Some of these political charts have been floating around of late, so it seemed the right time to make one and to do so by treating politics as a series of philosophies, instead of as politics itself. That is, we focus on motivation and concept of the world instead of methods.
You will see two primary columns, “egalitarianism” and “realism.” This reflects the historical record of how Leftism arose as a competition to the way things had been done, and so soon presented two options, egalitarianism — this is the sole idea and core of Leftism — and the past methods, which had been adopted by evolutionary necessity.
Egalitarianism is an ideology that states that, to avoid conflict, we should make people equal, in contrast to how they are, “progressing” from a bloody and unequal primal state of nature to an enlightened™ Utopia where everyone is equal.
Ideology is a determination of how the world should work in contrast to how it does work; realism, on the other hand, is concerned with adapting and evolving in light of how reality does work. Egalitarianism recognizes that it is not based on what works, but what its proponents wish were true. It is conjecture and reality-independent theory.
Egalitarianism rewards individualism because it says, in effect, the individual cannot be constrained by predictions based in reality, such as the needs of civilization. Instead, “man is the measure of all things.”
This rapidly devolves to utilitarianism, or the idea that the greatest good is the happiness of the greatest number of people, a measurement which invariably consists of wants or desires instead of proven working solutions, which are naturally taken for granted and forgotten in most happiness calculations.
From egalitarianism comes the core of Leftism, which is the idea that egalitarianism can be implemented via politics as opposed to, for example, eugenics, in breeding people who are actually closer to “equal” in abilities, temperament, intellect, moral character, and inclination.
Conservatives, or those who sat on the Right in the post-Revolutionary General Assembly, are those who accept the fall of le ancien régime and its roots in classical culture and social order. For this reason, they have aspects of the egalitarian within them because they are committed to working within an egalitarian system.
The other column, “realism,” includes tradition as its primary member because tradition, like any behavior of a natural species, reflects what has worked over time and diverse circumstances. This comprises a set of principles and institutions more than anything else, but also a way of viewing the world as a type of abstract pattern language based in nature, into which humanity fits itself with its own hierarchy mirroring that of nature, and the goal of the individual is to adapt to these patterns and those of nature.
Conservatism rapidly splits into classical liberalism, or the idea that as long as property rights are preserved, the healthy vestiges of the past may endure. This went away for the most part once Leftist governments found that they could tax aristocrats and later the wealthy into oblivion.
Re-hybridized with Leftism, classical liberalism because libertarianism, or the notion that free markets within the context of modern society and a pseudo-anarchic outlook can provide the best outcome. To some degree, this preserves natural selection through Social Darwinism but this may not be enough.
When classical liberalism is re-infused with traditional thought, paleoconservatism — which demands preservation of institutions outside of government as well — emerges, avoiding the ideological nature of libertarianism and the classic “one size fits all” idea of the egalitarian ideologue within it.
However, the New Right and Alt Right, which occupy roughly the same sphere, correct this further by recognizing the esoteric nature of tradition. Freedom, given to a mob, results in more mob; freedom, given to the right people, results in them creating a hierarchy to restrict the masses and move society upward as natural selection once did.
Rising from the intersection of the Alt Right, Neoreaction, and tradition, the Ult Right goes further than the socialist-infused European New Right does, and slightly farther than the cultural wave movement of the Alt Right does; the Alt Right is probably a gateway to the Ult Right.
On the far Left, we can see the spectrum from Leftism, which prescribes egalitarianism, to socialism, which subsidizes it, and Communism, which enforces it through authoritarian means. When hybridized with paleoconservatism, these give rise to ideologies like National Socialism and National Bolshevism.
Hopefully this guide will clarify the philosophical differences between the different branches of politics and the resulting hybrids as people try to find a way to make the modern society model — the State and masses — functional, although that is in vain.
You’ve probably had that job. Not just any job, but the one that sucks like a seven year old boy eviscerating a milkshake over at Steak-n-Shake. The one at which you commiserate with fellow inmates at the concentration camp. Those conversations go a bit like this.
“The Hankster! ‘Sup Dog?”
“Not much, Hoss. Just livin’ the dream.”
Venezuelans are like The Hankster. They’re just livin’ the dream, The ((((((Bernie Sanders)))))) Dream, that is. And man are they getting to smell the glove as a result. It gets even better. The Bossman just handed out a bonus!
Venezuela’s president says he’s boosting the minimum wage by 155 percent to keep up with runaway inflation that’s making it difficult for people to afford daily goods. President ((((((Nicolas Maduro)))))) issued an order Monday that brings the monthly wage to 1 million bolivars, or $1.61 on the commonly used black market. It’s the third increase this year. Despite having the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela is in its fifth year of an economic crisis worse than the Great Depression. The International Monetary Fund has said it estimates that Venezuela’s inflation could soar 13,000 percent by year’s end.
Now back when I was, young, stupid(er) and new to the work force, I recall earning $5.25 an hour to haul rocks around in a wheelbarrow and hammer fence posts into the clay. Committing some minor mathematics here, I discover that thirty years ago I had 3.26x the nominal purchasing power of a minimum wage Venezuelan worker. In today’s terms, with the minimum wage at around $8.00 (at least in my neck of the woods) that may still be accurate.
And, of course, the boss has ulterior motives and is a self-promoting little parasite.
President ((((((Nicolas Maduro))))))’s announcement of the 155 percent rise – or 13 percent fall, in dollar terms – came three weeks before a presidential election. It accompanies a monthly food ticket now worth just over 1.5 million bolivars.
Now perhaps, just maybe, these people need to wake the heck up. They are sitting upon a veritable lake of oil. When people are attempting to coerce $300 per barrel price in the oil market. Venezuela could make a fortune of Croesus by presenting their nation as scientific Socialism’s solution to geopolitical artificial peak oil. If socialism valued self-preservation ahead of nihilistic ideological purity, they could be living like sheiks instead of favela-dwellers.
And about that boycott by Venezuela’s economic enemies…At $300 a barrel? Donald Trump would rain money on that particular third world country the way Vince Young used to make it rain across town at the “gentlemen’s clubs.” Venezuela has no excuse. They could be eating Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia for lunch, but instead they are lucky to get crumbs from the international club sandwich. They should not be listening to insincere fools like ((((((Bernie Sanders)))))). Or Hugo Chavez, for that matter.
And if Venezuela has no excuse, what in the hell are people in Amerika smoking? Sanders was elected to the US Senate from Vermont. Surely vast clouds of pot smoke did not accompany that election. Venezuela truly is the Sanders version of the American Dream. It is a measure of how much he, and every other truly committed Leftist hates us all for not sharing in their deluded ideological fantasies.
This post will be about the Jewish Question. Specifically, I am going to empirically document the following claims:
Jews are vastly overrepresented in positions of power and cultural influence
Jewish elites are far to the left of gentile elites and have moved shifted the distribution of political opinion among American elites from centrism to leftism
Jewish leftism and success can partly be explained by their mean IQs, living in large cities, personality traits, and possibly certain cultural values, but ethnocentrism also plays an important role that should not be ignored.
After documenting these claims, I am going to spend some time on what implications can be drawn from them, and how people interested in White identity politics should act in light of them.
A Brief Word on Jewish History
The exact origins of the Jewish people are somewhat unclear, but it began somewhere around Israel more than three thousand years ago. Since then, Jews have migrated out of Israel numerous times, creating a diaspora. Through this process, a fairly large number of Jewish populations have existed throughout history in places as far from Israel as China. Today, most of these populations only exist in Israel, with more than 95% of the worlds non-Israeli Jews being ((((((Ashkenazi)))))) Jews, a group which migrated from Israel to central and northern Europe sometime before the year 600 AD.
In 629 AD, King Dagobert of France expelled Jews from his kingdom. Following the Norman Conquest of 1066, some Jews moved to England, but they were expelled in 1290. The same occurred in Austria in 1298, France in 1394 and in Germany sometime in the 1400s, Spain in 1492, Naples in 1493, Portugal in 1496, and all Papal states but Rome in 1569. Having been expelled from Western Europe, the Jewish people moved to Eastern Europe. By the late 1800s, however, the Russian empire had begun the pogroms, and 50 years later the Nazis got going. This all caused an immigration wave of Jews moving to Anglo nations worldwide, South America and, later, Israel.
Two facts immediately standout about Jewish history. First, Jews still exist. This itself is noteworthy. It is difficult to keep a population genetically isolated for over a thousand years in a foreign land. To do so multiple times over, across as wide a range of nations of the Jews have lived in, is truly remarkable. Jews accomplished this feat by genetically and culturally isolating themselves from the populations they lived among. The second thing that stands out about Jews is that anti-Semitism seems to follow them everywhere they go including, most recently, the middle east. Anti-Semitism is in part the result of the economic success of Jews, but it is also related to the first noteworthy fact about Jewish history, their isolation from the populations they live among. Thus, the long history of the Jewish people works as a kind of preface for an analysis of what Jewish people have been up to in the last hundred years or so.
Anti-Semites are fond of pointing out that Jewish people control various industries or are vastly overrepresented in various positions of power. As it turns out, empirical data strongly supports these claims. (I eventually stopped citing stuff in this section. Unless otherwise noted, it all comes from Lynn, 2011, which one can find a free pdf of online).
Finance and Wealth
In the late 19th and early 20th century in northern continental Europe, the Jewish elites most often talked about were those in finance. Lynn (2011) compiled data from this time and place showing Jews being heavily over-represented in finance-related occupations.
The mean factor of overrepresentation in this table is 25.
Lynn (2011) also reviewed a mountain of data from around the world on the socio-economic status of Jews and showed them to be overrepresented among wealthy, well educated, individuals, and underrepresented among blue collar workers. This was shown to be true all over continental Europe, the British Isles, South Africa, Australia, North and South America, as well as Israel. These differences were often large with Jews often being overrepresented among high SES individuals by factors of five to twenty.
As we might expect, the degree of overrepresentation was stronger the more elite the category looked at was. For instance, in the 19th century Jews were overrepresented in Britain among those who had 100,000 pounds or more of wealth by a factor of 8.6 – 10.5 but were overrepresented among millionaires by a factor of roughly 28 (Lynn 2011).
Similarly, in the early 20th century in Germany Jews were found to account for 22% of millionaires and 31% of multimillionaires (Table 10.6).
In most countries, these gaps were present and large by the late 19th century. However, in several Anglo nations, the SES of Jews relative to gentiles increased in the mid-20th century. For instance, it wasn’t until the 1950s that Jews in Canada had higher incomes than gentiles.
The same can be seen by looking at occupational class:
Similarly, the rate of overrepresentation of Jews among white-collar professions in South Africa was much greater in 1960 than it was in 1936 (Table 16.3).
And in the United States the SES of Jews was lower than those of English, Scottish, and Irish, Americans in 1900, but was considerably higher by 1980 (All these tables are from Lynn).
Similarly, in the early 20th century there was a literacy gap between Jews and Gentiles in the US that favored Gentiles (Table 19.5).
Furthermore, Jews weren’t overrepresented among members of Americans “Who’s Who” until sometime between the 1940s and 1970s.
Turning the very richest members of society, an analysis of the 29 richest families in Germany in the years 1908 – 1911 found 9 of them, or 31%, to be Jewish. An analysis of the US upper class in 1945 found that Jews accounted for 22% of members, corresponding to an RR of 7.3. A 1982 survey of the 40 richest individuals in the United States which revealed 40% to be Jewish (All from Lynn, again.). Similarly, a 2009 analysis of Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans found that 35% were Jewish while 40% of the top 50 were Jewish. This suggests, once again, that Jewish presence among American elites grew through the 20th century.
Jews have also been notoriously tied to journalism and the media. An analysis of 5 data sets on those working in journalism from early 20th century Northern Continental Europe reveals a mean factor of overrepresentation of 10.
Page 309 of Lynn (2011) reports on 5 analyses of Jewish representation among media elites in contemporary America:
The figure in the first row is taken from an analysis by W. D. ((((((Rubenstein)))))) published on page 61 of his 1982 books The Left, The Right, and the Jews. Rows 2 – 4 report the results of 3 analyses published in Forbes. The first defined elites as those who worked in the new divisions of the three largest tv networks and PBS, the three largest news magazines, and the four biggest newspapers. In row 3, the criterion is directors and producers of Hollywood TV shows while in the 4th-row the criterion used is directors and producers of Hollywood movies. Row 5 is an analysis of a vanity fair article that listed the 23 most important media people. The mean factor of overrepresentation across the table is 19.
In the 1988 book The Media Elite: America’s New Powerbrokers, Litcher, ((((((Rothman)))))), and Litcher report on a representative survey of 238 journalists from America’s top new organizations which found that 59% of respondents were Jewish.
A 1990 list of the top 10 US entertainment companies published in American Film found that Jews accounted of 8 of their ten CEOs (Lynn, 2011). The companies were Time Warner, Paramount, CBS, Fox, Columbia Pictures, Viacom, ABC, and MCA Inc.
Thus, claims such as “Jews run the media” are plausibly more true than untrue. When one utilizes the most elite criteria for defining members of the media, more than half seem to be Jewish.
Part of the reason people have a problem with the media is that it is left-leaning. As will be seen later, Jews are more left-leaning than average, and elite Jews are more left-leaning than elite gentiles. Given these facts, Jewish presence in media has probably caused it to be more left-leaning than it otherwise would be.
Jews have also been said to have a great deal of power within academia. Returning again to northern continental Europe in the eastly 20th century, across 5 data sets from Lynn (2011) we see a mean factor of overrepresentation of 7.
When looking at more elite accomplishments, the degree of overrepresentation becomes much more extreme. When analyzing Nobel prize awards per capita, Lynn (2011) finds that Jews overrepresent gentiles by factors ranging from 6 in the case of Britain to 320 in the case of Italy. The mean factor of over-representation is 70.
In Britain, Jews have been overrepresented among members of the Royal Society by a factor of 8.
In 1985, it was estimated that 4.3% of British academics were Jewish, giving a factor of overrepresentation of 7.2 (Lynn, 2011) Finally, in 2006 Jews accounted for 4.3% of University Heads, giving a overrepresentation factor of 6.6 (Lynn, 2011).
More extremely, an analysis of elite Australians found Jews to account for 15% of academics, giving them a factor of overrepresentation of 26.8 (Lynn, 2011)
In America, an analysis in 1990 found 3.7% of (male) academics to be Jewish Males and 2.3% to be Jewish females, giving factors of overrepresentation of 3.7 and 2.3. By the year 2000, these figures had decreased to factors of 2.1 for Jewish males and 0.8 for Jewish females (Lynn, 2011).
Jewish overrepresentation in America becomes more extreme when we look at more elite categories of academics. ((((((Zuckerman)))))) (1977) found Jews had a factor of overrepresentation of three when looking at all university faculty, but that figure jumped to seven when the analysis was restricted to elite universities. Below are the results broken down by subject for fields that Jews were heavily represented in:
Finally, Kadushin (1974) analyzed the authors who were recently published in the top 20 academic journals in America and found that Jews accounted for 50% of intellectuals (RR= 18.5), 56% of social scientists (RR= 20.7) and 61% of humanity scholars (RR= 22.6). Thus, if you use a sufficiently elite criterion there is a sense in which certain fields in academia could be described as being mostly or largely controlled by Jews.
Jews have also been said to yield greater than average political power. Again, this largely seems to be true. In 1939, Jews accounted for 63% of the USSR’s NKVD, Stalin’s militaristic police force with which he conducted his great purge (RR= 35).
Turning to a democratic context, in 1950 Jews accounted for 4.5% of British MPs (RR= 5.4) and in 2000 they accounted for 3.2% (RR= 7.1).
Another analysis found Jews to account for 8% of US senators between 1989 and 1991 and 9% of US supreme court justices between 1900 and 1990, corresponding to factors of overrepresentation of 3.6 and 3.0 (Table 19.10). Today, Jews comprise 5.6% of the US house of representatives, 9% of the senate, and 38% of the supreme court (PBS, 2017). Since Jews account for 2.2% of the population, this corresponds to factors of overrepresentation of 2.5 for the house, 4 for the Senate, and 17.27 for the supreme court.
Jews are even more present among political donors. In 2012, Jews accounted for 20% of the top 5 GOP donors and 40% of the top democrat donors. In 2016, Jews accounted for all 5 of he top Democrat donors. One analysis finds that, of the top 50 donors in 2016, Jews accounted for 40% of mega-donors in total, 25% of Republican donors, and 79% of Democrat donors.
The Elite Jewish Left
Many would argue that Jewish intellectuals have had a larger impact than Jewish politicians, and that this impact has largely been to the benefit of leftism. This too seems to correspond to the empirical record.
In 1969, the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education issued a survey filled out by 60,000 American university faculty members. 6,000 respondents identified as ethnically Jewish. This survey is reported on in ((((((Lipset)))))) and Ladd (1971). Though this survey asked about religion, its sample includes atheistic Jews because it asked people about the religion of their parents rather than themselves. 29% of the Jewish sample reported that their religion as none.
By breaking this data down by age, it can be shown that Jewish representation in Academia had increased dramatically in the decades preceding the 1960s. Among academics over the age of 65, Jews accounted for only 3.8% of the sample. Among those under the age of 25, they accounted for 11.9%. When the sample is restricted to only elite universities, the change goes from 9.3% among those over 65 to 20.6% among those under 29.
In 1969, Jewish professors were much more concentrated in the social sciences, law, social work, and medicine, than they were in other disciplines:
This study also demonstrated that, in 1969, the majority of Jewish academics identified as liberal of leftist (74.5%) while a majority of Catholic faculty (55.3%) and Protestant faculty (59.3%) did not.
Thus, Jewish academics have moved the mean political views of academics to the left in virtue of their own political leanings.
Even better data comes from ((((((Lerner)))))), Nagai, and ((((((Rothman)))))) (1989) who reported on what they describe to be a random sample of 1,340 American elites drawn from the following groups: “high-ranking military officers, corporate business leaders, corporate law partners in major law firms, upper-level federal civil servants, journalists working for leading news media, prime-time television producers, directors, and writers, major motion picture producers, writers, and directors, and leaders of public interest.”
Jewish people were defined as those who said they were ethnically or religiously Jewish, and those who said they were raised Jewish. In total, 28% of the sample was found to be Jewish.
Analyzing elections between 1968 and 1980, ((((((Lerner)))))) et al. find Jewish elites to much more likely than non-Jewish elites (and non-elite Jews) to vote for Democrats. In two of the elections, gentile elites voted for on net for Democratscrats and in two they voted for the Republican, suggesting a centrist outlook. In all four elections, Jewish elites overwhelmingly voted for the democrat.
On average, gentile elites voted for the Republican candidate by a margin of 3.75 points. The general public did so by an average margin of 7.75 points. Jewish elites, by contrast, on averaged for the democrat canditate by a margin of 67.25 points. Because Jews accounted for 28% of the total sample of elites, we can estimate that Jews pushed the “elite vote” an average 18.83 points to the left per election, moving the totality of American elites from the right to the left.
Political ideology data was consistent with voting data. 43% of the general public, 42% of gentile elites, and 12% of Jewish elites described themselves as conservative, while 74% of Jewish elites, 37% of gentile elites, and 21% of the general public described itself as liberal. For the total sample of elites, 48.48% described themselves as liberal while just 33.6% described themselves as conservative. Thus, the influence of Jewish elites switched mean ideological bias of elites from conservative by a margin of 5 to liberal by a margin of 15.
((((((Lerner)))))) et al also analyzed specific policy questions. On the economy, they found “A minority of Jewish elites but a majority of the non-Jewish elites think that less regulation of business is a good thing. Fewer members of the Jewish elite believe that private enterprise is fair to workers, and fewer also believe that government should not guarantee jobs. Likewise, more than two-thirds of the Jewish elite but less than half of the non-Jewish elite agree that the government should reduce the income gap between rich and poor.”
Differences were smaller on social issues. For instance, the overwhelming majority of both gentile and jewish elites supported abortion rights. However, some large differences did emerge: 20% of Jewish elites said that homosexuality was wrong compared to 49% of gentile elites, only 15% of Jewish elites thought that courts gave too much concern to the rights of criminals compared to 64% of gentile elites, and a majority, 58%, of Jewish elites agreed with the statement “special preference in hiring should be given to Blacks” while only a minority, 44%, of gentile elites did.
Finally, Lener et al found that Jewish elites continued to be to the left of gentile elites after controlling for the specific occupation they were in, as well as the respondents sex, age, socio-economic status, and whether they were from the south.
These studies paint a picture: in the 60s and 70s the gentile American elite was reasonably moderate. A huge influx of Jews in the mid 20th century pushed it to the left. I think it not unreasonable to suggest that this initial push set up a situation in which there were enough leftists among the American elite to discriminate against conservatives, leading to a cycle by which American elites became ever more liberal over the last few decades.
This is consistent with what is, to my knowledge, the only data on how the political views of social scientists have changed with time, which shows psychologists becoming gradually more liberal in the mid 20th century and then rapidly more liberal in the last few decades:
If this is accurate, then it is no exaggeration to say that the extreme leftist bias of contemporary American elites can be blamed largely on Jews. Giving that Jews represent roughly 2% of the American population, for them to have such an influence would be truly extraordinary.
Moving away from American history, consider these three lists analyses:
The Washington Post made a list of their top 28 communists of all time and 32% were Jewish.
Forbes created a list of the 25 most influential liberals in US media and 56% were Jewish. Only 4, or 16%, were Gentile Whites.
The Nation published a list of the 50 most influential 20th-century progressives at 14% were Jewish.
The Audacious Epigone analyzed the Telegraph’s 2007 lists of the 100 most influential U.S. liberals/conservatives and found that 24% of influential liberals were Jewish compared to 23% of influential conservatives.
To supplement these existing analyses with more names and to compare the relative rates at which Jews were influential right and left wing thinkers, a few years ago I went through ten pages of google results for lists of influential American liberals and conservatives giving me a list of 133 names from 9 sources.
Among influential conservatives, 8.3% were Jewish. Among influential liberals, 29.3% were Jewish. This gives Jews a factor of overrepresentation of 4 among the elite right and 15 among the elite left. Jews are 3.5 times more likely to be an influential liberal as an influential conservative (1).
Thus, it is fair to say that Jews have played a very large role in leftism. This is not quantitative, but I will note that my impression is that influential Jewish liberals, such as ((((((Marx)))))), ((((((Noam Chomsky)))))), and Steven Jay ((((((Gould)))))), as well as Jewish conservatives like Bill ((((((Kristol)))))), ((((((Charles Krauthammer)))))), and ((((((David Brooks)))))), tend to be more culturally leftist than the average important thinker on their side of politics. Given what is known about the political views of Jews in general, this would not be surprising.
Political Views of Jews
Here, I’ll review data on Jewish opinion on 6 political topics: immigration, affirmative action, free speech, sexual politics, other social issues, and the economy.
An article featured on The Alternative Hypothesis website (which was not written by me nor Ryan Faulk) contains an analysis of Ipsos and Reuters data for 34 immigration questions. In the majority of cases, Jewish opinion did not significantly differ from those of gentile Whites. However, roughly one in three of the comparisons showed Jews supporting a more liberal view than Whites, and in only six percent of the cases was the opposite pattern found. Thus, if you average across all 34 questions, Jews would come out being moderately more liberal than gentile Whites on immigration.
The author of the article displays to a series of graphs with the introduction: “The following graphs represent some of the most striking examples of Jew and gentile similarity in attitudes on immigration”, but in 75% of examples shown, Jewish opinion was to the left of Gentile opinion, but the difference was not statistically significant.
What this means is that even though Jews answered in a more liberal way than gentiles the differences were not so large that there was less than a 5% chance of them being due to sampling error given the sizes of the samples being utilized. Such cases were taken in the paper as evidence against the view that Jews hold liberal immigration views, when actually they are evidence in favor of this proposition, just not especially strong evidence.
For instance, an example pointed to in the paper as showing Jews having the same views as Whites asked participants if they favored increases in the deportation of illegal immigrants. On net, Jews supported this view by a margin of 25 points while Whites did so by a margin of 42 points. (Note: this survey was taken in late 2014 and early 2015, before the rise of Trump.) This is a large difference consistent with the view that Jews hold more liberal views than Whites on immigration, but it was counted as evidence against said hypothesis because the small sample of Jews rendered this difference statistically insignificant.
Moving to other data, The inductivist analyzed General Social Survey data from the 90s and found that a plurality of Jewish Americans thought that immigration should be decreased. However, this was smaller than the plurality favoring this view that was found among the general population, suggesting that Jews are to the left of gentiles on immigration.
Next, consider the following data from a 2009 AJC poll of 800 Jewish Americans which found that Jews favored an Arizona low which gave police the power to ask people to verify their residency status by a margin of 6 (52 to 46). I compared this margin to the margins by which the public supported this law in polls done by Pew, Gallup, and CBS, and found Jews to be to the left of the general public, and White Americans, on this law.
Though this evidence is not 100% consistent, I think in totality it clearly favors the view that American Jews hold moderately more liberal views on immigration than do Whites.
To get at international Jewish opinion, I analyzed data collected between 1995 and 2009 by the World Values Survey. In total, I had data on 503 Jews and 184,203 gentiles who were asked to chose between four possible views on immigration: let anybody in, let people in as long as there are jobs, impose strict limits on immigration, and completely prohibit people from coming in (Variable 124).
12% of the general population and 19% of Jews favored open border, 40% of the total sample and 50% of jews favored allowing immigrants so long as there were jobs, 37% of the total sample and 25% of Jews favored strict limits on immigration, and 11% of the total sample and 6% of Jews favored closed borders.
Thus, Jews globally seem to be to the left of most people on immigration. There is, however, a catch: Jews in Israel tend to be far less welcoming of immigration.
For instance, a poll reported on by the Times of ((((((Our Greatest Ally)))))) found that Israelis opposed Israel taking in Syrian refugees by a margin of 69 points, but these same respondents favored Europe taking in these exact same refugees by a margin of 8 points.
In fact, Pew Polling finds that a plurality of Israeli Jews favor not only immigration limitations, but the forced deportation of Arabs.
Finally, consider this: “Fifty-two percent of Jewish Israelis identify with the statement by MK Miri Regev last month that African migrants are “a cancer in the body” of the nation, and over a third condone anti-migrant violence, according to the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI) Peace Index for May 2012.”
Some of the best data on how Jews view affirmative action comes from Tom Smith’s analysis of GSS data spanning from 1972 to 2002, published by the AJC in Jewish Distinctiveness in America. Here are some relevant findings from that document:
When asked about the government providing special help for Blacks, 47% of Blacks, 19% of Jews, and 17% of the public were found to be in favor.
When asked if Black-White differences are due to discrimination, 65% of Blacks said yes compared to 41% of Jews and 37% of the general population.
When asked if Black-White differences are due to lesser black ability, 11% of Blacks said yes, as did 11% of the general public, but only 7% of Jews.
When asked if Whites can segregate their neighborhoods, 84% of the general public said no compared to 88% of Jews and 90% of Blacks.
When asked if school busing should be used for desegregation, 33% of the general public said yes compared to 32% of Jews and 58% of Blacks.
When asked if Blacks should get a preference in hiring 16% of the general public said yes compared to 44% of Blacks and 15% of Jews.
When asked if there was too little government spending on the conditions of Blacks, 33% of the general public said yes compared to 40% of Jews and 76% of Blacks.
In sum, for most questions, Jews were more likely than Whites to support affirmative action and to endorse an affirmative action friendly worldview, but there were clear exceptions to this general trend.
More recently, a 2009 Quinnipiac University Poll asked if affirmative action programs that give preferences to Blacks and other minorities should be continued the general public favored abolishing such programs by a margin of 19 points while Jews favored continuing such programs by a margin of 4 points.
When asked if affirmative action policies were worth pursuing even if they resulted in fewer opportunities for Whites, the general-public said “no” by a margin of 30 points. Jews said “yes” by a margin of 9 points. Note that the general public increased its opposition to these programs when it was specified that Whites would be hurt by affirmative action and Jews actually did the opposite.
The poll also asked participants whether they favored affirmative action in hiring, promotions, and college admissions, for three groups, Blacks, Hispanics, and White women, in order to increase diversity. The general-public opposed this by a margin of 28 points in the case of Blacks, 30 points for White women, and 35 points for Hispanics. Jews favored such policies by a margin of 7 points for Hispanics, and 13 points for Blacks, but opposed it by a margin of 8 points for White Women.
Next, consider a New York Times/CBS poll from the 1980’s which found that Jews favored affirmative action in hiring for Blacks by a margin of 3 points, and for women by 10 points. The NYT article doesn’t give numbers, but it notes that this is greater support for affirmative action than the poll found among gentile Whites.
Pew Polling also shows that Jews consider discrimination against most groups, except for Christians, to be more prevalent than does the average American:
Jews in Israel also support affirmative action… but not for a minority. Rather, Pew Polling finds that 79% of Israel Jews think that Jews should get preferential treatment in Israel.
To sum up, the data here is clear: Jews are more likely than average to support affirmative action, especially for themselves.
The General Social Survey asks participants if racists, anti-religionists, homosexuals, communists, militarists, and Muslim clergyman preaching hatred of the US should be allowed to speak in public. In each case, the majority of Jews say yes and by a larger margin than any other ethnic group. The rates at which Jews endorse free speech range from roughly 95% in the case of homosexuals, to 55% in the case of Muslims and 65% in the case of racists.
This is the only data on this topic I am aware and straight forwardly supports the view that American Jews are abnormally pro free speech.
Israel, on the other hand, scores slightly below average on measures of national freedom of expression. Whether this is a difference reflects the differences between the types of Jews who live in Israel and the types of Jews who live in the US on the one hand, or a difference between what Jews want to have occur in their own nation and other people’s nations, on the other, is not knowable on the basis of this data.
Jews have relatively liberal views on sexual morality. Data reviewed by Smith from the General Social Survey reveals the following (remember, this data was collected between 1972 and 2002):
4% of Jewish Americans say premarital sex is always wrong compared to 26% of the general public.
52% of Jews say that extramarital sex is always wrong compared to 78% of the general public.
18% of Jewish Americans say homosexuality is wrong compared to 59% of the general public. (Keep in mind this data is several decades old).
17% of Jews think pornography should be illegal compared to 37% of the general public.
77% of Jewish Americans favored allowing abortions for any reason compared to 40% of the general public.
Other Social Issues
Using Smith, again, as a source:
29% of Jewish Americans favor easier divorce laws compared to 22% of the general public.
74% of Jewish Americans and 62% of the general public disagreed with the idea that families work better if the man works and the woman tends to the home.
78% of Jewish Americans and 66% of the general public agreed with the view that a mother working does not hurt children.
41% of Jews favored legalizing weed compared to 25% of the general public.
More recently, Ipsos and Reuters data shows that 54% of the general public and 14% of Jews have a favorable view of the NRA, which probably tells us something about Jews views on gun control.
The GSS asked respondents whether the government spends too little on a diverse set of services. Mazur (2007) compared Jews to the general public and to a set of college-educated Whites from big cities (controls) on several such questions:
As can be seen, Jews consistently favored more spending than the general public except for when it came to social security and the treatment of drug addicts.
More recently, a 2013 Pew Poll found that Jewish Americans would prefer a bigger government to a smaller one by a margin of 16 points. The general American public prefers a smaller government by a margin of 11 points.
“American Jews are not anti-wealth nor anti-Wall Street, but overall nearly three-quarters (73%) say that the United States’ economic system unfairly favors the wealthy.
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of American Jews agree that the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, while roughly one-third (35%) disagree.
More than 8-in-10 (81%) favor increasing the tax rate on Americans earning more than $1 million a year, compared to 17% who oppose this policy.”
In sum, the evidence clearly suggests that Jews have economic views that are to the left of the general public.
Jewish Voting Patterns
In the United States, Jews reliably vote to the left of the general public. This has been true in every election of the last 100 years. This has not always meant that Jews voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, however: in the 1910s and 1920s a large proportion of the Jewish vote went to American socialist and progressive parties rather than the Democrats.
Comparing them to other US racial groups, we can see that Jews vote democrat by larger margins than do Hispanics and Asians, but by smaller margins than Blacks.
Across this 44-year period, the average net democrat vote was 77 points for Blacks, 43 points for Jews, 33 points for Hispanics, 15 points for Asians, and -16 points for Whites. Data from Fisher (1979) suggests that in earlier decades Jews voted for democrats at roughly the same margins as Black people:
In the 19th century, Jews were not a solid democrat block. For instance, Lincoln won the Jewish vote in 1868 (Sandra, 2012). Of course, back then Blacks voted democrat too. American Jews, then, vote like non-White minorities do.
Looking at this phenomenon in other nations is difficult because it requires an understanding of many international political parties. I will get to some international examples below, but first: I analyzed data from 5 waves of the World Value Survey on a question that asked people around the world to place themselves on a political orientation scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is most left and 10 is most right. On average, 1,858 Jews rated themselves as being .27 SD more liberal than the total sample of 237,229 respondents did.
Though this is true globally, this is most certainly not true in Israel. Astonishingly, Pew Polling finds that a mere 8% of Israeli Jews describe themselves as being on the left while 55% describe themselves as centrist and 37% as being on the right. This is radically different from Jewish opinion in any other nation.
With the US and Israel, which account for the vast majority of all Jews on earth, taken care of, let’s turn to Britain. Following Brexit, a poll of 1,000 British Jews published in The Jewish Chronicle found that British Jews voted to stay in the EU by a margin of 28 points. Obviously, this is to the left of the public, which voted to leave. On the other hand, Jews in Britain are far more likely to vote conservative than labor. In the UK, journalists have attributed this voting pattern to the British Labor party’s association with anti-Semitism.
Similarly, Jews in Canada are more likely than the general population to vote for the conservative party. This is said to be a recent change in Canada and writers have attributed this to the conservative party being perceived as more pro-Israel.
In France, Jews used to vote largely for the Socialist Party. These days, however, Jews are over-represented among voters for the center right party the UMPS and underrepresented among voters for the far right, and sometimes anti-Semitic, party the National Front. This shift is said by some to reflect Jewish opposition to mass Muslim immigration which in turn is fueled by anti-Semitism among Muslims.
It would seem forced to not interpret this pattern of data as being motivated by what Jewish people perceive to be in their ethnic interest. In many nations, Jews used to vote left, and they still largely self identify as more liberal than average, but they vote for center right parties due to a growing embrace of Islam and anti-Zionism on the left, while still being underrepresented among voters for far right wing parties due to fears of anti Semitism. Even in populations where Jews vote right wing, Brexit showed us that Jews will still come out to vote for the left when an issue tied to immigration, and therefore “racism”, is directly on the ballot. Unless the Jews in question live in Israel, in which case they will overwhelming favor far right immigration policies, and not identify with the political left 92% of the time.
With respect to the United States, I think the key to understanding Jewish political opinion is to understand that Jews perceive the religious right to be extremely anti-Semitic. This is obviously false, the religious right is extremely pro-Jewish in its ideology, but a 1998 survey of Jewish Americans found that 48% considered many of most of the religious right to be anti-Semitic. In fact, American Jews were more likely to say that very few or no anti-Semites were present among Muslims (9%) than they were the Religious Right (8%). Several other iterations of the same survey found the same result, while others found that Muslims were considered more anti-Semitic, but the religious right was still regarded as highly anti-Jewish.
This is consistent with 2012 polling which asked Jews to rate how much they liked various groups on a scale of 1 to 100 and found that they rated Muslims (41.1) more highly than the Christian right (20.9).
Similarly, Pew data shows that Jews have a negative view of Evangelical Christians. In some years, Pew finds that American Jews rate Muslims more highly than they did Evangelicals:
Finally, consider that an analysis of Jewish voting in five nations, Canada, the UK, France, Australia, and the US, found an astounding -.95 correlation between the prevalence of Christianity in a country and the rate at which Jews voted to the right. Based on the linear trend found in this data, you would predict that, of these five countries, the US would be the only one in which most Jews vote to the left, and that is exactly what reality bares out.
Thus, I think it is plausible to attribute Jewish political opinion outside of Israel largely to fears about anti-Semitism, with an irrational emphasis on Christian anti-Semitism.
Also note that in both of the religious favorability rating charts displayed above, within the 99 ratings displayed on each chart the highest, in both cases, is the Jewish rating of Jews. This is evidence in favor of the next hypothesis I want to advance: that Jews have above average levels of ethnocentrism.
Consider the following four survey analyses reported on by the blog The Inductivist:
First, the MIDUS study (n=4,088) asked participants “How closely do you identify with your race” on a 4 point scale and the mean Jewish score was .20 SD above the mean.
Secondly, the Inductivist got data (N=2,119) that asked people to rate on a 4 point scale how important their ethnicity is to who they are with 1 being very important and 4 being not at all important. Jews mean score was .29 SD below the mean, indicating greater ethnocentrism than average.
Thirdly, The Midlife Development in the United States Study asked Americans how important it is for members of their ethnic group to marry inside their group. Here are the percentages who said “very important” or “somewhat important” (N = 4,881): Jewish 47.4%, Asian 42.3%, Amerindian 37.3%, Black 34.6%, Hispanic 33.8%, English 28.4%, French 19.7%, Italian 19.1%, Scottish 18.5%, Irish 18.3%, Polish 16.3%, German 16.0%, Swedish 15.8%, and Norwegian 15.2%.
Fourthly, From the Inductivist analysis of GSS data, the following proportions of people said that they did notprefer the company of their own ethnic group at all: French 53.4%, German 50.3%, Swedish 45.9%, Norwegian 42.7%, Scottish 41.3%, Irish 38.5%, Russian 37.5%, English 32.8%, Italian 28.5%, and Jewish 20.2%. Thus, Jews are more likely than various white ethnic groups to prefer the company of their co-ethnics.
The analyses done or reviewed by the Inductivist often had small samples of Jews and they differ in terms of whether they define Jews ethnically or religiously. However, they consistently reinforce the notion that Jews are more ethnocentric than most White people.
Higher than average ethnocentrism is also evidenced by Jewish patterns of marriage. Jewish people make up only 2% of the US population, but most Jewish people are married to fellow Jews. This was true for nearly all of US history, but has recently begun to change:
Similarly, an analysis of infants born to Jewish mothers in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, found that an average of 21.2% of them were of mixed origins between 1958 and 1968. When analyzing the period 1988 to 1993, this figure rose to 50% (Lynn 2011, page 211).
On the other hand, an analysis of Jews in Australia found that they were marry gentiles at a rate of 22% in 1921, 7% in 1961, and 8% in 1971 (Lynn 2011, page 39).
Globally, the pattern is clear: Jews display an ethnocentric bias for marrying within their group, though this bias is lessening with time. In most nations, Jews are less than 2% of the population, but nowhere does the rate at which Jews marry fellow Jews even come close to approaching this figure. Of course, in part this is because Jews tend to live near other Jews, but this itself may partly be the result of a degree of ethnocentrism.
Years of survey data also show that Jews make friends with fellow Jews are disproportionate rates, and explicitly regard being Jewish as very important.
For instance, the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Survey found that 52% of Jews say that half or more of their close friends are Jewish, 41% contribute money to a specifically Jewish cause, and 52% regard being Jewish as very important.
In 2013, Pew Polling found that 80% of Jews said that being Jewish was either somewhat or very important. Figures from the Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion put that figure at 79% in 2016 and 80% in 2017.
That same Pew Polling also found that 75% of American Jews have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people, 63% say they have a special responsibility to care for Jews in need, 32% of Jews say that all or most of their friends are Jewish, 45% say some are Jewish, and 21% say hardly any or none of their friends are Jewish.
A 2012 poll finds that “More than 4-in-10 (42%) American Jews say that being Jewish is either very important or the most important thing in their lives. Approximately 3-in-10 say being Jewish is somewhat important (29%), and approximately 3-in-10 (29%) say being Jewish is either not too important or not at all important in their lives.”
Finally, consider that The National Jewish Population Survey of 1971 found that 71.7% of Jews reported being happy to be Jewish and 84.6% of Jews agreed with the statement “It is important that there should always be a Jewish people”, while only 4.2% disagreed.
To my knowledge, the only empirical challenge to the claim that Jews, on average, possess higher levels of ethnocentrism than Whites, was mounted by the previously referenced article on The Alternative Hypothesis website. Again, this article was not written by Ryan Faulk, nor was it written by me. As of now, the author of the paper is anonymous.
The article seeks to inform people interested in White identity politics on how they should view Jews. To this end, it attempts to refute what it calls the “separatist hypothesis” which it defines the hypothesis as the view that “Jews have no white identity and no sense of kinship with or preference for Europeans” and “Jews are so highly predisposed to ethnocentrism that they can never be assimilated into gentile societies.”
This is an extreme view that I have no interest in defending. What I will do, however, is explain how the evidence offered in this article does not refute the view that Jews are more ethnocentric than Whites. Specifically, I’ll comment on six lines of evidence:
First, the paper shows that Jewish people score higher than average on measures of general trust and this is interpreted as suggesting that they don’t feel alienated from society. I would count this as weak and indirect evidence, and also note that different groups may have different interpretations of the answers used in trust scales. Moreover, to the degree that Jewish people tend to live near other Jews, they may mostly have Jewish people in mind when they think about the trustworthiness of others.
Secondly, it is brought up that Jewish people date and marry White people. This is true if you consider Jews white, but, as already noted, most of these White people are Jews.
Thirdly, it is mentioned that Jewish people sometimes stop being religiously Jewish. This is true, but can only be taken as a sign of assimilation if they are converting to a popular branch of Christianity. Jews becoming atheists are not assimilating into White American culture.
Fourthly, it is shown that Jewish people self-identify as “White” on racial surveys even when “other” is an option. This is true but tells us nothing about degree to which Jewish people value their ethnic group or perceive the interests of their ethnic group as being at tension with the interests of other White people. The Nazis would have self-identified as White, but were also German supremacists who engaged in ethnic conflict with Slavs. Many French Canadians wish to separate from Canada but would still surely identify as White. Explicitly anti-White SJWs also self-identify as White. In fact, some of them, like ((((((Tim Wise)))))), are anti-White Jewish intellectuals who write books with titles like “White like Me”.
Fifthly, it is shown that about half of Jewish people say they feel close to White people, as do roughly half of White gentiles. Interpreting this point is difficult in light of the fact that Jews consider themselves to be White and so may be thinking of themselves to some extent when they think of White people. Furthermore, it is possible to feel close to your racial group, at least relative to other racial groups, and still care a great deal about your particular ethnicity. Regardless, I think Jewish patterns of mating and friend making, support for anti-White political policies while supporting ethnic-nationalist policies in Israel, and their bizarre perception of Christians as crazed anti-semites, tells us more about how Jewish people relate to White people than does this sort of polling question.
Finally, the Alt Hype article mentioned that 1/5 of Jews raise their kids to have no Jewish identity. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing about their relative level of ethnocentrism. To do that, we would need to compare this figure to the rate at which gentile Whites raise their children without enforcing any sort of ethnic identity.
Taking these six lines of evidence together, I think they offer very weak evidence against the view that Jews are more ethnocentric than gentile White people. The evidence I previously referenced seems to me to more directly address this question and, as a result, I think the totality of the evidence strongly favors the view that Jews are relatively ethnocentric.
Jewish Ethnocentrism and Jewish Leftist Politics
At this point I want to advance the view that Jewish ethnocentrism is linked to the policies Jews advocate for. We have already seen some evidence for this by noting the differences in the policies that Jews advocate for Jewish and non-Jewish states and by noting that journalists explicitly explain Jews voting for right wing parities in several Western nations by noting that Jews perceive this to be in their ethnic interest. And in America Jews seem to dislike the right because they think he religious right is anti-Semitic. This is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence linking ethnocentrism to American Jewish leftism.
For one thing, if you simply ask Jews they will explicitly tell you that fighting for “social justice” is part of their ethnic identity. For instance, a PPRI poll conducted in 2012 found that:
“Seven-in-ten (70%) Jews cite the immigrant experience in America, and approximately two-thirds (66%) say that being a religious minority in America has a somewhat or very important influence on their political beliefs and activity.When asked which qualities are most important to their Jewish identity, nearly half (46%) of American Jews cite a commitment to social equality, twice as many as cite support for Israel (20%) or religious observance (17%). Fewer than 1-in-10 say that a sense of cultural heritage and tradition (6%) or a general set of values (3%) are most important to their Jewish identity.”
Similarly, Pew Polling finds that “Large majorities of U.S. Jews say that remembering the Holocaust (73%) and leading an ethical life (69%) are essential to their sense of Jewishness. More than half (56%) say that working for justice and equality is essential to what being Jewish means to them.”
In 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1998, 1997, and 1995, surveys by the American Jewish Committee asked respondents to select a quality they considered to be most important to their Jewish identity from a list of 6 possible choices (including “something else”).
On average, roughly one in five Jews said that a commitment to social justice was the single most defining feature of their Jewish identity.
This data comes from a series of report issues by the AJC called the Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion. Using data from eight years of this survey, I’ve found that Jews who describe being Jewish as very important to them identify as Democrats rather than Republicans by larger margins than do Jews who describe being Jewish as fairly important or not very important to them.
It is unfortunate that the AJC binned “fairly important” and “not very important” together. Had they not, I suspect we would see an even stronger difference.
Several of these reports also asked respondents whether immigration levels should be increased, decreased, or kept where they are. In the 2002 report, a plurality of Jews who said that being Jewish was either fairly or not very important favored decreasing immigration (45%). By contrast, the plurality of Jews who said being Jewish was very important favored immigration remaining where it was (45%).
The 2003 report found the same result with a plurality of the less ethnocentric Jews saying that immigration should be decreased (44%) while only a minority of highly ethnocentric Jews said so (39%).
The 2006 and 2007 reports asked respondents the following question:
“Which comes closest to your view of what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, OR allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time, OR allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?”
In both years, the majority of Jews selected the most left-wing option and their views did not significantly differ by the importance they attached to being Jewish, so that data does not support the hypothesis I am advancing.
In totality though, the data from these reports support the contention that there is a link between Jewish ethnic identity and left-wing politics, especially when it comes to immigration. It does not, however, tell us how much of Jewish leftism can be accounted for by ethnic identity. While I think that ethnic identity is an important variable in this equation, I doubt that it can explain all of the Jewish tendency towards leftism in US politics.
For some Jewish intellectuals, fears of anti-Semitism have obviously played a large role in their leftist politics. This is well documented in Kevin MacDonald’s book the Culture of Critique. On the other hand, many important left-wing intellectuals, such as ((((((Noam Chomsky)))))) and ((((((Karl Marx)))))), have been high profile critics of either the Jewish state or the Jewish people as a whole. For them, ethnic identity did not play a direct role in their politics. However, it is plausible, though certainly not proven, that their politics were the result of Jewish norms of critique, skepticism, and a feeling of being outside of European society, which evolved over the long course of Jewish history and experience. Regardless, as I have said, I don’t think that Jewish ethnic identity is the whole story here, but I do think it is the most important factor.
Ethnocentrism and Jewish Success
There is also some evidence that Jewish ethnocentrism contributes to their success in various domains.
For instance, Perreault et al. (2012) analyzed data on 600 entrepreneurs from four ethnic groups: Chinese, Italian, Jewish, and Sikh. Though they engaged in less ethnocentric behavior than other immigrant groups, Jewish business owners still reported that 25% of their employees were Jews, as were 25% of their customers, which is highly disproportionate to the proportion of the Canadian population that, in any city, is Jewish.
This study also finds that the degree to which a firm employs coethnics negative correlates with its performance. This makes sense, in general working with people on the basis of ethnicity rather than merit is a bad idea. However, when members of your ethnicity are sufficiently above average in traits like intelligence, it is plausible that ethnic nepotism may be an efficient heuristic. Thus, ethnic nepotism may help Jews, who score well above average on intelligence, in a way that it would not help most ethnic groups.
There are also studies linking the degree to which Jews are involved in Jewish communities with their economic success. For instance, Berner and Gainer (2001) find a correlation of .17 between household income and embeddedness in Jewish communities.
Similarly, Hartman and Sheskin (2011) analyzed 19,000 Jewish households across 21 communities and found that various measures of Jewish community strength, such as being involved in local Jewish federations, family services, synagogues, and other agencies, predicted higher levels of labor participation, income, and education, among Jews.
That Jewish communities would strengthen Jewish economic performance is unsurprising. In the modern economy, most jobs are obtained view networking, and being involved in a Jewish community gives individuals access to a social network comprised of people in which wealthy professionals are vastly more common than average (Belli 2017, Adler 2016) .
There is also evidence that Jews have helped other Jews advance in science. Specifically, Greenwald and Schuh (1994) find that Jewish researcher cites fellow Jews at a rate that is 40% higher than the rate at which gentiles cite Jews.
Once again, I should note that ethnocentrism is surely not the only variable that explains Jewish success. There are other variables of great importance, perhaps most obviously intelligence.
After reviewing dozens of studies, Lynn (2011, p 316) estimated the mean (((((((Ashkenazi))))))) Jewish IQ to be 110, 10 points above that of European gentiles. Lynn (2011) also aggregated data from 7 studies showing that Jews score much higher on measures of verbal intelligence than they do on measures of visual-spatial ability.
Lynn (2011) shows that this cognitive profile is also evident in the pattern of occupational overrepresentation seen among Jews around the world:
Based on these IQ differences, we would expect Jews to be overrepresented among those with an IQ of 130 by a factor of 4 and among those with IQ of over 145 by a factor of 7.
This corresponds well to the rate at which Jews have historically been overrepresented among academics. This figure also may account for most of the overrepresentation we saw for Jews in Journalism, especially given that journalism would seem to place a premium on verbal abilities. However, IQ cannot account for even half of the Jewish overrepresentation among financial elites or recipients of Nobel prices.
Jordan Peterson thinks that this can explain Jewish overrepresentation among the super-wealthy because he thinks that the mean IQ of millionaires and billionaires is 145. Actually, research suggests that the mean IQ of billionaires is probably in the low 130s and millionaires is in the high 110s (see also here and here), suggesting that Jews are more common in these categories than their IQ would predict.
Sometimes it is suggested that intelligence can explain why Jews have such leftist political views and vote so heavily for Democrats. This is almost surely not true.
For starters, the link between IQ and party ID is not what many people might assume it to be. Carl (2014) analyzed data on a test of probability thinking (n = 4,631), verbal reasoning (n = 2,179), verbal comprehension (n = 55,794), and vocabulary (n = 26,308). Republicans scored higher than Democrats on all four measures of cognitive ability. These differences are small, ranging from 2 to 3 IQ points, but even after restricting the sample to only Whites, Republicans scored higher than Democrats on some measures of cognitive ability and equally on others, supporting the hypothesis that White Republicans have higher mean FSIQ than White Democrats.
There is some debate about the linearity of this relationship. For instance, Solon (2015) argues that there is a U shaped relationship between intelligence and both economic leftism and democrat party affiliation such that people very low on the IQ spectrum tend to be socialist leaning and democrat leaning, and as we move up the IQ spectrum people move to the right on these issues until we reach the 85th percentile at which point people become increasingly leftist. In terms of educational attainment, this corresponds to a graduate degree.
Since Jews mean IQ of 110 puts them at the 75th percentile, and most Jews do not have a graduate degree, on the basis of their IQs and educational attainment we would predict them to be (libertarian) republicans regardless of which camp is correct in this debate.
Now, certain sorts of conservative social attitudes do correlate negatively with IQ. Specifically, Meta-analytic reviews suggest that cognitive ability has a correlation of roughly -.20 with right-wing attitudes and prejudice. Since Jews have a .66 SD advantage over Whites in IQ, we would, therefore, expect them to have a mean level of social liberalism that is .13 SD above that of Whites.
If we conceptualized social liberalism as being on a scale like IQ with a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, Jews would be predicted, on the basis of IQ, to have a “social liberalism quotient”, or SLQ, of 102. This is a tiny difference which obviously has very little to do with why Jews are so heavily overrepresented among the left.
With respect to liberal elites specifically, let’s suppose that one must be at the 95th percentile of both liberalism and intelligence (IQ = 124) in order to be an elite or influential liberal. Not that all people with that meet these requirements will be influential liberals, but let’s suppose that this is how smart and liberal you need to be to do that sort of thing.
Given a 0.2 correlation between liberalism and IQ, people with IQs of 124 will be at the 95th percentile of liberalism or higher 14.2% of the time. We would expect this combination of traits to occur at a rate of 7.1 per 1,000 among gentiles. On the other hand, with Jews we would expect people to have IQs of 124 or higher 17.5% of the time, meaning that a high IQ and a really high level of liberalism would occur at a rate of 24.85 per 1,000. This gives us a factor of overrepresentation of 4. (If we lessened the liberalism threshold to just more liberal than average, the factor would be less.) In light of these calculations, IQ alone probably cannot account for even half of the degree to which Jews are overrepresented among influential leftists.
However, since you obviously cannot be a Nobel prize winner, an important intellectual, or an academic, without a good deal of intelligence, IQ is also clearly an important part of the explanation for Jewish success and influence. It’s probably best thought of as a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Jewish personality is another variable that might plausibly explain some portion of why it is that Jews are so successful and so liberal. There isn’t a ton of research available on this topic, but I will go through what little I am aware of.
Using GSS data, the inductivist compared Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Atheists on the following questions about altruistic behavior: have you, within the last year, given a seat to a stranger, given to the homeless, given to a needy friend, given to other needy, given to a neighbor, loaned money to a friend, done a walkathon, ever donated blood or given to race.org. The only significant differences were that Jews were less likely to have given to a needy friend or neighbor. Altruism is unlikely to play any role in Jewish success.
The inductivist also took data on the big 5 (n=3,915, 94 of which were Jews), and found that, after controlling for self-esteem, Jews scored higher than average on extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience. However, the relationship between these variables and being Jewish was extremely weak (betas of .04 and .03), and so they are unlikely to play a practically significant role in Jewish success.
On the other hand, in two high-quality surveys, Dunkel et al. (2015) found evidence for a moderate gap in favor of Jews in terms of openness to experience, but no sizeable gap in terms of the other four big five personality traits.
Averaging these results together we get a Jew-Gentile gap in openness of .24 SD which, given that openness correlates at .18 with liberalism, would predict a Jew-Gentile liberalism gap of .04 SD, or, practically speaking, nothing.
Thus, the research that exists suggests that personality, specifically openess to experience, is a plausible factor in both Jewish leftism and successful life outcomes.
Cultural Values, Parenting, and Jewish Success
Many have argued that cultural values and parenting practices are important factors in explaining why it is that Jews are so successful. To my knowledge, this has never been demonstrated. Several studies have found Jews to hold various measures of achievement related values more strongly than gentiles, but when directly tested these values have normally be shown to be unrelated to actual success. More importantly, no study I am aware of has measured the effect of such values on success after controlling for cognitive ability. Given the large advantage Jews have on IQ scales, and given that people who are smarter are also likely going to have more motivation to try and achieve in domains that require intelligence, such a control would be vital before we could estimate the role such a value would play in explaining Jewish success. Finally, with respect to parenting, research generally does not favor the view that Jewish parents uniquely try to instill in their children values related to success.
The earliest empirical work on this topic I am aware of comes from Clark (1949) who analyzed data on scores on a test of scholastic aptitude and GPAs for 6,774 liberal arts freshmen from Northwestern University. Data for ten years, ranging from 1925 to 1941, were analyzed, and from said data, a series of equations were created that predicted GPA based on aptitude scores. It was found that Jewish students had higher GPAs than would be predicted on the basis of their ability scores by a margin of .15 in the case of women and .31 in the case of men. The male difference was statistically significant while the female difference was not. Neither was very practically significant, the standard deviation of GPA averaging 1.3. Despite this, these findings were taken as evidence that Jews must be more motivated than gentiles at any given level of cognitive ability, leading them to have higher GPAs. This interpretation would be plausible, though again not practically significant, but correction for multiple testing was not done despite 40 comparisons being made. While common for the time, today this would be regarded as statistically improper, and if the proper corrections were made the differences between Jews and Gentiles would be rendered statistically insignificant.
Next, ((((((Rosen)))))) (1959) analyzed data on 427 mother-child pairs, 57 of which were Jewish, who were asked about the ages at which they expected their children to do various things (e.g. have independent interests, do well in school on their own, by energetic in sports, picking their own clothes, etc.). Responses from these ten questions were averaged into an index of “age of independence training”. Jews were found to expect independent behavior at the youngest age (6.83 years), followed by Protestants (6.87), Blacks (7.23), Greeks (7.67), French-Canadians (7.99), and Italians (8.03). This variable was positively related to social class, meaning that Jews had expectations more typical of low-class individuals than high-class ones. Jews were also found to score above average on a scale of achievement motivation. However, this score was once again more typical of the lower class.
((((((Rosen)))))) also asked the mothers which of the following occupations they would be satisfied with their sons going into in adulthood: lawyer, druggist, jewelry store owner, machinist, bank teller, insurance agent, bookkeeper, mail carrier, department store salesman, and bus driver. Jewish mothers were, on average, satisfied with 3.51 of these occupations compared to 4.7 for Greeks, 5.28 for Protestants, 5.69 for Italians, 6.6 for French Canadians, and 6.95 for Blacks. Means by social class are not given, nor is there any reference to an empirical measure of the degree to which maternal expectations actually influence life outcomes.
Veroff, ((((((Feld)))))), and Gurin (1962) utilized data on 1,620 participants from a nationally representative sample which administered a measure of achievement motivation. When looking at males in the sample, it was found that 68% of Jews, 57% of Catholics, and 48% of Protestants scored above average. However, this same study found no relationship between achievement motivation and income, suggesting that it did not actually contribute to real-world success.
Carney and McKeachie (1963) gathered a sample of 919 US college students and had them fill out a measure of achievement motivation. This scale was an average across five other scales: dominance, capacity for status, sociability, social preference, and self-acceptance. It is not obvious to me why this would be called “achievement motivation”, but Carney and McKeachie report that it is correlated with other measures of achievement motivation.
In any case, Jews scored.31 SD above average on this scale. However, scores on this scale did not have a linear relationship with the social class from which students came nor their success in school, so there is no reason to think that the construct it measures contributed to life outcomes.
Jews also scored below average on a measure of achievement anxiety, or the degree to which one feels a debilitating anxiety in response to competitive academic situations. However, this difference was only .03 SD, and so not statistically or practically significant.
Kosa (1969) asked 2,630 medical students, grouped by religion, about their values. I have not been able to access this paper myself, but Lynn (2011, p 349) that reports that Jews placed the most importance on obtaining both high income and high prestige. No reference is made to any attempt at measuring how much such values contributed to actually obtaining a high income or prestigious position.
Kriger and Kroes (1972) compared 35 middle-class Protestant, Jewish, and Chinese, mothers on the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) which consists of two main factors: “control”, or approval of maternal control of children, and “rejection”, or approval of maternal expressions of hostility. Chinese mothers scored far higher than Protestants and Jews on measures of control, but no difference was found between Jews and Protestants on control, or between any of the three groups on rejection.
The most impressive study in this literature is Fejgin (1995) who found that Jewish 10th graders spent an average of 1.66 hours more time on homework weekly, and .71 fewer hours watching TV daily, compared to gentile Whites. Jews also scored higher than average on a measure of academic aspiration.
Analyzing scores on measures of mathematical ability, it was found that Jews scored well above the average, and this remained true after controlling for race, SES, the degree to which the home environment is educationally stimulating, student behavior (hours spent on homework and TV), and educational aspirations. However, adding a measure of school sector to the model reduced to Jewish variable to statistical insignificance. For reading, statistical insignificance is reached merely by controlling for race, sex, and SES.
Educational aspirations, student behavior, and parental behavior were also independent predictors of academic ability.
This study lends a little credence to the view that “educational aspirations” have a causal impact on success, but, since the Gentile-Jewish gap in ability survived controlling for aspirations, this research also shows that such values cannot totally explain Jewish success. Unfortunately, this study did not include a measure of IQ, so the actual impact of aspirations on outcomes cannot possibly be measured nor can the contribution of such values to Jewish success.
Finally, Lynn and Kanazawa (2007) analyzed data on 10,700 parents who were asked to select from a list the most, and three most, important values they would like they children to manifest from a list of twelve: success, studiousness, amicability, cleanliness, considerateness, control, honesty, interest, judgement, manners, obedience, responsibility, and traditional sex roles.
When asked to select a single most important value, Jewish parents were more likely than average to select judgment and less likely than average to select honesty. When asked to select three top values, Jewish parents were less likely than average to select cleanliness, honesty, manners, and obedience, and more likely than average to select considerateness, interest, and judgment. No link between parents hoping their children embody these values and life outcomes was established in the paper.
In sum, Jewish parents and Jewish individuals differ from gentiles in the things they value, but it is not clear that such differences are consistently correlated with success, let alone that they have a causal impact on life outcomes. If I had to speculate, I would wager that they do, but it is not possible to estimate how much of Jewish success such values can account for on the basis of the available data.
Geography (Living in Big Cities)
Finally, some have noted that Jews tend to live in major cities and that this makes it easier to rise to positions of influence. There is certainly some truth to this. ((((((Goldstein)))))) (1971) calculated that, in 1957, 87.4% of Jews lived in cities with populations of 250,000 of more compared to just 36.6% of the general population, and if you compared people who all lived in urban areas and had college degrees, Jewish people were actually less likely to have a “professional occupation” (58.2% ) than are the total sample (62.3%).
This hypothesis was best tested by Mazur (2007) who compared a large sample of Jews to a set of “controls” who were White, college educated, and lived in one of the nation’s 100 largest cities. These controls self-identified as republican over democrat by a margin of 9 points and were equally likely to identify as liberal and conservative. By contrast, Jews were found to identify as a Democrat by a margin of 40 points and liberal by a margin of 27 points.
Consistent with ((((((Goldstein))))))’s data from the 50s, when using a question introduced in 1972 about whether one’s income was higher than 25,000 dollars, Jews were found to be somewhat less likely than controls to answer “yes”. However, using a question introduced in 1998, Jews are found to be twice as likely as controls to have an income of more than 110,000 dollars, suggesting that Jews today are both far more liberal and more wealthy than we would expect on the basis of them being highly educated and living in large cities.
It is also worth noting that NYC is both the biggest city in America and the largest city with the most Jews. Yet, Jews vote democrat by smaller margins in NYC than they do nationally, making the claim that living in large cities explains Jewish leftism even more implausible (Heilman 2016).
Cofnas (2018) has argued that we should consider the view that IQ and geography account for Jewish overrepresentation in just about everything a “default hypothesis”. I see no reason to accept this claim. That is, there is no reason to treat geography and intelligence as “default” variables and ethnocentrism, personality, and cultural values, as somehow less default, especially in light of the evidence that important differences in success and political orientation between Jews and gentiles persist after controlling for these sorts of variables. To sum up, I think a large number of variables account for why it is that Jews are so overrepresented in positions of power. These include intelligence, openness to experience, living in big cities, cultural values, and ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism and personality also play a role in explaining Jewish politics. There are doubtless still more variables at play that my analysis has neglected totally.
Whatever the cause, it is truly remarkable that, by some counts, less than 2% of the population accounts for near half, or even an outright majority, of society’s most powerful people, and have radically altered the political landscape of the American elite.
Turning to said implications, I’d like to spend some time talking about how I think people interested in White Identity politics should act in light of the reality about Jews.
Race Realism vs Anti-Semitism
I analyzed data from the ADL and the GSS (Variable name: RaceDif2, asks if Black-White gaps in SES are due to inborn differences in learning ability) on the prevalence of anti-semitism and race realism among NH Whites.
The results suggest that race realism is slightly less popular than anti-semitism. These are probably low figures, people don’t like to admit to politically incorrect views, but this bias probably impacts both variables in roughly the same way so the comparison should still be valid.
Prejiduce and Sucess
One of the most obvious lessons to take away from an analysis of the Jewish question is that discrimination is not something that can stop a determined ethnic group from being successful. Probably no group has faced greater ethnic conflict that Jews, and yet they do very well for themselves. This should make us skeptical of the claim that other groups, most of which have never experienced anything like the episodes Jews have gone through, are just poor due to racism.
Ethnicity and Ideology
Another take away is that variables like socioeconomic status, belonging to a religion, and IQ, are not always large determinants of political ideology and voting behavior. Jews are a rich religious group that is above average in IQ, so if we were using a model based on how gentile Whites vote we would predict Jews to be strong supporters of the Republican party. But, as we’ve seen, other factors like personality and ethnic interest seem to trump economics, intelligence, and religion.
How and When Should We Talk About Jews?
I am not a fan of the way in which the Jewish Question is normally talked about by the far right. It often comes off as unhinged, unconnected with data and reality, and hate-filled, in a way that discussions about no other ethnics groups do. This is unfortunate, as there is perhaps no ethnic group which more carefulness should be taken when discussing than the Jews, giving how sensitive the public is to such issues.
That being said, there is a time and a place to talk about them. The fact is that Jews stand out both in terms of their influence and their politics. This is partly because Jews see themselves as a distinct group with separate interests from Whites. This is not something that a nationalist should want for his nation, and in the case of Jews, even a small number can have a large effect due to their enormous influence. It already has and it is hard to see how this can be ignored.
Furthermore, being up the ethnic interests of certain intellectuals, the Goulds and Lewontins of the world, is necessary to explain why they have decided to lie to the public.
Moreover, there is a tendency within white identity politics such that people who are passionately anti-Semitic speak obsessively about jews and those who are not rarely talk about jews at all. This has the unfortunate effect of making discourse about jews worse, from a PR standpoint, then it needs to be.
Some, myself included, have long urged white nationalists to try and just not talk about Jews. Well, whether that advice was right or not it was not it was not, and almost surely will not, be followed. So I think it is time to start trying to improve how we talk about Jews instead, with this post being my small contribution to such an effort.
That being said, I also think Jews are brought up too often by the far right. Many people know next to nothing about Jews, and their relevance is not self-evident. From the standpoint of White nationalism Jews are only bad in so far as they cause white guilt and demographic decline. Opposing anti-White ideology directly is more important than opposing an ethnic group which is overrepresented among its advocates. Moreover, discussions of Hispanics and Blacks are more obviously relevant to the situations of most Americans. So I think we should talk about Jews, but I do not think they should be our central theme.
“Naming the Jew”
There is some controversy about the so-called practice of “naming the Jew”. I think pointing out that someone is Jewish can be useful but only when a few conditions are met. First, it needs to be demonstrable that their Jewish ethnicity is playing a role in their politics. Secondly, this needs to occur in a context in which the relationship between Jewish ethnic identity and left-wing politics can be explained. And thirdly, this should only be done by people who can do all this calmly. If you feel like shouting, it’s probably a bad idea to “name a jew”.
Jews in Right-Wing Movements
There is some debate about the role that Jews should have in White identity movements. My view on this is that White identitarians should not attempt to stop Jews from furthering anti-immigration or pro-white causes, and to my knowledge, no one does this anyhow, but Jewish people should not lead any white nationalist organizations or be a figurehead for a white nationalist movement. Such a Jew would also be under the suspicion of having an allegiance to their Jewish ethnic group more so than their White racial identity, and this would cause unneeded tension and drama in a movement that already has too much of both.
What Should We “Do” About Jews?
First, it needs to be noted that Jews have low fertility rates and are increasingly marrying gentiles, but they are still going to be around in roughly the same numbers in 2050:
For moral reasons, I don’t think the deportation of Jews from America, as some White nationalists call for, can be justified. However, I do think it would be sensible to limit the immigration of Jews into any future White ethnostate, and I would not recommend setting up such an ethnostate in New York City.
In previous centuries, what to do with the Jews was a problem. Today, it is not. Even if all of Europe and America someday becomes ruled by Jew exiling White Nationalists, which I think is highly unlikely, and Jews now have an ethnostate of their own. They need not be immigrants any longer.
Of course, Jewish people contribute a great deal of good to the world in the form of science and innovation. However, science is an international enterprise, and such advances can be enjoyed by the world with the science being done in Israel. By contrast, political theorists in Israel don’t have nearly as much influence in the West as do Jews who live here. Moreover, Jews have a funny tendency to be right-wing nationalists when they live in their own state.
So, those are some of my thoughts on the Jewish Question. More can always be said, and this is only one way of approach the question, but I thought it would be good to try approach the “JQ” in this way, and overall I am happy with the results.
In a video corresponding to this post, these statistics are misstated. I had written this analysis some years ago and initially could not find it. I reported the result in the video based on notes of mine, but I have since found the actual analysis, via the “Way-Back Machine”, and found them to be in error. The errors are as follows: I incorrectly stated that these elites were from around the world when they were from America, I reported all names and lists including redunant ones, and I overstated Jewish representation among conservatives. I also failed to report the results of the Adious Epigone’s Analysis.
Adolf Hitler Issues Comment on the “Jewish Question”
September 16, 1919
On September 16, 1919, Hitler issues his first written comment on the so-called Jewish Question.
In the statement, he defined the Jews as a race and not a religious community (as they also define themselves), characterized the effect of a Jewish presence as a “race-tuberculosis of the peoples,”(which is 100% correct if you read the previous article) and identified the initial goal of a German government to be discriminatory legislation against Jews. The “ultimate goal must definitely be the removal of the Jews altogether.” (which would be what has happened more than 100+ throughout history in the ongoing war between whites and jews) Hitler’s years in Vienna (1908–1913) and his military service were important stages for his development of a comprehensive anti-parasite ideology.
Photograph with inset showing Adolf Hitler attending a rally in Munich in 1914 celebrating the declaration of World War I. The years Hitler spent in Vienna (1908–1913) before World War I and his military service were important stages for his development of a comprehensive ideology. —US Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of William O. McWorkman
Undeniable Proof Jews Are Committing White Genocide
Jews proudly proclaim they are working tirelessly to destroy Whiteness then claim White genocide is a crazy conspiracy theory.
The jews and the Aztexican Invasion
It is plainly obvious that the jews are behind the devastating, unchecked invasion of White homelands by hostile genetic aliens from the worst corners of the world. There is the odious Barbara ((((((Lerner)))))) Spector. There is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), with the slogan “Welcome the Stranger. Protect the Refugee,” which unsurprisingly only applies in White nations. When Israel puts Blacks into concentration camps, and then deports them to Africa, the jewish proponents of “diversity” and “multiculturalism” are silently hoping the gullible goyim don’t notice their blatant hypocrisy. The Hebraic domination of our mass media and educational institutions ensures that formerly prosperous White homelands are saturated with unrelenting propaganda that confuses, enervates, and ultimately stymies the healthy response to violent foreigners from incompatible racial groups entering a land that once existed for the safety and advancement of the White race. The jews have a religious imperative to miscegenate the distinctive human races into a single, deracinated brown mass of maladapted simpletons, suitable to be the goyim slaves promised to the jews in their toxic talmud. The jews have long realized that we of the White race are the only ones who can stop their disgusting plans that advance the insane rabbinical dictates from their perverted desert death-cult. For this reason, the jews have waged a 3,000 year war against the White race. Over the last few generations, the jewish war of White genocide has become completely one-sided, as the insanity of equalitarianism, hedonism, and empty materialism have supplanted, because of kosher connivance, our traditions, cultures, and basic respect for the accomplishments of our ancestors and veneration of our gods.
The inhuman predatory instincts of the jews have made them aware, at a societal level, of our unwillingness to resist their depredations. They have long laid the groundwork for the perilous circumstances in which we now find ourselves as a race; circumstances of mass ignorance, misplaced and undeserved guilt, and a bizarrely vehement adherence to superstitions that fly in the face of easily observable reality (like the equality of the races, or racial “diversity” being a mighty strength). Sensing a window of opportunity to irredeemably inundate White homelands with bipedal biological weapons, the jews have accelerated the arrival of mud world savages to destroy the conditions of safety necessary for the White race to have a posterity. In California, a once-prosperous White homeland has been replaced with a human compost heap, where a Mestizo invasion is being orchestrated, aided, and abetted by jews for the sole purpose of eradicating any vestigial remains of the White race.
A Jewish woman is among several people reportedly running a safe house in California for a Mexican woman who is illegally in the United States.”
The nation-wrecker, the enemy within, the jew. The subversive nature of the jews has not changed over the long millennia during which they have been among our greatest misfortunes. Our tolerance of them and their predictable perniciousness in service of White genocide is perhaps the even greater misfortune. It was the jew Karl Mordechai ((((((Marx)))))) who wrote that history repeats itself first as tragedy, second as farce. We are incredibly foolish to permit the duplicitous jews to live among us in White nations, given what we should have learned from history. Edward Gibbon tried to warn us over 200 years ago about the horrific consequences of jewish subversion, and of tolerating the growth of a semitic tumor in the body of an otherwise healthy nation:
[T]he Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the domination of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives…[their] dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but of humankind…In Cyrene they massacred 220,000 Greeks; in Cyprus, 240,000; in Egypt, a very great multitude. Many of these victims were sawed asunder, according to the precedent to which David had given the sanction of his example. The victorious Jews devoured the flesh, licked up the blood, and twisted the entrails like a girdle round their bodies.” – Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter XVI.
The Jew = The Devil
The jews know that the Aztexicans are the antithesis of a healthy and prosperous White nation, and will go to any lengths to ensure that the Mestizos keep pouring in to outbreed the native Whites.
The Jewish woman initiated the illegal apartment after hearing in her synagogue of a Mexican family’s plight, according to a CNN report Thursday. A Baptist minister and a Catholic Latino family are helping in the effort to hide the woman, who does not have staying permits, and her two teenage daughters living with her. The woman was not named to prevent authorities from going after her, the report said.”
The r-strategy reproductive habits of the Aztexicans are a perfect fit for the hellish, all-against-all dystopia that the jews are creating in California; the completely foreseeable outcome of the unrelenting “diversity” madness that puts mutually hostile and incompatible competing races in unnatural proximity. Always at the forefront of surrendering White homelands to the most outlandish and worthless dregs of humanity, and kowtowing to jewish relativism, the Cucktians are busy helping the kosher con-men keep their army of brown monsters in White homelands. It appears that being among “g*d’s chosen” means that you can be an accomplice to crimes and face no consequences whatsoever.
The Jewish woman signed the lease for the apartment, which is located in a suburban middle-class neighborhood.”
The yenta found the Whitest area she could, the area where deploying the sewage-colored simians who do the dirty work of White genocide would do the most possible damage to the fabric of a once-White society.
The Jewish woman who signed the lease for the safe house wears a gold Star of David pendant and earrings inscribed in Hebrew. One reads “I am nothing but ashes.” The other says “The whole world was made for me.”
This jewish creature openly brags about her two-facedness, trumpeting the nihilism and megalomania of her debased, Moloch-worshipping inhuman species. This poisonous mushroom, like all her tribe, sprung forth from the ashes of White civilization, as the jews have succeeded in distorting and perverting much of our history, our culture, our homelands, and our very existence. And of course one of “g*d’s chosen people” thinks that the whole world was made for her. After all, she’s actively working to miscegenate away the White race so that she can have the 2,800 deracinated, idiotic, brown-skinned slaves promised to her by the toxic talmud.
I grew up in the time where the Holocaust was not so far behind me,” the woman said. “There was always that awareness as a Jew that it’s possible to be kicked out of a country where people thought they were home. And many of those people didn’t make it.”
In a healthy White person, a jew bleating about the holohoax should engender about the same response as finding a dog turd in your lawn: how did this disgusting thing get here, and how can I remove it without touching it? By some sort of insane rabbinical logic, the jewish mania about the holohoax (which, strictly speaking, didn’t happen), is somehow a reason why Whites need to surrender their homelands to primitive, violent savages whose highest civilizational achievement is the rule of the jungle.
If a White homeland is going to prosper, or even survive, it cannot tolerate an infestation of jews. Where Whites have evolved unique and admirable traits such as the capacity for altruism, empathy, selflessness, and creativity; the highly refined traits of the jews instead include paranoia, jealousy, overbearingness, and above all deception. The jews are experts at hiding their overtly anti-White agenda behind lies that sound compassionate, and are purposefully made to exploit the sense of justice that the White race alone possesses. The rat-faced men, through their control of our educational institutions, have indoctrinated generations of White children into believing that the endless hordes of identical looking “diversity” are “minorities,” and Whites are a “majority” even though we are now less than ten percent of the worldwide population. The jews will not rest until every last White person is either dead or miscegenated out of existence, subsumed into the undifferentiated, brown-skinned masses of anthropological curiosities that the jews nefariously claim are just overcooked Whites. The jews have created a cult of deception in our homelands, and we are now in the unenviable position of waiting to see how much patently ridiculous semitic falsehood a nation can purportedly believe before it collapses. We must awaken our people to the dangers they are in if they continue to accept jewish lies at face value. We must make our people aware that the jews are our implacable racial enemies, and that there is no compassion in allowing our nations to be overrun by primitive branches of humanity at the behest of jews. We must reclaim our homelands, and make them free from the insidious degeneracy of the jews. We must resist the jewish-orchestrated White genocide.
The jewish subversion of our institutions has been an unparalleled catastrophe for the White race. The jews have used their insidious control over education, entertainment, and mass media to coarsen the morals and invert the values of Whites, with devastating consequences for what were once safe and prosperous White homelands. The healthy White communities of the past provided an environment for prosperity, posterity, sound morality, and the advancement of artistic and intellectual expression. They were places of homogeneity from which the struggle to evolve and improve the White race and White soul could occur. The future prospects of our race have been jeopardized by our refusal (as a society) to recognize the jews as our implacable racial enemies. It is the unquenchable jewish hatred of the White race that has brought our nations to the brink of ruin; a ruin being orchestrated from within because of our ill-advised permissiveness in allowing jews to assume positions of unaccountable political and social power in our societies. The stultifying, degenerative influence of the jewish parasites has corrupted our nations (but not irredeemably so) through the endless promotion of instant gratification, hedonism, perversion, and miscegenation.
The Jew is demon
An important step towards reversing the horrendous effects of the jewish infestation of White homelands is to expose the evil semitic nation-wreckers for what they are: liars who worship a desert demon-god, with a religious imperative to cheat, enslave, and kill mankind in service of their own self-satisfaction. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is an important, but somewhat archaically-written document that describes the detestable jewish plans for destroying the White race. Its importance to understanding the jewish problem cannot be understated and it is worth reading cover to cover. The jews bleat out their accusations that the Protocols are a “forgery” (interestingly, they don’t generally claim the Protocols are a hoax or untrue, mind you, but a “forgery”); however, one can find nearly the same exact plan for subversion and genocide in the various mission statements of the seemingly infinite number of jewish supremacy organizations created to destroy White nations from within. These organizations are like a crop of poisonous mushrooms; they mimic the altruistic sentiments and outward appearances of true charitable endeavors, but are in reality filled with deadly toxins that are necrotizing the body politic of White nations. One such jewish organization is the Jewish Community Relations Council.
JCRC mobilizes the Jewish community on critical issues and amplifies its voice in the public sphere. We foster meaningful relationships among diverse ethnic, racial, religious and interest groups, building coalitions based on mutual concerns… We work tirelessly behind the scenes and on the frontlines to ensure that the organized Jewish community’s interests are addressed.”
Like innumerable other anti-White jewish organizations, this group of chosenites is working hard to undermine any remaining stability and vitality in the vestigial White communities that are struggling to survive in the Hebraic nightmare state of Weimerica. The purpose of the jews running the JCRC is to incite racial animosity, and to continue the invasion of White homelands with alien races bent on opportunistically fighting a one-sided war on Whites. The “meaningful relationships” pursued by the JCRC jews should be understood to mean instigating non-Whites to be envious of Whites, and to manifest that envy as a sullen hostility and aggressive entitlement mentality, as if we “owe” them something. The religious overtones used by the JCRC jews are meant to aggravate the misplaced altruism and undeserved guilt caused by the semitic mind-virus of cucktianity. The JCRC jews make it plain for all to see that there really are jews behind the scenes, insidiously working towards the eradication of White homelands and the White race through rampant miscegenation.
Historically, the American Jewish community has supported generous and rational immigration laws and policies…In addition, Jewish tradition, values, and the dictates of our faith make this support imperative…They call on us to ‘welcome the stranger’ and provide an effective legal immigration system characterized by rule of law, national interest and compassionate treatment.”
The rootless international merchant, who always has a “great deal” for the goyim. Never mind the fact that behind that rictus grin on its rat-face, the jew has a religiously sanctioned duty to cheat, steal, lie, and even kill non-jews in service of their perverted and wholly evil “g*d.” The jews have an immediate scheme (not a historical one as the deceitful JCRC jews would have you believe) to flood White homelands with incompatible, moronic, and dangerously violent human flotsam from the most alien corners of the world. In a classic example of jewish double-speak, they really do support “generous and rational immigration laws,” but not for Whites (or what used to be known as Americans, when the USA was a nation and not a hideous globalist bazaar). The “generous and rational” immigration policies referred to by the JCRC are solely those that further the jewish plans for White genocide. The “national interest” the jews are talking about isn’t White national interest, but furthering jewish supremacy and a worldwide Yiddocracy.
As Jews and Americans, we have benefited from our country’s pluralistic society which is rooted in, and enriched by, its immigrant tradition.”
The jews are the apex minority in the grievance-based Weimerican caste system. In control of the monetary system, both political parties, the banking sector, the media, education, the pharmaceutical industry, and vastly overrepresented at all levels of the judiciary; it the grossest of understatements to say that the jews have benefited from the dysgenic and degenerate “pluralistic” society which the Hebraic con-men have foisted upon us. The jews are a people who promote rootlessness and deracination. They thrive on causing communities to devolve into amoral, vice-ridden, consumerist hellholes without any transcendent values, and without any future beyond wallowing in the instant gratification of the moment. The jews have long realized that White homogeneous communities are resistant to the corruption after which the jews lust. Wherever one finds a jew, one finds an insane demand to throw open a nation’s borders to the most dangerous and deleterious alien branches of humanity. This is quickly followed by the jew insisting that Whites throw away their unique and immeasurably valuable genetic heritage by race-mixing with creatures who belong in an anthropology textbook, not in White nations. The true “immigrant tradition” in the historical American nation is clearly documented in the early laws of that country, and it allowed only Whites (and excluded traitorous nation-wreckers with loyalties to a foreign nation):
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien being a free white person…and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States… shall be considered a Citizen of the United States.” – U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790.
There was a time, before the complete jewish subversion and concomitant decline of America, when sensible views on race and nationhood prevailed. The following was written in 1926, before America embraced the nonsensical jewish lies about equalitarianism and relativism:
A nation, like a tree, is a living vital thing. Growth is one of its conditions of life, and when it ceases to grow there is good reason to fear that it is about to decay and die. Every nation, like every tree, belongs to a certain general type, but it is also uniquely individual within that type…No nation need fear the changes which come as the result of the operation of natural, wholesome internal forces, that is to say, the ideas and activities of its own true members… But there are other forces which originate without which threaten not only the form and character but also the vigor and perhaps the very life of the nation. Some of these are the forcible attacks of other nations, like the crowding of trees upon each other, or the unwholesome influence of alien ideas which may be compared with harsh and uncongenial winds which blow upon trees, dwarfing and distorting them. Most dangerous of all however, are those foreign forces which, among trees, are represented by minute hostile organisms that make their way into the very tissue of the tree itself and feed upon its life substances, and among nations to alien individuals who are accepted as immigrants and by a process of “boring from within” sap the very vitality of their host.” – Henry Pratt Fairchild, The Melting Pot Mistake.
Like most predatory creatures, the jew has evolved the ability to exploit the weaknesses of its prey. The jews are disgustingly adept at twisting the incredible and unique White racial capacity for selflessness, fairness, and justice into a weapon of racial destruction. Needless to say, these are all distinctive and admirable White traits that should not change (in fact, they should be celebrated and a source of pride for our people); but our communal moral compass has been sabotaged with jewish values and now points squarely towards the fetid cesspool of kosher degeneracy prepared for us by g*d’s chosen people. We need to recapture from the realm of the historical our traditional understanding of what a nation is: a homogeneous White community within a staunchly defended, clearly delineated territory that pursues the advancement and prosperity of the White race. We must re-establish safe White homelands, free from the toxic influence of the jews. We must stop White genocide.
The jews are notorious con-artists and flimflam men. They are expert at disguising their anti-White agenda behind euphemisms that sound altruistic, and hiding their nation-wrecking behind two-faced, moralistic preening. In typical jewish fashion, the purpose of the positive propaganda terminology that inevitably accompanies all kosher degeneracy campaigns is both offensive and defensive: unthinking good goyim accept at face value the semitic bloviations, while the jews can also use their self-described (and disingenuous) compassion to vilify any opposition as cruel, unfeeling, and hateful. This despicable and evil strategy allows the jews to avoid any debate over the substance of the destructive ideologies they promote, and their genocidal consequences for Whites. Any negative reaction is instantly met with shrieking, near-hysterical ad hominem attacks, and the poisonous effects of the kosher machinations are left to further necrotize the remaining vestiges of healthy White societies.
One of the worst defeats we have suffered in the war to prevent White genocide was the expurgation of all sanity from our immigration policies. Before America was defiled into the USSA, we had immigration policies that protected and served the interests of the nation as a White homeland. The intention to preserve the White racial predominance of America was once explicitly the purpose of our immigration laws. The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to free white persons of good character. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 protected the overwhelmingly White working class from greedy capitalist attempts to undermine wages and betray the nation by flooding the labor market with an endless supply of completely alien and unassimilable Asians. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 restricted immigration based on national origin to 3% of the people from any given country already living in the United States, while the Immigration Act of 1924 tightened this restriction to 2% (based on the 1890 census, a time when the national origin of more than 90% Americans was from White European countries). It wasn’t until the (((Hart-Cellar))) Immigration Act of 1965, in the ascendancy of a ZOG controlled USSA, that the official purpose of immigration became the dispossession and destruction of the White race. Of course, the jews had long been laying the groundwork for weaponized immigration.
Jewish Family and Community Services (JFCS) East Bay was founded in 1877 as the Daughters of Israel Relief Society, with a focus on helping vulnerable women, children and community members. Early on in our history, we developed expertise in resettling refugees in the East Bay — Jews coming from Eastern Europe in the late 19th century, earthquake survivors coming from San Francisco in 1906, Jews escaping Nazi Germany in the 1930s, Holocaust survivors after the war and Jews fleeing anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union.”
This revolting organization has been bringing in the ((((((Ashkenazi)))))) nation-wreckers to America for over 100 years. Apparently California’s East Bay region was one of the epicenters of the early jewish infection; a hypothesis supportable by observing the horrifying metastasis of jewish insanity in places like Berkeley and Richmond. The terrible consequences of jewish immigration and the toxic, anti-White ideologies they ceaselessly promote, are visible today in East Bay communities such as Oakland:
Today our resettlement program serves refugees from around the world, particularly focusing on those who have experienced persecution based on their religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. Most of the refugees we serve are Muslim.”
Today G*d’s chosen people of the East Bay are focused on importing the most disparate, incompatible, and mutually hostile identity groups from around the globe. The more deviant their sexual proclivities, the harder the kosher criminals will work to force millions of them into White homelands and only White homelands. And don’t forget the moose-limbs! We can’t have a completely dysfunctional society without plenty of honor killings, bacha bazi, cousin marriages, and cube worship!
JFCS East Bay is also the lead organization in the United States resettling LGBT individuals persecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity. These refugees come mostly from Africa, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union.”
Doctors who have the misfortune of treating prolapsed rectums just don’t get to experience enough identical, sewage colored diversity. But the jews are here to help! They are working hard to ensure that sodomites, trannies, and genital mutilation enthusiasts from Africa, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union provide plenty of diversodomy for the kosher efforts to promote sexual abnormality, denigrate healthy heterosexual families, and destroy the morality in a formerly prosperous White homeland.
We have seen new interfaith coalitions and alliances sprout up to support refugees, building bridges between faith communities in the service of the vulnerable… It is a powerful alliance indeed that a Catholic Franciscan monastery is working with a Jewish agency in support of Muslim refugees.”
Cuck-o-licks, indoctrinated in their slave morality masquerading as religion, are expertly trained to follow the orders of the “jewish agency.” They’ve been doing it for 2,000 years after all.
Who knew I could adopt an African LGBT refugee and take him so deeply into my heart and family?”
There was a time, within recent history, that the White people of the United States did not tolerate jewish nation-wrecking and the invasion of our homeland. In the words of Calvin Coolidge, the 30th President of the United States:
American liberty is dependent on quality in citizenship. Our obligation is to maintain that citizenship at its best. We must have nothing to do with those who would undermine it. The retroactive immigrant is a danger in our midst. His discontent gives him no time to seize a healthy opportunity to improve himself. His purpose is to tear down. There is no room for him here. He needs to be deported, not as a substitute for, but as a part of his punishment. We might avoid this danger were we insistent that the immigrant, before he leaves his foreign soil, is temperamentally keyed for our national background. There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”
The United States is not a “land of immigrants” or a melting pot or a dumping ground for bipedal flotsam from the most primitive and backward corners of the earth. It was a country established to be a White homeland, to the exclusion of all other races and cultures. Instead of being cowed into miscegenated talmudic submission, we need to become aware of our long history of defending White homelands. We cannot throw away the glorious achievements and hard-fought battles that our forebears won to give us the opportunity to flourish as a separate and distinct people. We must resist White genocide.
From time to time a correspondent or writer will blithely state his unresearched opinion that jews are “White”. This is not only a fallacy, but it is an impossibility. Here’s why: the jews are the only people who are not qualified for protection under their own Genocide Treaty.
(1) They are not a race. This is proven from jewish sources in regard to Falashim or Black jews; Benai Israel or Indian jews; Chinese jews, who look Chinese to a foreigner, but who are not real Chinese; the Sephardim or semitic jews; and the Ashkenazim or “Russian” jews, who are most likely to have White genes. These people converted to Judaism in 700 A.D. Many of them resemble White people, but all of them, according to “The Genetics of the Jews” have Afro-Asian genes, including the blondest of them. Blond, blue-eyed people with Afro-Asian genes are not White, but mongrels.
(2) Jews are not a religious group, for they include atheists. Two thirds of the “jewish” population of Israel are not religious, but claim to be “jewish” through their mothers, which is how Orthodox rabbis define “jewishness”. A White person who ‘converts’ to Judaism will not be deemed a jew by Orthodox rabbis.
(3) Jews are not an ethnic group because they reside in all parts of the world and resemble their host peoples in looks, language, and often, in religion. Yet, they consider themselves jews. What can be their common bond? Not religion, not race, not ethnicity, but economy! It’s their rackets which bind them together as jews, exactly as the “patels” are bound together by their caste-determined role as merchants. Such disparate groups maintain cohesion with their common interests, and behave like a nation among nations. Yet, they are not a nation, which is comprised of people with a common genetic origin.
It is extremely dangerous to admit jews into White Nationalist groups, for I have had firsthand experience of their sudden betrayal of White interests in Rhodesia and South Africa. One day they were “White”. Next day they were sneering at us as “you White people”. Jews officially declared themselves non-White in 1972, as quoted in The Rand Daily Mail of May 15, 1972.
Some Goyim go by FEDZOGUSA’s definition of jews as “White”, but if we were to accept ZOG definitions of “White”, which includes hispanic mestizos and other Eurasian mongrels, Arabs, et al., we would cease being White Nationalists in fact and in effect. Foolish Whites may over-look racial differences, out of love for the ZOG, but mestizos, Arabs and other mongrels do not see Whites as their people, although they enjoy White women as trophy sex partners, like any Black or Asian pimp. I notice that a non-White ‘stud’ with a beautiful White female will enter premises, with his eye on the Ostensible White males, to amuse himself at their reactions, as if to say, “See what I took from you honkey muthas!” When an Ostensible White enters with a Black female, all eyes look at him with the unspoken question: “Are you blind or nuts?” I have seen this pattern almost daily in my work for a full decade, and there are many such places in this town, where the same things occur.
The jew’s job is to infiltrate all Gentile groups, in order to spy on and to influence them for the benefit of himself and his fellow jews. A genuinely righteous jew belongs not with us, but with his own people., who sorely need him. Exclude the jew, White man, or your castles will be built on quicksand, and they will collapse like Rhodesia and South Africa. You are now informed and you have thereby been warned. ORION! [Our Race Is Our Nation]
“THE GENETICS OF THE JEWS” by A.E. Mourant et al., Oxford University Press, 1978, reports the findings of jew hematologists, whose work was originally published in The Lancet, the official journal of the British Medical Association. They report that “even the blondest jew has Negro marker genes… which are due to concubinage (prostitution) and slavery.”
Blacks were introduced in the Black Sea region, and along the Silk Route, as ‘trade goods’. I have met dozens of ‘poison dwarfs’ from Odessa, jews who have mottled dark complexions, negroid noses, mongoloid eyes and kinky Afro hair; everyone as mean as he is ugly. These specimens comprise the darker side of the Ashkenazim or “Russian” jews. White they are not!
Dr. Pierce: Jews and the White Slave Trade
If we owned the media, instead of jewish supremacists, we would be able to make many accurate films about the role of jewish slave traders.
We must resist White genocide.
Prepare for WAR and Embrace The Violence that is coming.
Socialism, like eating the seed corn, sounds good in the moment but sews misery for the future. The seed corn refers to the grain that one sets aside to seed the fields next year; during a long winter, when food is scarce, it is tempting to dip into this, but it means that in the next winter, there will be even less to eat.
Conservatives saw equality as ridiculous because it was conjectural. Egalitarianism takes the form of a begging-the-question fallacy: “If we make everyone equal by social engineering, we will end conflict, tolerate differences, and achieve Utopia.” Like all emotional outbursts, it ends in tragedy when the opposite happens.
The reason for this confusion goes back to cause and effect. Every effect has one cause, but until some time passes, we do not know what the effects of any cause are, since it can have many. Most of human history consists of a series of actions taken by people, and then their effects, which is why we study it to learn the likely effects of our acts.
With egalitarianism, however, cause and effect are one. We assume that by enforcing equality, we make equality, when in fact the missing step is what is required to make that equality happen. Even equality of legal rights requires us to ignore the fact that some people are career criminals and others innocent victims.
Equality also represents a path like those horrible 80s movies where a character tells one lie, then another to cover the first, then a string of lies that can only end in an apocalypse for their lives. When we say we are equal, and results are unequal, we have to either admit we were wrong or double down. We double down every time.
In this way, human vanity and pretense get the best of us. We state that what we want is true, mainly just to advance our social standing. This traps us in a lie, so we must force the lie to be real, which in the process destroys that which we were hoping to safeguard, namely our people. It is a mental trap like addiction. “Just this once…”
When a civilization elects to have equality, it has signed its death warrant, and the next stop — after years of decline in order but increase in wealth and power — is third world status. It will just drop off the radar of history as things fall apart, and it cannot do what is necessary to be relevant.
There is no sadder cliché than an adventurer moving through previously unexplored jungle and finding the remnants of a great civilization. What took them out? They lost direction, and tried to manage their people by bribing them with equality, which ended in suicide of the society. Nothing but ruins persist.
In the modern West, we went down the path of equality and really picked up the pace after WWII ended our only opposition and the fall of the Soviet Union took out our only competition. Now, we thought, the good life began, and so we allowed unions, Leftists, special interests, and identity politics to take over.
As it turns out, this was a Roman Holiday. We ate the seed corn, drank the seed grape, and now we are heading into complete bankruptcy because the voters — yes, you: you approved this, at least a statistical majority of you did — chose free stuff now over health and sanity later.
Illinois is losing its promise as a land of opportunity. Government debt and dysfunction contribute to a weak housing market and a stagnant jobs climate. State and local governments face enormous pension and other obligations. Taxes have risen sharply; many Illinois politicians say they must rise more.
People are fleeing. Last year’s net loss: 33,703.
The cycle can continue for awhile while the money is good, but over time, it means that those who achieve anything will see it taken away and wasted. The politicians cannot stop it; they fear lowering pensions or defaulting because this makes whoever is in office look bad. As a result, they pass the buck, every time.
The states cannot face the reality that not only do they lack the money, but they never had the money. Pensions that fully vest at twenty years and pay close to the full amount of the highest salary an employee earns were victories for unions, who would have shut down police and fire otherwise and watched the cities burn.
However, even if the states had dumped all of their available money into these funds, there was no way to make it work. A number of employees “double-dip,” or put in twenty years in one post and twenty in another, retiring with two full salaries or nearly that amount.
The state cannot afford to pay for up to seventy years of salary — since many live into their 90s or beyond — for twenty years of work. It doubly cannot afford to pay it twice. Had there been any honesty in the original calculations, the obvious impossibility of this would have been obvious.
However, unions have government protection, and the voters need their police especially as diversity and breakdown of the family cause ever more deranged crime, so the states gave in. Now many of them are facing the same death spiral, which is that they are paying out more than they ever had, and will have to default.
Oregon — like many other states and cities, including New Jersey, Kentucky and Connecticut — is caught in a fiscal squeeze of its own making. Its economy is growing, but the cost of its state-run pension system is growing faster. More government workers are retiring, including more than 2,000, like Dr. Robertson, who get pensions exceeding $100,000 a year.
The state is not the most profligate pension payer in America, but its spiraling costs are notable in part because Oregon enjoys a reputation for fiscal discipline. Its experience shows how faulty financial decisions by states can eventually swamp local communities.
…Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System has told cities, counties, school districts and other local entities to contribute more to keep the system afloat. They can neither negotiate nor raise local taxes fast enough to keep up. As a result, pensions are crowding out other spending. Essential services are slashed.
This is part of the death spiral. As states cut services to focus on their ballooning debt, things like police and firefighters are some of the first to go. Schools, too, are able to do less. Infrastructure is forgotten, as is investment in the future. This turns once-prosperous places into ghettos just like the Soviet Union.
Democracy allows voters to decide to spend money with no accountability. The vote is secret, and those who made the choice are never called upon to defend it or pay for it. Even more, they can elect for a bankruptcy that will come due after the likely end of their lives, leaving externalized cost for future generations.
It would be one thing if it were the states. The large cities are swamped with debt, as is the federal government. Not surprisingly, most citizens have done the same. It is the sign of a dying empire: no one believes in tomorrow enough to sacrifice greed today.
Luckily, this crisis will mean the end of many things. This is the “Berlin 1945 moment” for modern democracy. Affirmative action and other non-value-producing sunk costs will die. All social services will perish, probably taking with them public schools.
While this seems like a crisis, and it will be because of the loss of value of our currency in international trade, it means that we are pruning the dead wood. We never could afford these pensions, or all the Leftist social welfare programs that take up 60% of our budgets, so now reality is going to inform us of this fact.
From the dust and ashes of the collapse of Leftist society will come a new, more realistic order. Many losses will occur, and many people will be bankrupted. Destruction will be vast. This however is not nature taking revenge on us; it is the nature of mathematics, correcting for our illusions. Turns out we needed the seed corn after all.
Cucking is a state of mind. When we live in a Leftist time, where most of what we hear from others repeats the dogma of our era at us in innovative new ways, most people just want to get along with the rest of the group, which creates a massive market for ideas that seem to be “different.”
Invariably these ideas break away from the mold on the surface but are structurally identical to the dominant paradigm. They appear to be new or different, but boil down to the same options we have known for ages, or worse, produce the conditions of those same options without it being apparent that this would happen.
The stress of being outsiders to the mainstream drives us in a perpetual search for a compromise position in the hopes that then we can be “normies” and still keep some vestiges of our beliefs. That was what drove Conservatism, Inc. toward neoconservatism back in the 1960s, and even further back, made it accept the welfare state.
As people look for alternatives to both capitalism and socialism, distributism appears in more conversations. It seems like it has the advantages of socialism, without being socialism. Is this true? As Varg Vikernes would say, “Let’s find out!”
Put simply, the principle of subsidiarity rests on the assumption that the rights of small communities—e.g., families or neighborhoods—should not be violated by the intervention of larger communities—e.g., the state or centralized bureaucracies.
…Unlike the socialists, the distributists were not advocating the redistribution of “wealth” per se, though they believed that this would be one of the results of distributism. Instead, and the difference is crucial, they were advocating the redistribution of the means of production to as many people as possible. Belloc and the distributists drew the vital connection between the freedom of labor and its relationship with the other factors of production—i.e., land, capital, and the entrepreneurial spirit. The more that labor is divorced from the other factors of production the more it is enslaved to the will of powers beyond its control. In an ideal world every man would own the land on which, and the tools with which, he worked. In an ideal world he would control his own destiny by having control over the means to his livelihood. For Belloc, this was the most important economic freedom, the freedom beside which all other economic freedoms are relatively trivial. If a man has this freedom he will not so easily succumb to encroachments upon his other freedoms.
…In practical terms, the following would all be distributist solutions to current problems: policies that establish a favorable climate for the establishment and subsequent thriving of small businesses; policies that discourage mergers, takeovers and monopolies; policies that allow for the break-up of monopolies or larger companies into smaller businesses; policies that encourage producers’ cooperatives; policies that privatize nationalized industries; policies that bring real political power closer to the family by decentralizing power from central government to local government, from big government to small government.
Distributism sets up a few contradictory goals for itself: freedom, decentralization, and yet, redistribution of the means of production much as socialists advocated. Like other hybrid systems, it is searching for holy grail that will satisfy both Left and Right.
Chesterton’s “distributist” project tried to chart a middle course (but not “Third Way”!) between laissez faire capitalism on the one side and state socialism on the other. The problem with the former, as Chesterton wrote in The Outline of Sanity 10 years after the Russian Revolution, was that “The practical tendency of all trade and business today is towards big commercial combinations, often more imperial, more impersonal, more international than many a communist commonwealth.” While of the alternative, Chesterton said, “the point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.”
…For Chesterton, ownership is a self-evident good, which therefore shouldn’t be abolished but widely distributed. Similarly, profit is a good thing, in fact too good a thing not to be shared. Accordingly, what Chesterton took issue with in the then-current defense of capitalism was that it was a “defense of keeping most men in wage dependence; that is, keeping most men without capital.” This conviction compelled Chesterton to lambast big business (which backfired when big chain of news stands refused to sell G.K.’s weekly); to monitor and oppose mergers; to advocate independent proprietorship; and to pronounce on every possible occasion that “small is beautiful”.
…Take a rural example: I have a friend who has made a significant amount of money, with which he has purchased a farm. But instead of working the land for him, the worker keeping the pigs will run the business with my friend, will co-farm, and will then share the profits.
With that excellent example, we see the ideal of distributism: everyone owns a business of some kind or another and receives the profits from it. This modifies the socialist ideal of workers as shareholders in a collective business by splitting that business up and making them, essentially, sole owners of a business that is then partially owned by the larger business.
In a factory, Joe the worker would own a business of making electrical harnesses and take home half of the profits of those harnesses when installed in a car made on that line (assuming that we can factor in a profit to a part of a larger object). On a farm, Jane would own a pig-keeping business, and share the profits with the owner.
While this sounds like a nice theory, we must apply the test that every conservative uses when a “new” idea crops up: if this idea is so great, why did it not turn out this way? Was the idea unknown, given that we have centuries of workers as shareholders? Or was there a reason it was rejected?
Let us look at Jane. Jane receives land on which she can raise her pigs, and presumably a source of food for them in the vegetable waste produced by the farm. She benefits from the structures on that land. What percentage, then, should she receive of the profit, given that the farm owner could hire someone to keep the pigs and take full profits?
The brutal answer from the markets: she takes as much as a worker would take, possibly a little more, but not a whole heck of a lot more, because her competition — unless distributism is every bit as much enforced at the point of a gun as Communism — is what it would take to hire another worker.
Where distributism shines, in my view, is that it is not a union. Unions are collective reward schemes: the worst worker gets rewarded alongside the best worker simply for being part of the union, and the union is not responsive to the market but to an audience of workers, none of whom are competent at starting or running businesses.
On the other hand, for distributism to work, it will require us to divide up property by some kind of force, and then use force to ensure that shares are higher than wages, which then penalizes those who own farms in a method similar to the wealth transfer and collectivization we know from the Left.
This returns us to the Leftist goal of social engineering, or changing the rules by which we survive from those of nature to those that fit what humans want to believe, and throws us into the spiral of enforcing against reality and against our people so that we can pursue a Utopian goal of progress.
In other words, distributism may be a hybrid, but it is more Leftist than Right.
Capitalism receives a good deal of negative critique. The same power that crushed the Soviet Union also made a wasteland of fast food, strip clubs, mediocre high-priced products, corporate jobs of infinite tedium, environmental crises, commuting for hours to avoid living in a ghetto, and a negative effect on our souls where we become not just materialistic, in the sense of seeing the world as if material objects were all that mattered, but also bourgeois, or Nietzschean last men oblivious to everything but their own material comfort, convenience, wealth, social status, and power. We have become tyrants in a world that reduces everything to jobs, buying, selling, and usury.
But was that capitalism? Can we claim that it is capitalism that opens borders and pays welfare to people who then go purchase lowest common denominator products? It makes no sense, either, to blame capitalism for the maze of rules, entitlements, and legal threats that turn corporations from merely self-interested into selfish, or self-interested to the exclusion of all other values. Nor could we credibly blame capitalism for the effects of diversity, anti-discrimination law, wealth redistribution, and wars for democracy.
If capitalism has an epithet, it will be “last man standing,” because every other economic system has wrecked things more. Outright socialism turns people into zombies; even mild Euro-socialism, which is essentially a market driven welfare state, seems to take the heart out of people, make them into meek soyboys, and then so wreck their spirits that they no longer reproduce at replacement rates. Capitalism at least focuses on possibilities and a can-do attitude, where socialism turns daily life into an obsession over other people: do they have enough, are they all happy, even if they are mostly illogical and often self-destructive.
The Left hates capitalism because it is a form of sorting. If nature has a fundamental process, it is sorting, or the recognition that we cannot in advance plan for every possibility of interaction between a planned design and reality. Imagine designing cars: to sit at a table and consider every situation that the car will be in over its lifespan requires processing power and time that does not exist. Mathematically, that dog will not hunt, and in information science terms, it creates the possibility of lock up or permanent loop. Nature came up with an alternative, which is to make many variations on an idea and see which of them hits all of the functions it needs to; this list of functions, taken in parallel, defines the next iteration of the idea. This system always works, and capitalism implements by testing after the event by looking to what survives and thrives; socialism and every other economic system tests before based on predictions, which cannot plan for every possibility and therefore become increasingly unrealistic as they iterate.
Sorting leads to hierarchy, just like standards. If your society is designed around the high jump, the highest jumper is your king and the runners up are your aristocrats, generals, business leaders, reverends, and police. If you remove those standards, then everyone gets to be king for a day whenever they say or do something that delights the crowd, and you get celebrities out of those who delight the crowd the most.
Mob rule however enforces a downward motion in quality. It rewards those who specialize in the trivial. Over time, the people who thrive become the thoughtless, vapid, and insincere, and then society takes on those traits. Without natural selection and a strong morality, human societies self-destruct, time after time.
Distributism does not address this issue. No matter how it is initially intended to be implemented, it will end up with a centralized authority for managing the economy much like socialism; over time, this will behave like a union, subsidizing the weak along with the rest. Over time, those weaker people will predominate because life for them is easier and more certain than for those who are more ambitious.
If we had to describe distributism historically, we would say that it was feudalism for everyone, except that instead of paying rent to his lord, the serf shares profits with the lord. At least, until the lord realizes he can hire someone for a fifth of what he is profit-sharing with the serf, which would cause distributism to revert to capitalism very quickly.
It is beyond doubt that G.K. Chesteron and Hillaire Belloc were very intelligent men. They have each done very great things. Distributism is not one of them.
So way back in once-upon-a-time time there was this ruthlessly efficient, intellectually brilliant and immensely profitable corporation called General Electric. They saw the barriers holding back human progress and making our lives nasty, brutish and short. They saw opportunity and proceeded to go awesomely rip-ass on those limitations to human greatness.
In the century following the Civil War, a handful of technologies revolutionized daily existence. The lightbulb extended the day, electric appliances eased domestic drudgery, and power stations made them all run. The jet engine collapsed distance, as, in other ways, did radio and television. X-ray machines allowed doctors to peer inside the body, vacuum tubes became the brains of early computers, and industrial plastics found their way into everything. All those technologies were either invented or commercialized by General Electric Co.
So GE banked good will, admiration, and aw, hell. They just flat-out raked in the clams! They were everything you would expect from a corporation personally co-founded by Thomas Alva Edison. Show ’em what they win, Dom pardo.
For most of its 126-year history, GE has exemplified the fecundity and might of corporate capitalism. It manufactured consumer products and industrial machinery, powered commercial airliners and nuclear submarines, produced radar altimeters and romantic comedies. It won Nobel Prizes and helped win world wars. And it did it all lucratively, rewarding investors through recessions, technological disruption, and the late 20th century collapse of American manufacturing.
Like any great institution in Amerika, GE was a ripe target for social convergence. It could not be allowed to exist as a counterexample to the narrative. It could not build an edifice competitive athwart The Cathedral. Most of this occurred under the malign stewardship of recently deposed CEO, Jeffrey Immelt.
The shift accelerates GE’s leadership transition as Flannery, under pressure from activist shareholder Trian Fund Management, seeks to reverse this year’s biggest stock drop on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Under the new boss, GE has said it will sell its fleet of corporate jets and unload its industrial-products operation to ABB Ltd. Flannery is expected to outline his plans for GE’s portfolio of businesses next month.
And why was Immelt unceremoniously shown the way to a safe, fun-filled retirement? The battle damage assessment follows below.
The company had to be bailed out in 2008 by the federal government and Warren Buffett, and across the 16-year tenure of recently departed Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Immelt its stock was the worst performer in the Dow Jones industrial average.
So how did this happen to such a great industrial titan of capitalism and the American Way? Well, they turned Amerikan instead of American. Under Immelt, they went from being a leading contractor in the military-industrial complex to essentially colluding with political leadership to the extent that they really worked more for the government than for any base of private sector customers. They are now so divorced from the actual market where American consumers buy things that they’ve recently sold off their lightbulb division to China. They have predictably found it hard to do business in America when they no longer sell things to actual Americans.
At first, GE survived its transition from capitalism to corporate fascism fairly well. They could shut down plants, fire American work forces and stop inventing anything that DoD didn’t bankroll the R&D on by making up the difference via financialization. GE Finance and Capitol more than made up the difference. Between 1981 to 2001 GE used tax loop-holes to arbitrage between lower US rental rates on capital and then build its facilities in coutries with much lower corporate tax rates than the United States. GE grew from a $14Bn company in 1981 to a $400Bn in 2001.
But then in the 2000s, The Visigoth Holiday in the capital markets ran out of beer. Idiot executive Jeffrey Immelt decided GE could make up the difference by buying up an entertainment conglomerate, fly-by-night financial firms and as much of the medical technology market as he could lay hands on. The latter two sets of acquisitions came to figure in GE’s current dilapidation and Detroiting.
In 2008, the financial acquisitions turned into fit that hit the shan. GE underperformed its estimates by $700Bn. When the capital markets temporarily froze, Immelt was forced to go hat-in-hand to the rest of Wall Street. Warren Buffett decided the company still had enough capital assets to be worth buying into and personally bought a $3Bn share. This proped things up enough for Immelt to live to be stupid on another day.
Then came Obamacare and GE’s involvement in the medical technology business made them a prime player. Like most prime players under Barack Obama, GE and Immelt were sold a bill of fascist goods. As the head of President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Immelt thought he would always have the inside information on what Barack Obama would allow capitalists to still build.
In particular, GE is a major player in several industries that President Obama has been promoting as part of his administration’s cocksure embrace of industrial policy. With over $100 billion in direct subsidies and tax credits already devoted to green technology, President Obama is convinced that America’s economic future depends on the ability of U.S. firms to compete and succeed in the solar panel, wind harnessing, and battery and other energy storage technologies. Concerning those industries, the president said: “Countries like China are moving even faster… I’m not going to settle for a situation where the United States comes in second place or third place or fourth place in what will be the most important economic engine of the future.”
By 2014, GE had to admit rather sheepishly that progressive neo-fascist corporate subinfuedation to government wasn’t helping the good old bottom line. Here’s what Obamacare did for GE‘s then-dwindling portion of America’s industrial base.
Asked at the meeting about Obamacare’s impact on the company’s earnings, Immelt responded, “I think there’s still a lot of uncertainty in health care and we’ll just have to see that over time.” The company’s health care unit, which produces medical and biopharmaceutical technologies and which grew in 2013, showed losses in revenues, segment profits, margins and orders in the first quarter of 2014. The Daily Caller has reported extensively on Obamacare’s damage to the medical device and technology industry. By February, the health-care law had already cost 33,000 jobs in the industry and 132,000 more were expected, according to a report from an industry trade group.
Just how much did Immelt personally invest himself and his corporation in The Democratic Party’s version of HitLARPing? He describes what being Amerika’s version of Hugo Boss meant to him in a letter to GE shareholders.
[W]e are going through more than a cycle. The global economy, and capitalism, will be ‘reset’ in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.
It obviously didn’t work. It never works. It never will work. Socialism only leads to death. In the case of GE, it will end up in a sort of twilight un-death. Nobody with an investing brain will look favorably upon GE when they evaluate near to mid-term fundamentals. They will keep getting hammered with downgrades. But they will never quite die. To quote an old Eagles lyric, “they stab it with their steely knives but they just can’t kill the beast.”
Like an the Russian oligarchs after the collapse of the CCCP they still hold assets that are too vital to liquidate or disperse without great upheaval. Almost every helicopter the US Army flies carries a GE engine. Most of the commercial jets in US Civil Aviation fleets are similarly equipped. Outside of Turbomecca de Espana, and absent the workforce at GE, most of the jet engine industry would end up where GE’s lightbulb patents now reside: China.
So GE drags along as a corporation. Similar to how post-communist Russia dragged along until Putin set about cleaning up the wreckage. It is still a viable asset play for investors who want to buy a steak when the price per share collapses below the book value of GE’s capital assets. Warren Buffett or Elon Musk can always use an empty MRI factory for something. GE will thus maintain a coma-victim’s pulse in the capital markets. So maybe Socialism won’t completely lead to GE’s death, but it has certainly brought about this once great corporation’s senescence. Perhaps its mighty and famous founder, Thomas Edison, now spins rapidly in his grave.