Probably dumbly, but trying to do so offhandedly a couple of initial questions appear at least: Firstly, I would suspect that the genetic similarities between two siblings—not to mention between two *twin* siblings—is just orders of magnitude greater than the genetic similarities between people who merely share the same "tribal" heritage, no? I mean … let's take your analogy to disease: If I am of African-American descent (although we all are really you know what I mean) I have an X greater chance of having sickle cell anemia than everyone else, right? But isn't that shared African-American risk still very very low, showing it's not shared very much? However if I'm an African whose *family* has had sickle-cell, well my God aren't my shared chances there just much much much greater? Secondly, let's say you are right and personality traits are significantly or even greatly genetically influenced. Okay, so you have a group that has a disproportionate (neutrally speaking) percent of its population that is, say, drawn to highly solitary jobs such as, oh, farming. Okay, but then when those in that group actually do *go* into farming, doesn't that self-selecting factor *reduce* the degree to which you can infer that the *rest* of that group is still drawn to solitary endeavors and farming? In other words and as an example, doesn't this argue even *more* strongly that if you have lots of Irish in the police that the *rest* of the Irish *don't* share whatever attributes their brothers in the police do? (Because the ones in the police self-selected themselves out?) And, anyways, given that occupations change so much and etc., don't you still think that culture plays a much greater role in occupation selection than genes?
So you believe that China is the model of the future and that there is nothing that can be done about it? I don't buy that. Everyone can't move into high skilled jobs. There wouldn't even be room even if everyone had the interest, time, talent and money to do so. Are you willing to sacrifice fellow Americans over theory? We never even tried to compete with China. Instead, we just outsourced jobs, transferred technology and educated half of China. And H1B visas often do displace natives in favor of cheap foreign labor. I don't think it is true that American companies have to pay Chinese wages. Nor is is true that skilled and unskilled workers work in completely different markets. Maybe if you believe that the service economy is the way to go, but that's not doing so well right now. cont…
Either way, what you propose is just cutting your fellow Americans lose so that people at the top can rake in more profits. The income gap has widened considerably over the last 15 or so years, so I don't completely buy the claims that labor costs at the bottom and middle are driving those at the top to employ cheap foreign labor or go out of business. I see this, and I'm not pro-union or leftist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU&eu...
Obviously, picking crops shouldn't entitle one to citizenship, but you should be allowed a permit to work a pick crops during season and then move back at the end of the season. Completely closing off the border has stopped this and encouraged illegal immigration.
showing it's not shared very much – "For unclear reasons, anemia is more common (3xmore) in American blacks than whites." – I could tell them the answer but then they wouldn't get their grant money,… it's genes. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstrac... "self-selecting factor *reduce* the degree"…no, because propensity isn't fate. Furthering your Irish example, those that aren't cops may be bouncers or principles or clergy, in other words people to whom society gives authority . Sure culture plays a large role but why have certain peoples developed certain cultures? And it isn't geographic or the people of the Congo would have the same culture as the people of the Amazon.
China is simply following the model set out by its predecessors. Cheap Labour is how the US competed with Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Post WW2, it's how Japan and the other Asian tigers competed with the US and now it's China's turn. If I have two similar quality products in front, one US manufactured and the other Chinese manufactured, I'll go for the cheapest one, which because of the cheap labour, is the Chinese product. There's no way the US can compete other either quality or price (i.e. wages) – I'm proposing the former. Everyone can move into a high skilled job – It doesn't need to be a service economy – you can have high skilled manufacturing jobs. I'm not sure about individual US companies, but something based along the lines of Rolls Royce here in Britain, is an ideal example. It doesn't compete on price, it competes on quality and after-sales service. H1B Visas are different because it's for skilled foreigners and not the usual unskilled kind
I don't completely buy the claims that labor costs at the bottom and middle are driving those at the top to employ cheap foreign labor or go out of business. Neither do I, and that's not what I'm claiming. The income gap has widened because of bad government policies. Tax-breaks for the rich (and none for low-income earners), H1B visas to name two examples. If Americans did move onto higher-skilled and thus higher-paid jobs, then the income gap would close considerably. I'm not American, I'm British, but Britain is facing the exact same problem and there is only one solution.
"I have a right to judge cultural groups according to my values. I do not have a right to try to change them to my liking any more then they have a right to change me, at least this is a value I hold. However, there are cultures that believe it is their right and duty (see Richard W.) to change others and so there will be conflict. The "Let me help you be better" mentality." Bingo! The typical Jewish attitude of divide and conquer racial politics, while playing the good guy, was shown clearly in the video that was circulating today of Barbara Boxer and the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce. I can't find the footage, but here is a clip discussing the exchange: http://www.breitbart.tv/it-was-vile-jim-crow-excl... Protecting myself in a world that is divided and driven by racial politics that isn't called racial politics is difficult, but doing so isn't wrong. If I'm put in a group, then I have to be in that group, don't I? cont…
I've often heard the claim that racial and ethnic groups are like extended families, and I believe that is true to an extent. I don't know how much of a role genetics actually plays in human behavior, but it is obvious that there is a role. I see that in my own family, and some of my distant relatives that I rarely meet.
That's interesting, Sin. I'm about to leave for two weeks. Hopefully a similar thread will be up when I get back. What are the chances?
China is a a bit different than past models since it is so populous, and the system is so regimented. There has to be a way to compete with China that doesn't destroy us. I don't care to have the Chinese standard of living or lifestyle. China has vulnerabilities, and if American elites were looking out for America's collective interests, the story might be very different. Besides, I view cultural and political matters as being as important as economic matters. If we're to be poor, I'd rather not be Balkanized and poor.
The rate of unemployment shows that there isn't room for every person to have a job, let alone a high skilled job. Do you mean that low-income earners get no tax breaks, or that they pay no taxes? The people in the bottom brackets are often net recipients. Ironically, I often owed at the end of the year while going to school.
Jewish Peril is pretty high on the list of words I never fucking want to hear again, but know I will.
Start it up Dude, except, now that you mention it, that's just about when *I* gotta leave for a couple of weeks.
Okay, after trying to think it through I think I know what I at least believe as to this interesting genetics issue and you folks have suckered me into probably making a fool of myself, so here goes: First Darwin came along and posited that *physical* characteristics of life forms on earth evolved through the mechanism of natural selection, right? That is, those *physical* characteristics that favored survival tended to be preserved over those that did not. And it turned out that physical characteristics are determined by things called genes. So all in all Darwinism has been pretty clearly (indeed spectacularly) established. Then along came Wilson and etc. with the idea of sociobiology (which so far as I can tell is now almost universally called "evolutionary psychology"), and posited that at least some fundamental *behavioral* characteristics of humans and other animals with higher functions are genetically based too and evolved through natural selection as well. That is, at least some behavioral/psychological characteristics are genetically determined and that those that favored survival tended to be preserved over those that did not. E.g., the characteristic of those male baboons that found themselves attracted to and mating with healthy-looking female baboons was a comparatively favorable behavioral characteristic. Probably impossible to prove absolutely but there's tons of apparent evidence that it's true to some degree, the logic is compelling, and as I further understand it in the academic psychological community evolutionary psychology is pretty strongly if not overwhelmingly accepted for these reasons. (And is thus the common basis for perhaps most current psychological research.) Alright. So now Laurie is talking about personality being heavily genetically influenced and the first thing one observes is that of course personality seems a mere outgrowth of psychology, and is just another way to talk about behavior to a degree. Ergo, it would seem to find support in the idea of evolutionary psychology to at least some extent, and then there's also the more particular research that Laurie cites such as those studies of the personalities of twins and etc. tending to show big genetic influence. I don't know much if anything about that more particular research, but I'd even be willing to take it on faith that there's a lot to it. However, it's when I start thinking about the fundamental nature of the *mechanism* of genetic natural selection—how it works—that I gotta believe that environmental/cultural factors are far more important as to the kinds of "personality" characteristics we are talking about. After all *genetic* natural selection of any kind—whether physical characteristic or behavioral/psychological—works very very slowly and negatively, right? In essence it works by gradually killing off those carriers of less favorable genes. And that takes millions and millions of years. Some baboon comes along with the behavior/psychological characteristic of being just a little better spotting who will be the better and more successful mother of his babies and that genetic spotting characteristic will better succeed, right? But that takes a long long long time to succeed. (And indeed every evolutionist I've ever read says that the problem not only with the deniers of genetic evolution but the problem for everyone in wrapping their minds around same is getting over our own ridiculously minute perspective of time when thinking about things like genetic evolution. We think 1000 years is ancient history; yet the story of life and evolution starts 3.5-4.0 *billion* years ago. That's four-*hundred* million years.) (Con't)
So anyway I look at the things we are talking about—modern personality characteristics and traits—and I think how ridiculously brief has been modern human society and thus how nowhere near the time has passed in that society for *genetic* natural selection to have worked to shape same. After all lets say that post-cave-man human society started some 4000 years ago even to stretch it about as far as possible, right? So does it seem possible that in those mere 4000 years that slower-than-slow genetic natural selection worked to any real degree at all on this or that personality trait by … killing off those with less favorable ones? I.e., the way genetic natural selection works? I doubt it. Way way too short a period of time. That's not to say that *some* aspects of personality—which again is just partly another word for behavior—aren't genetically influenced or even determined. But those aspects would have been determined in the millions and millions of years we humans were living on the savannahs and in caves. Not in our briefer-than-brief splotch of modern living since 1000 B.C. Instead what seems far far more valid to me is the idea of a kind of *cultural* natural selection. Not genetically determined or influenced so much as *culturally* determined. And here even a couple of hundred years can seem plenty of time to craft a group's psychological/behavioral/personality characteristics. And that's because this is *learned* instruction, not the involuntary instruction of genetic selection which again is the gradual death of the less favorably endowed. Take a group of people, let 'em live under certain conditions for a hundred years even—four generations—and I'll bet dollars to donuts that at the end of that the fourth generation sure as shit will have acquired some certain somewhat distinct psychological/behavioral/personality characteristics. But these will have been environmentally/*culturally* transmitted. Not genetically. Nature just did not have enough time in a mere 100 years to favor those with same and kill off those without it. So, I think there's a big distinction you have to make even if you accept evolutionary psychology. Yes, its logic is that genetic natural selection has played a big part in influencing and determining *some* basic, fundamental aspects of psychology/behavior/personality. But almost certainly not, I would argue, the more mundane and variable aspects of same that concern living in modern society such as … what kinds of work one might be drawn to or etc. And that's because that kind of work—no matter how generally defined—has only been around for the incredibly short period of time that represents the existence of modern human society. There just hasn't been time for a *genetic* predisposition towards same to have done its work. Wow. Talk about getting taken off on a tangent from the initial issue we were talking about! And talk about being the guy who gets suckered into coming off as a crazed blowhard! But it's an interesting as hell thing to me at least, and that's the (undoubtedly embarrassing) extent of my knowledge and thinking on it. So laugh all you want out there at me! That's my story and I'm sticking to it! (Until further notice.)
It is a fact Jews are disproportionately represented in Politics, in Media and in Finance. It is further an uncomfortable truth that many do hold negative opinions of and racist attitudes to Non-Jews, that Jews display a curious victim complex, that when things go wrong like Project for 21st Century neo-conservative inspired invasion of Iraq went wrong, they disappear and it was nothing to do with them. Jews have not faced up to their role in Communism, not just the original idea in Marxism, but that it was funded by prominent Jews and many played a major role in the Soviet Union and as agitators in the West, such that Stalin gave the Jews a Homeland Birobidzhan as a mark of appreciation.
It should also be admitted that the role played by the French Jewish bankers the Rothchilds and other American owned and Jewish operated banks in getting the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War 1, contributed to the political instability in Germany and the rise of Hitler. Yet little of this is discussed because of this disproportionate control. Jews hire Jews and put them on fast track even if they are incompetent. It leads to resentment by non-Jews, and in the wake of the financial collapse, the role played by Greenspan, Rubin, and now the obscene profits taken by Goldman Sach, it raises the prospect that Post WW1 will happen all over again…
Comments on this entry are closed.