Israel-Iran war

/5 Comments/in /by

Discuss: Israel would not have attacked the Iranian embassy in Damascus if they didn’t think they could win a war with Iran. The U.S. and U.K. are already involved shooting down drones. Iran seems to want this to be a limited gesture–aimed at military bases as I understand it and how they say the issue is settled, but Israel will surely escalate it further, knowing the U.S. and the West will be on their side. Israel would love to set back the anti-Zionist forces for a long, long time if not permanently and can only do this with a major escalation.

Dershowitz on Newsmax: WE have to topple the Iranian regime, meaning the U.S. and Israel. Biggest opportunity in years to end the conflict. Iranians will support this. “They’ve given us the opportunity, do waste it.”

The Economic and Social Costs of Direct and Indirect Kleptoparasitism by Blacks and Jews

/9 Comments/in /by

Nature might abhor a vacuum, but it apparently loves an analogy—at least of the genetic and behavioral kind. That is, no matter how much humans may wish to be above and separate from the workings of the rest of the animal kingdom, they are constantly acting in ways analogous to those creatures they so look down upon. And as academia adores an intellectual vacuum—at least with respect to areas of study that run contrary to its ideology du jour—it is unfortunately up to those such as us on the Dissident Right to fill that empty space with useful work showing the true state of reality.

In that spirit I wish today to point out that the nature of White flight is essentially a case of kleptoparasitism of Whites by Blacks and Jews, with the former engaging in it directly and the latter doing so indirectly through the former. In this way, the relationship between Blacks and Jews in the housing market is what you might call symbioparasitism: that is, a case of different parasites engaged in symbiotic behavior with regard to each other that allows both to parasitize their mutual White host more effectively (and in fact it might be argued that Blacks could not parasitize Whites at all without the Jews, though the opposite is not the case). To be clear, this is not always the case, and there are numerous instances of Jews engaging in parasitic or even predatory behavior toward Blacks (think of the crooked ghetto merchants and payday lenders for an example of the former, and the Jews who engaged in the transatlantic slave trade and slave auctions for the latter); however for today my focus is the effects of White flight on the housing market and how these bring about win-wins for both Blacks and Jews and just plain loss for Whites, at least in the short term.

I say short term because, as we shall see, the White flight induced by the parasites has had the effect, in parallel with the effects that internal parasites from the natural world have on their hosts, of making the economic and social fabric far weaker than it otherwise would be. And as I’ll show in part two of this essay, this is also and even more glaringly the case with regard to the ’08 financial crash, the buildup to it, and its immediate aftermath—an instance of parasitism (both klepto- and otherwise) on a grand scale if ever there were one.

So let’s start with some quick background: what kleptoparasitism is and how White flight is prompted by Blacks and (indirectly) Jews. Kleptoparasitism occurs when an animal rather than outright killing and eating another (predation) or feeding off of it slowly over time (parasitism — think a leech or tick) merely steals all or part of the host’s food and/or shelter. Many otherwise predatory animals, including many apex predators, engage in this behavior: the bald eagle is known to snag prey, especially fish, from other, smaller birds, while lions are equally adept at muscling smaller predators, e.g., cheetahs and (unless they can mob the lions to stop them) hyenas, out of their rightful kills. In the case of cheetahs, even vultures can sometimes klepto a meal from them.

Why? How could a few birds, each smaller than the cat, scare it out of a meal?

Because while the cheetah’s speed is unmatched, it is engineered for it at the cost of strength and any other competitive advantage, so if it sustains even a minor injury it can kiss that speed goodbye and will likely starve to death. In all cases of kleptoparasitism, the victim feels that the costs of fighting the kleptoparasite outweigh the benefits—as with animals, as with humans, and in both cases, the klepto gets to enjoy a greater meal or home than would ordinarily be available to him, period, or one which might be available but only with much greater effort.

Now apply this to Blacks. If you look at an all-Black neighborhood such as virtually all of those making up Detroit proper, you get such an uncannily clear picture of what a postapocalyptic world would look like that you literally have movies of that genre being filmed there. Given that most denizens of such neighborhoods are likely approaching pure sub-Saharan ancestry—and having gone to college in Detroit and driven through such neighborhoods daily (and surprisingly, survived!), I can attest to this from personal experience—it would be surprising if they did not share, generally speaking, the IQ levels and habits of unmixed African natives: think South Africa (average IQ 69[1]) with its once-great infrastructure crumbling slowly to nothing from lack of maintenance. The current state of the fallen last White refuge, such as men living in shanties on the flat land that had housed railroads until the tracks were stolen and melted down for scrap are likely what Detroit would eventually deteriorate to without the non-Black–funded welfare state maintaining it on life support. Needless to say, just as a bear would have virtually no chance of chasing down a fleeing White-tailed deer on its own, most of these people would have no chance on their own of affording—or maintaining, assuming they had the thought to do so—a pleasant middle-class dwelling. But just as the ponderous bear would be able to snatch part of a deer carcass from the wolves that were able to chase it down, so these Blacks have stumbled upon a strategy (one which many of them are likely not consciously aware of) of snatching such homes from Whites able to build and maintain them.

To explain the basic mechanism of Blacks’ kleptoparasitism, just cross-reference Black stereotypes with the genetic similarity theory of J. Philippe Rushton, et al.: basically a few Blacks (very often of mixed race, such as Obama) are able to afford a house in a nice neighborhood; though these first ones are usually not outright criminals, they usually either have or have a much higher tolerance for the Black mannerisms and behaviors that Whites find intolerable (think poor property maintenance, screaming-across-the-street rather than face-to-face conversations, conduct generally cruder and more confrontational than Whites’, etc.), and so while not necessarily acting this way themselves, usually they have friends or relatives over who act this way; this then drives the Whites immediately adjacent out and makes more and more houses in the neighborhood available to be sold to Blacks at reduced prices in a cascading effect that ends only when the neighborhood is either all Black or retains only the few non-Black residents too old and/or too poor to flee. Thus the dark-hued kleptos achieve their middle-class dream which almost invariably deteriorates into the nightmare of their former neighborhoods—which then causes the smarter and more competent Blacks to flee to Whiter locales, and thus the cycle begins all over again.

Why don’t Whites develop strategies to fight this—as hyenas learn to use overwhelming numbers to mob lions that try to steal from them? Well, that’s where Jews come in.

As I said above, the relationship between Blacks and Jews is somewhat complex overall, as there are times that Jews play the part of parasite or predator to Blacks, but there are other instances in which Jews acting as parasites of their host society form a symbiotic relationship with parasitizing Blacks, and the case of White flight is one of them. Basically, Jews enable Black kleptoparasitism and in the process benefit from it by disabling Whites’ means of fighting Black kleptos. The Jews’ ability to do this, in turn, relied and still relies heavily on 1) their influence within the court system and 2) their control of the media and its influence on culture. The first is what allowed them to overcome the primary legal mechanism stopping Black kleptoparasitism: housing covenants, the documents which would bind neighborhood residents together in agreement not to sell their homes to Blacks and sometimes other minorities as well. These would prevent Blacks from gaining a foothold into White neighborhoods and then using their general behavior to drive Whites out. Using their allies—some, such as the Black nationalist Marcus Garvey (who found their offices run almost entirely by Jews with a few Blacks in token positions) would call them puppets—in the NAACP, Jews brought legal action against housing covenants and in the late 1940s they succeeded, rendering them toothless. That Jews were the primary movers and shakers behind the movement which culminated in the famous Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer which held that “although racially restrictive real estate covenants are not void, a court cannot enforce them because this would constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment”[2] can be seen even in Wikipedia’s completely politically correct take on the case:

The United States Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, who argued in this case that the restrictive covenants were unconstitutional, had previously in 1925 as the city solicitor of Baltimore acted to support the city government’s segregation efforts. The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General filed, for the first time in a civil rights case, an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Shelleys. The Solicitor General’s brief filed on behalf of the United States government was written by four Jewish lawyers: Philip Elman, Oscar H. Davis, Hilbert P. Zarky, and Stanley M. Silverberg. However, the Solicitor General’s office chose to omit their names from the brief. Deputy Solicitor General Arnold Raum, who was also Jewish, stated that it was “bad enough that [Solicitor General Philip] Perlman’s name has to be there, to have one Jew’s name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out.”[3]

That Perlman was such a flip-flopping turncoat on the issue is hardly surprising, given Jews’ general tendency to play outsized roles on both sides of whatever racial or social conflicts they ferment or take part in, while benefitting themselves in all cases; in the case of White flight, this often did and still does involve Jewish use of Blacks as foot soldiers in their battles to acquire desirable real estate at artificially low prices. As Tobias Langdon pointed out in his essay “Bow Before Blackness: Non-Stop Black in Brave New Britain”:

After mass migration from the Caribbean began, a predatory Jewish landlord Peter Rachman (1919–62) made big profits in London by renting bad housing at high prices to Blacks who were unpopular as tenants because of their criminality, noise, and anti-social behavior. Indeed, Rachman used violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. Decades after Rachman’s heyday, another money-hungry Jew, Alex Langsam, is making more big profits from more non-White invaders. Langsam, who has been nicknamed the “Asylum King,” owns the sardonically named Britannia Hotels, which was “the worst hotel chain for ten years running, according to a survey conducted by consumer group Which” and which rakes in millions from government contracts for housing so-called “asylum seekers” from the corrupt, diseased, and violent Third World.[4]

Enoch Powell’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech had made a similar observation fifty-five years earlier:

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one White (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her White tenants moved out. . . . Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. . . . Immigrants have offered to buy her house — at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.[5]

And as many of the writers on TOO have pointed out, Jews were virtually the entire driving force behind the push for hate crime legislation in the U.K. (to say nothing of elsewhere), eventually achieving their desire in the 1986 Public Order Act.

The cycle can even be artificially begun by what’s called blockbusting; more on which, below.

Having grown their Black golem to monstrous proportions and dismantled most of the strongest White-created barriers in its path, elite Jews then moved to unleash it and profit in every possible way from its path of destruction (rather like their Ukraine meddling, during which they funded Zelensky’s campaign plus the neo-Nazi Azov battalion then provoked Russia to war, all while making a mint via weapons sales by the U.S. military industrial complex, and now are preparing, via BlackRock and their other hedge funds, to profit from “rebuilding” it).

First of all, there was the case of William Levitt, the Jewish man often called “the father of suburbia” who became obscenely wealthy pushing mass production of housing in the suburbs to which Whites fled from the Blackening cities. Much is made of his alleged racism, with conventional historians’ main proof of it being his policy of building White-only neighborhoods, but this in all likelihood was done not from any hatred of Blacks or love of Whites but from purely strategic considerations: just as the Mongols knew that an enemy losing was far, far deadlier if it were trapped and forced to fight to the death, and so intentionally opened a phony path of escape (only to cut them down as they fled), so those in the banking sector (in which Jews were and are massively overrepresented) who would be financing Levitt’s building ventures and the loans of fleeing Whites must have known that if Whites knew that their new neighborhoods would be instantly open to those they fled from, they would stand and fight with everything they had; and given that Whites were still the overwhelming majority in the US at the time, in all likelihood they would have prevailed and put an end to the Jewish-Black klepto-alliance, if not pushed back even further against the Jews’ growing power. That they could put up a fight if they felt trapped was shown in 1966 in what became known as the “Chicago White People’s Uprising” in which homeowners forcibly stopped MLK, Jesse Jackson. and others from using their “open housing” protests to forcibly integrate their neighborhoods. While it had no measurable effect in the long run, it did show what Whites would do if provoked enough and felt themselves to have no easy exit (the “uprising” was mostly centered in poorer White neighborhoods which could not easily flee to suburbia). That occurred even before the housing battles that occurred later in 1966; Jews had never attempted to effectively end the suburban whitopias being built by Levitt et al. as they had with housing segregation and covenants. This is strong proof that they were interested in profit and power rather than “racial justice.”

And often they would not even wait for the process to occur naturally but speed it up in a process called blockbusting, described below by one of those ubiquitous Black online groups:

After intentionally placing an African American homeowner onto a block, speculators solicited White owners with tales of impending depreciation. Fearful residents often sold their homes to these speculators well below market value. As White residents began to flee in great numbers, other White residents sold their homes at even lower prices, thus further depressing housing prices in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Middle class African Americans, who were otherwise denied access to previously all-White neighborhoods, were now offered admittance at artificially inflated prices set by the speculators.  A 1970 report released by a Baltimore group called “the Activists” concluded that the average markup in neighborhoods experiencing racial change ranged from 80% to 100% higher than in racially homogeneous areas and that these inflated prices comprised a “Black tax” imposed on African American would-be homebuyers.  Given the bleak housing options these buyers faced, many had no other choice and paid the inflated costs.

In keeping with the general intellectual caliber of such sites, much of the article’s argument is economically illiterate nonsense: Since refusing to sell homes to Blacks has been illegal for some time, if Blacks could truly afford to pay an 80% or higher markup on homes in White neighborhoods, they would have swarmed en masse without any real estate market crooks doing anything (or for that matter, they would have simply maintained the existing homes and therefore raised the general safety and home upkeep caliber in their own neighborhoods), therefore, the “racially homogeneous areas” the article uses as a base must be the run-down, crime-ridden Black neighborhoods in which a house that would be worth one-hundred grand in a decent location can be bought for twenty-thousand or less. Such stupidity aside however, the article does manage to convey the truth that there was a conscious push to drive Whites out of their former enclaves using Blacks as foot soldiers. Such discussions of blockbusting of course leave the real estate “speculators” as a shadowy, vague group, but given that these are the current top 8 US real estate investors (which, of course is no different than real estate speculators) . . .

1) Donald Bren (Jewish)

2) Stephen Ross (Jewish)

3) Sun Hongbin (Chinese)

4) Leonard Stern (Jewish)

5) Neil Bluhm (Jewish)

6) Igor Olenicoff (White, in a double sense, Russian)

7) Jeff Greene (Jewish)

8) Sam Zell (Jewish)

. . . and given the racial makeup of the renter class who took over when White homeowners fled (as Dr. Kevin MacDonald pointed out in “Jews Embarrassed by Jews: Slumlords—and Goldman Sachs,” Jews are horrifically overrepresented among big-city slumlords), it’s extremely unlikely that those mysterious speculators from the early days of White flight were all country club, WASP types. (And, of course, once the Blacks had the inner cities mostly to themselves the relationship switched from symbioparasitism to pure, one-sided parasitism as Jews took on the roles of slumlord, ghetto merchant, etc.)

Such was the near-total victory for the Jewish-Black kleptoparasite; but as I’ve said, it was a somewhat Pyrrhic one, as it greatly weakened the host nation at large—the wealth of which fed and continues to feed the parasites—and enervated its military might, which is all that’s standing between the State of Israel and a severe defeat by its Moslem neighbors.

Part of the weakening is socioeconomic: as Robert Putnam pointed out in his book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, lack of social capital leads to both greater social tension and misery and economic inefficiency. And as a 2019 meta-analysis[6] found, “[There is] a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all [87] studies.” Hence, the society-wide loss of cohesion (which was, ironically, stronger during mandated separation) — combined with anti-discrimination laws and the workplace tensions and inefficiencies they inevitably lead to — weaken productivity and hence wealth generation across the board, to the detriment of all races.

Then there is the long-term genoeconomic weakening, which is even deadlier. We may sum this one up in a syllogism: A nation’s standard of living (leaving aside natural resources and wealth gained from borrowing or conquest) is dependent upon its capital per capita.

The amount of capital a nation can produce and use per capita is dependent on the percent of the population that’s of STEM-level IQ and has low enough time preference to generate good savings.

Whites have much lower average time preference and much higher average IQ than Blacks.

Therefore, the higher the ratio of Whites to Blacks in a nation (other things being equal), the higher its standard of living will be.

When you force Whites to spend all their money on fleeing from Blacks, you turn them from savers to borrowers; you also ensure that they’ll be able to afford to raise fewer children, meaning fewer STEM types in the future in both an absolute and relative sense—doubly so if you tax them in order to subsidize reproduction by the dumbest, most irresponsible Blacks.

Hence, why if you think the Jewish/Black kleptoparasitism racket is even a zero-sum game, you are unaware of what’s really going on.

(In part two of this series, I examine the events leading up to the ’08 market crash, the crash itself, and its aftermath from this angle. As we’ll see, the whole thing is best understood as a case of Jewish-Black-Mestizo kleptoparasitism on a grand scale.)

[1] 1. “IQ: Intelligence Quotient by Country,” Worlddata.info, accessed April 4, 2024, https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php.

[2] 1. “Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948),” Justia Law, accessed April 4, 2024, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/1/.

[3] 1. “Shelley v. Kraemer,” Wikipedia, February 25, 2024, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer.

[4] 1. Tobias Langdon, “Tobias Langdon,” The Occidental Observer, July 8, 2023, https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/07/08/bow-before-Blackness-non-stop-Black-in-brave-new-britain/.

[5] 1. Enoch Powell, “Wordpress,” Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” Speech, accessed April 4, 2024, https://anth1001.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/enoch-powell_speech.pdf.

[6] 1. Peter Thisted Dinesen, Merlin Schaeffer, and Kim Mannemar Sonderskov, (PDF) Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review, accessed April 10, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review.

 

The Beautiful Humanity on Death Row

/1 Comment/in /by

The Beautiful Humanity on Death Row

The New York Times is weeping over the death penalty again, publishing a glowing review of Nashville reporter Steven Hale’s book Death Row Welcomes You.  FYI, this was not on the cover of my book review — but we may get a different version here. Obviously, it’s an important book, since only 1 million journalists have already written about their touching and personal relationships with men sentenced to death.

Although I am generally a hate-reader — having, for example, at least skimmed nearly every book about Trump (he’s a Russian asset, a threat to democracy, a conman and sociopath) — I can’t in good conscience contribute to an author who waxes on about his “friends” on death row, their “beautiful paintings,” and how supporters want to “celebrate” the life of men who just happened to mercilessly torture and kill helpless human beings.

So this will be a review of the Times’ review, with supplementary information from Amazon’s book sample, plus news reports and court records about the crimes that put Hale’s friends on death row.

Hale, the Times writes, gives an insider’s account of death row — a place “shrouded by myths of monsters and abominations.”

Myths?

Yes. For example, the Times starts with three paragraphs on Billy Ray Irick, such as the “abuse” he suffered as a child. (If you’ve ever been spanked, the media will turn you into the star of Mommy Dearest.) We also get Hale’s description of Irick’s response to lethal injection: “He jolted … His face turned almost purple.”

Hey, does anybody know what landed Irick on death row? The Times says, “Irick raped and murdered a girl.”

A girl.

Her name was Paula Dyer, and she was 7 years old.

While babysitting Dyer, Irick raped her — anally and vaginally — then suffocated her, bursting blood vessels in her face and eyes. When the police arrived, she was lying on the living room floor with blood pooling between her legs. She was still alive, so we know she suffered.

Lead investigator Don Wiser told The Knoxville News Sentinel: “I saw her body at the hospital that night — just a beautiful little girl. You had to wonder who could do something like that to a 7-year-old child.”

Irick’s only explanation: “I lost it.”

I stand corrected. It’s totally a myth that death row is full of monsters.

Suggestion for the one-millionth and one reporter to write about his pals on death row: If you’re going to vomit out prose like this, please don’t —

“I heard far more about the grace of Jesus Christ growing up than I did the state’s duty to repay killing with killing. I suppose this is why, at some point in my teenage years, I came to the belief that an earth as it was in heaven would not include the execution of prisoners if it had any prisoners at all.”

But as long as Hale has graced us with that paragraph, we absolutely do not “repay killing with killing.” We repay unimaginably hideous murders with 30 years of free room and board, including time for exercising, reading, socializing, making friends, dating, getting married, having children and telling your life story to gullible reporters — all while your victims are in the ground being eaten by worms — and then, being delivered a quick and merciful death.

Hale says his book will reveal “the true horror of executions and the full beautiful and painful humanity of the condemned.”

How about the painful humanity of Lee Standifer and the horror of her execution? In 1981 — yes, that’s how swift and certain the death penalty is — this 23-year-old mentally disabled girl was on a date with David Earl Miller, whom she’d met at the library. He got her drunk, took her home and smashed her head with a fireplace poker so hard it fractured her skull and burst one of her eye sockets. He then dragged her outside, undressed her, tied her up and stabbed her over and over again in the neck, chest, stomach and mouth.

A brisk 37 years later, the “beautiful … humanity” who did that to Standifer finally got the electric chair.

Another piece of beautiful humanity, Donnie Johnson, refused his last meal, asking that instead his supporters “feed the homeless.” Gosh, what a great guy.

He’d killed his wife, Connie, by stuffing a 30-gallon garbage bag so far down her throat that only two inches protruded from her mouth. One of the officers who found her body told the Commercial Appeal that if the governor had “made the scene with us that night, he wouldn’t grant any clemency.”

But Hale is more interested in the last moments of the beautiful humanity. He bemoans Stephen West’s “violent death” in the electric chair. Violent death? A quick jolt of electricity is a full body massage compared to what West did to Wanda Romines and her 15-year-old daughter, Sheila.

After telling his pregnant wife he was going fishing, West and a teenage accomplice entered the Romines’ home, tied up mother and daughter and, for hours, forced them to watch each other being tortured and, in Sheila’s case, raped by both men. Wanda was stabbed more than 40 times. Worse, she had to watch helplessly as her daughter was raped and slowly stabbed to death.

What kind of moral ghoul could read about Wanda and Sheila’s murder and decide to write a book honoring West’s life?

Hale claims “support for executions, or indifference to them, could not survive a… night with the men facing them.” This isn’t clear to the reader because they don’t know what the Monday night thing references. Tell us the facts of the case first, and most people would pay to watch the executions on Netflix.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

We Shouldn’t Call Them “Woke,” We Should Call Them “Mutants”

/13 Comments/in , /by

Have you ever noticed how physically unattractive Woke people tend to be? Both the males and females are relatively ugly and the males are relatively short and physically weak. Both are clearly high in mental illness. It’s almost like there’s something genetically wrong with them.

Well, your eyes don’t deceive you.  Some fascinating new evidence has come to light that left wing people are, to put it bluntly, more likely to be mutants (something which is almost always a bad thing in evolutionary terms) than right-wing people. It has been presented by a young researcher, a computer scientist called Joseph Bronski. He has provided us with compelling new evidence for a point I have been exploring for many years.

Under the harsh Darwinian conditions that were prevalent until the Industrial Revolution, there was a strong selection pressure to be genetically physically and mentally healthy. There was also strong selection pressure to be group-oriented: pro-social, mentally stable and high in impulse control. Groups that were too low in these internally cooperative traits would be destroyed by those that were higher in them. Individuals that were too low in them would be killed by the group. Consequently all of these traits became bundled together. Supporting this, Zakharin and Bates found that 66 percent of the variation in being generally group-oriented results from genetic differences [Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations, By M. Zakharin and T. Bates, European Journal of Personality, 2023].

Moreover, studies have shown that left-wing people value individually-oriented moral foundations such as harm avoidance and equality over the group-oriented foundations of in-group loyalty and obedience to authority that are valued by conservatives. Accordingly, the moral judgments of leftists are self-interested. Their purpose is to help less talented individuals, such as themselves, ascend the hierarchy of the group [Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations, By J. Graham, J. Haidt and B. Nosek, Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 2009]. The above-cited Zakharin and Bates (2023) found that 49 percent of the variation in individualizing morality was due to genetic variation.

So, taken together, we should not be surprised that people who are less group-oriented and more individualizing are higher in “mutational load” than right-wing people. We were selected to be highly group-oriented and they are a movement away from this. They are more likely to be the descendants of those who would have died as children under a harsher evolutionary regime, in which child mortality was as much as 50 percent, as opposed to less than 1 percent in Western countries today [Is Child Death the Crucible of Human Evolution? By T. Volk and J. Atkinson, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2008].

In my recent book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, I bring together the growing body of evidence that leftism is associated with elevated genetic sickness. Compared to conservatives, liberals have less attractive and less symmetrical faces, liberal males are physically shorter and liberal males are less muscular. These traits imply a poor immune system, due to high mutational load, which has prevented them from maintaining a symmetrical phenotype, reaching their maximum height or accruing muscle because, with a poor immune system, they must invest disproportionately more of their bio-energetic resources in fighting off disease.

As I also note in the book, leftists are also higher in mental illnesses (such as depression) which are strongly genetic, and they are more likely to be atheists—atheism strongly crosses over with leftism; moreover, they are more likely to be left-handed, which implies a significantly asymmetrical brain. The heritability of political viewpoint, as I have discussed in my book The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, can be relatively high, so this strongly implies that leftism is partly a function of mutational load.

However, it is true that an element of these relationships could be environmental. Perhaps having these kinds of traits makes people feel excluded or inferior. This makes them bitter about the world, which makes them want to tear down all of its power structures and traditions, causing them to be attracted to leftism in a kind of a symbiotic relationship. What is needed is hard proof that the relationship is genetically mediated. This is exactly what Joseph Bronski appears to have demonstrated.

In a study in the journal Open Psych entitled “Evidence for a Paternal Age Effect on Leftism,” Bronski achieves something that is both important and beautifully simple. He shows that older fathers are not more likely than younger fathers to be left-wing but that the fathers of left-wing children tend to be older. The correlation between paternal age and leftism was relatively weak but it was highly significant statistically, that is, vanishingly unlikely to be a fluke. This finding is vital because as men age they produce more and more de novo mutations in their sperm, meaning that the older your father is the less genetically healthy you are likely to be, on average. The fact that older fathers are not more likely to be left-wing yet they are more likely to produce offspring who are left-wing effectively demonstrates that being left-wing is a function of mutation; a function of poor genetic fitness.

In another study, as yet unpublished and available on Bronski’s website, he argues something that even I—who tends to be sympathetic to genetic explanations—found surprising: The rise in leftism in the West over the last century can be almost entirely explained by rising mutational load; the rise, in other words, of mutants. In The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, I argue that rising mutational load is part of the explanation. It led to more and more selfish, individually-oriented people until a tipping point was reached, probably around 1963, causing society to rapidly become left-wing. I aver that a big part of this was environmental. Once the shift began to occur, the more intelligent—i.e., those better at sensing the general mood and better able to conform to it and see the benefits of so-doing—began competitively signalling leftism, causing a kind of runway individualism.

However, in his paper “On Evolutionary Pressure and General Leftism,” Bronski argues that the rise in leftism can be mainly, not just partly, explained by genetic changes in the population. In effect, he notes that there are two competing pressures: conservatives tending to have more children and a rise a mutation, which can be quantified. As Bronski summarises:

Using a narrow-sense heritability estimate of 0.6, we find a selection pressure of 0.076 SDs per generation in the conservative direction. We . . .  compute the mutational pressure as 0.22 SDs in the leftist direction. We find that the sum of these two pressures adequately explains the change in general leftism per generation over that last 70 years (0.15 SD per generation in the leftist direction), indicating that Western political change is solely due to evolutionary pressure. Per Bayesian analysis, there is a 95% chance, given this data, that 70% or more of the observed shift in leftism is due solely to evolutionary pressure, namely mutational pressure.

If this seems extreme, Bronski attempts to allay such a reaction in his Open Psych study, discussed earlier:

It is theoretically plausible that mutational pressure could produce some or all of the leftward shift of the last several generations in the US and other Western nations . . . If the mutational pressure on leftism were 1 in 20, and leftism were treated as binary, then mutational pressure would convert 5% of would-be non-leftists each generation.

If Bronski is right, and his data appears to be sound, the implication is clear: growing leftism is overwhelmingly a function the growth of genetically unfit mutants. You will not fight its growth by critiquing illogical Woke arguments.

 

Andrea Widburg: If you believe that sociopaths are in charge, you’re right

/7 Comments/in /by

All that’s missing is a breakdown of the demographics of this poll. It’s often noted that Jews provide around 75% of the funding for the Democrats (and probably 40% for the GOP). And this is a group whose ethic is basically “what’s good for the Jews,” so cheating in order to advance what they see as Jewish interests would not raise ethical issues.

Andrea Widburg, in American Thinker

Anyone with a brain knows that there was epic cheating behind Biden’s “win” in 2020, ranging from official cheating (e.g., mail-in ballots, drop boxes, and ballot harvesting) to unofficiaHowdy, Kevin MacDonaldl cheating (e.g., delayed vote counts, faked ballots, and illegal registrations). Pollster Scott Rasmussen has discovered something very disturbing about all that cheating: While ordinary Americans want fair elections, the “elite”—that is, the rich, powerful, and connected—don’t. They want only to win.

According to the Issues and Insights editorial board:

Earlier this year, pollster Scott Rasmussen asked voters a simple question: “Would you rather have your candidate win by cheating or lose by playing fair?

The answers he got back were, as he put it in a Daily Signal podcast last week, “the most terrifying poll result I’ve ever seen.”

Among all Americans, just 7% said they would want their candidate to win by cheating. As Rasmussen put it, he’d rather see that number lower, but that’s not bad.

But more than a third of the elite 1% he surveyed would condone cheating. And among those who are “politically obsessed” – meaning that they talk about politics every day – that number shot up to 69%.

The same editorial notes that this 1% of “elites” is almost entirely Democrat. Credentialed people (i.e., college and university graduates) are more likely to be Democrats, as are the wealthy. These are the people who control the levers of power in society, so the fact that almost 70% of those who are most concerned with politics think cheating is a fine way to win is a terrifying thought.

And what do these powerful sociopaths intend to do with the power they attain through cheating? Nothing good:

  • Nearly 60% say there is too much individual freedom in America – double the rate of all Americans.
  • More than two-thirds (67%) favor rationing of energy and food to combat the threat of “climate change.”
  • Nearly three-quarters (70%) of the elites trust the government to “do the right thing most of the time.”
  • More than two-thirds (67%) say teachers and other educational professionals should decide what children are taught rather than letting parents decide.

…

Crowley & Wong: How and why the US gives billions of dollars of weapons to Israel every year

/5 Comments/in /by

This appeared in the mainstream media in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald. 

You may have thought that U.S. aid to Israel was dependent on the proposed $14 billion aid for Israel proposed since the start of the Gaza war and held up in Congress, but not true. And Secretary of State Blinken has had  a major role in skirting U.S. requirements:

“At least three of the new Israeli orders have crossed the threshold required for congressional review – and Secretary of State Antony Blinken bypassed that twice. In December, Blinken invoked a rare emergency authority to avoid legislative review and push through two of those orders worth $US253 million in total, for tank ammunition and for artillery shells. The Pentagon then drew from US stockpiles to send those quickly to Israel.”

And:

“After Israel submitted its assurances last month [on compliance with international law], officials in the two State Department bureaus that focus on human rights and on refugees raised concerns with Blinken about Israel’s commitment, a US official said. But Blinken accepted Israel’s assurances.”

… At the time [2016], the agreement [to provide #3.8 billion/year in military aid] was uncontroversial. It was a period of relative calm for Israel, and few officials in Washington expressed concern about how the US arms might one day be used.

Now, that military aid package, which guarantees Israel $US3.3 billion a year ($5 billion) to buy weapons, along with an additional $US500 million annually for missile defence, has become a flashpoint for the Biden administration. A vocal minority of lawmakers in Congress backed by liberal activists are demanding that President Joe Biden restrict or even halt arms shipments to Israel because of its military campaign in the Gaza Strip.

Biden has been sharply critical of what he on one occasion called “indiscriminate bombing” in Israel’s war campaign, but he has resisted placing limits on US military aid.

The United States and Israel have had tight military relations for decades, stretching across multiple Democratic and Republican administrations. Israel has purchased much of its critical equipment from the United States, including fighter jets, helicopters, air defence missiles, and both unguided and guided bombs, which have been dropped in Gaza. Legislation mandates that the US government help Israel maintain force superiority – or its “qualitative military edge” – over other Middle Eastern nations.

“The problem with this American largesse is that it has bred a sense of entitlement among Israelis over the years.”

Martin Indyk, Obama administration special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations

The process of arms delivery to Israel is opaque, and the pipeline for weapons to the country is long. The United States has sent tens of thousands of weapons to the country since the October 7 killings by Hamas attackers, but many were approved by Congress and the State Department long ago and funded with money mandated by the Obama-era agreement, known as a memorandum of understanding.

“At any given time, delivery on these sales is constantly taking place,” said Dana Stroul, who recently departed as the Pentagon’s top official for Middle East affairs.

Biden has the power to limit any foreign arms deliveries, even ones previously approved by Congress. Far from cutting off Israel, however, he is pushing a request he made shortly after the October 7 attacks for $US14 billion in additional arms aid to the country and US military operations in the Middle East. The money has been stalled in Congress amid disputes over Ukraine aid and US border security and faces growing Democratic concern.

Because of a legal loophole, the State Department does not have to tell Congress and the public about some new arms orders placed by Israel since October 7 since they fall below a certain dollar value. Congressional officials have criticised the secrecy, which stands in contrast to the Biden administration’s public fanfare around arms deliveries to Ukraine.

Since the Hamas attacks, State Department officials have continued to authorise arms shipments to Israel that are tranches of orders, or what officials call “cases”, approved earlier by the department and by Congress – often years ago, and often for delivery in batches over a long period. Officials describe this step as pro forma. The authorisations have occurred almost daily in recent weeks and are in line with Biden’s policy of giving full support to Israel.

Biden has hinted about a possible shift. In a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, he warned that US policy could change if Israel did not take more action to protect civilians and aid workers in Gaza, according to a White House summary of the conversation.

Israel regularly receives arms from the US Defence Department, as well as directly from American weapons makers. The largest arms orders are often filled over years in smaller groups of specific items. For such cases, arms buyers such as Israel come to the US government saying they are ready to pay for part of an order.

When the Defence Department is supplying the arms – which includes the most expensive weapons systems – the State Department then tells the Pentagon to issue a letter of acceptance to the buyer. That authorisation is often a pro forma step, and a buyer signing it means there is now a legal contract to fill that part of the larger order.

The State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, which manages foreign defence relationships and arms transfers, typically acts within two days of hearing about a buyer’s fulfilment request to tell the Defence Department to issue the letter. If defence officials decide to fill the case by placing an order with a US weapons maker, the assembly and shipment would normally take years.

For Israel’s immediate needs since October 7, defence officials have drawn from US military stockpiles, including one in Israel.

Since October 7, Israel has placed new orders. The State Department only needs to notify Congress when a price tag is above a certain threshold. That amount varies by country and the type of military aid. If Israel orders a major weapons system, the department only tells Congress if the tranche is valued at more than $US25 million.

Congressional officials are pushing the State Department to give them more information on orders that fall below the price tag threshold.

At least three of the new Israeli orders have crossed the threshold required for congressional review – and Secretary of State Antony Blinken bypassed that twice. In December, Blinken invoked a rare emergency authority to avoid legislative review and push through two of those orders worth $US253 million in total, for tank ammunition and for artillery shells. The Pentagon then drew from US stockpiles to send those quickly to Israel.

The State Department told Congress in January about a third one – a $US18 billion order of F-15 jets that Israel placed after October 7. The department is seeking approval from four lawmakers on two congressional committees with oversight of arms transfers. Two Republicans approved the order in January, a US official said, and two Democrats apparently have not so far.

The Biden administration is pressuring the Democratic lawmakers to approve the order, after which the State Department would officially notify it. The order is one of the biggest from Israel in years. The first jets would not be delivered until 2029 at the earliest, one official said.

And Israeli officials are expected to place an order for F-35 jets soon, US officials said.

If the administration tried to ram an order past informal congressional review, lawmakers could seek to block that through a super-majority joint resolution during the formal notification period. But even if such a resolution passed in both chambers, the president could veto it.

…

Within the State Department, there has been some dissent about the arms transfers, reflected in three cables sent to Blinken last fall and in an internal exchange after a recent White House move.

Biden issued a national security memorandum in February requiring all recipients of US military aid to provide written promises that their forces abide by international law. The move was intended to defuse growing pressure in Congress.

Critics say the exercise adds little to existing US requirements that military aid recipients observe international and humanitarian law.

After Israel submitted its assurances last month, officials in the two State Department bureaus that focus on human rights and on refugees raised concerns with Blinken about Israel’s commitment, a US official said. But Blinken accepted Israel’s assurances.

Speaking in general terms, Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesperson, said last month that when it comes to Israel, US officials “have had ongoing assessments about their compliance with international humanitarian law”. …

The Jewish Security Shakedown

/8 Comments/in , , /by

“Chase after money and security, and your heart will never unclench.”
Tao Te Ching

“The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union), the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, applauded Senator Chuck Schumer’s ambitious proposal to allocate $1 billion to Jewish community security through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP).”
Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, November 6 2023

Jewish activism throughout the West follows very similar broad patterns, including a noticeable over-representation in pro-immigration and pro-diversity movements, and in other areas which can be classed as demographically and culturally aggressive and harmful to the interests of the native population. An ancillary pattern to this activism is a strident defensiveness that borders on paranoia, resulting in Jews taking leading roles in the restriction of free speech, the introduction of “hate” laws and, finally, a strident and insatiable demand that the host population, the very subject of Jewish aggression, provide funds for the physical security of Jews.

The Security Shakedown in Historical Context

The Jewish demand for special protection is witnessed throughout the history of their settlement among Europeans. In the Middle Ages, European elites were aware of the hostility aroused by Jewish exploitation of the peasantry but, because they also benefited from this exploitation via special taxes on Jews, numerous measures were taken to increase security for Jewish usurers and their families. The now infamous “identifying badge,” normally a yellow star, originates from the thirteenth century, when it was first introduced to better facilitate the recognition of Jews by their official bodyguards.[1] Writing in The Jews in 1922, Hilaire Belloc pointed out that after the Enlightenment and the decline of absolute monarchies, Jews seized upon ‘citizenship’ as a replacement for the security and protection offered by the now redundant symbiotic relationship with the older, weakened elites of yesterday. ‘Equality under the law,’ or rather the unequal application of this principle, was the path to the security and special treatment which, as Belloc argued, ‘the Jew’ feels “to be his due.” Belloc wrote:

Without it [the Jew] feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. … What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others — that would have been odious to him — what he wanted was security. (The Jews, p. 26).

Andrew Joyce, reviewing Belloc’s work, comments:

Belloc raises an interesting point: the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present. The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War II, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of ‘Christian’ no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than ‘fellow citizens’ of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing — and the Jews were left without a chair. From the rubble of World War II, a new world was to be fashioned. No longer was citizenship for the Jews enough — now Jewish security was to be sought by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to ‘hate speech’ laws and lobbying for gun control.

A New Protection Racket

Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) is currently one of the most significant legal methods for wealth and resource transfer from non-Jews to Jews in the United States. Originally proposed by the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) in December 2001, the NSGP has given over $1.1 billion in taxpayers’ money to Jewish groups, with the stated goal of protecting synagogues and schools.

The almost exclusively Jewish destination of NSGP funds is only very lightly disguised. FEMA state that “the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) provides funding support for target hardening and other physical security enhancements and activities to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack. The intent is to integrate nonprofit preparedness activities with broader state and local preparedness efforts. It is also designed to promote coordination and collaboration in emergency preparedness activities among public and private community representatives, as well as state and local government agencies. [emphasis added]” Publicly available financial disclosures have shown that the Jewish share of distributed funds is so large as to surely demand special mention. In 2009, Jewish groups received 60% of funds, in 2007 73%, by 2011 this had increased to 81%, 97% in 2012, 90% in 2013, and Jews received $11 million of the $13.8 million distributed in 2014. NSGP is a program devised by Jews to benefit Jews.

Realizing that they’d hit a rich vein of lucrative funds, in 2020 Jewish groups began to corral other minority religious groups, especially Muslims, along with a few token churches in an effort to lobby for vastly increased funds under a more superficially diverse umbrella.  But the involvement of other groups was purely tactical. According to Jewish Currents,

the security grant program had never been designed with the particular needs of Muslim communities in mind. The program was created in 2005, largely as a result of lobbying by Jewish groups, including the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA)—then known as the United Jewish Communities—and the Orthodox Union. Thanks to consistent Jewish lobbying efforts and a robust Jewish infrastructure for coaching organizations on applying for grants, the majority of funds have always been funneled toward synagogues and Jewish community organizations.

A Wikipedia entry on the NSGP contains the warning that “the program has become a popular topic among antisemitic and conspiracy-oriented bloggers, who point to information on award sizes to argue that Jewish interests have undue effect upon the American government.” This seems redundant given that Jews themselves have celebrated the NSGP as a product of their outsized power and influence in America. In 2010, the Forward published an op-ed specifically on how “the grants program provides a window into Jewish organizational and political power. It is this power that allowed a small community to create and maintain a government program tailored specifically for its needs and catering almost exclusively to its members.” At a time when the number of White victims of multiculturalism is spiraling, the Forward describes

The Akiba-Schechter Jewish Day School, in Chicago, put in new lights around its building and parking lot and now has a state-of-the-art video surveillance system with 12 cameras. Congregation Brith Shalom, in Bellaire, Texas, now has blast-proof doors and windows. In Baltimore, the Bais Hamedrash & Mesivta school installed a new gate to the parking lot and placed cameras throughout the building. Earlier this month, Congregation B’nai Israel of Staten Island put new shatterproof windows into its 40-year-old building. All thanks to the United States taxpayer.

Analysis of fund recipients revealed that the stronger the Jewish identification, the more money they consumed. For example, “Lubavitch Jews received more grants than the entire Reform movement, the largest denomination in the country. Overall, Orthodox institutions were dramatically overrepresented, receiving about 45% of the grants that went to all Jewish institutions from 2007 to 2010. … A grant was even awarded to the American Israel Education Fund, which is an offshoot of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee and holds net assets, according to its latest tax filings, of $38 million.”

The Magic Formula

The Forward points out the disproportionate benefit given to Jews “is no accident,” and that Jewish groups were involved in designing the formula for awards — a formula that will always inevitably benefit them over other groups:

The legislation and the rules defining eligibility make no mention of preferring Jewish institutions, but in practice the program could easily be viewed as a Jewish earmark. First, religious institutions are preferred over other not-for-profits. This policy is tucked into DHS’s official rules for evaluating grant applications. Each organization applying receives a score based on the merits of its request. Then the score of a “non-profit organization with religious affiliation” is multiplied by three, giving it a significant advantage over other applicants. Second, high-risk metropolitan areas are given top priority in the grant process, and those “tier 1” cities — New York, Washington, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles — have a heavy concentration of Jews. A second tier consists of cities that face less of a risk of terror attacks, including Miami, Boston and Dallas. Philadelphia had been in that second group, but was moved to tier 1 in 2010. Lobbyists are now working for the inclusion of Rockland County, N.Y., because it is home to a dense ultra-Orthodox population. Third, an ambiguous definition of what constitutes a terror threat has enabled many Jewish institutions to make a stronger case than non-Jewish counterparts. The criteria established by Congress and DHS requires not-for-profits to demonstrate that they “or closely related organizations (within or outside the U.S.)” have been subjected to prior threats or attacks by a terrorist network. Taking into account incidents overseas allows Jewish groups to describe their threat level regardless of what is happening in their own communities. Several Chabad synagogues contacted by the Forward mentioned the November 2008 attack against the Chabad house in Mumbai, India, as proof of their vulnerability. Other applicants pointed to terror attacks against Jewish targets in Israel as justification for the government funding. … Since September 11, 2001, the United States has foiled nearly three dozen credible terror plots, and more than 170 terror suspects have been arrested. The Jewish community was targeted directly in only a handful of these attempts. … Jewish groups, however, have a different count. They include the July 2006 shooting rampage at the Jewish federation building in Seattle, which left one person dead, and the July 2010 attack on Washington’s United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which took the life of a security guard. Both of these incidents were described by law enforcement authorities as hate crimes, not terror attacks. The perpetrators — one a Muslim, the other a white Christian — were not affiliated with a terror network and did not carry out the attacks as part of a broader agenda. … Yet, Beth Jacob Congregation, in Beverly Hills, cited the Seattle incident as the reason that it needed federal funding for security.

You read that correctly. An attack on Jews anywhere in the world, like India or Israel (!), will result in them getting more funds in the U.S. And these funds are being used simply to make Jewish lives more comfortable, like insulating them from multicultural crime or improving their properties. The Forward article explains:

In conversations with leaders of dozens of synagogues and other Jewish organizations around the country, the Forward found that combating crime, not preventing terrorism, was the prime motivation to apply for the federal money. “We had been thinking for a long time about upgrading our security, not really because of any particular issue,” said Rabbi Adam Zeff of the Germantown Jewish Centre, in Philadelphia. “There were some incidents that we found that we were unable to deal with — people getting into the building, vandalism on our playground. The homeland security grant was important to us because it expanded our vision of what we could do.” A similar view was expressed by Hanna Belsky, administrator of Chicago’s Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov High School. “There have been incidents like a broken window, somebody getting in the school,” she said. “Our parking lot is open to the street, and now with the money, it’s a private parking lot. … This was our dream.”

In 2021 the drive to add a superficial diversity to the grant program profile was successful in prompting gullible lawmakers to double the annual funding to the program. In 2023 it ballooned to $305 million (when the program opened, the annual budget was $15 million). Jewish groups were thrown into a panic in March of this year, however, when the Biden administration revised the funding down by 10% to $274.5 million. Although the final amount is still extravagant, Jewish groups are probably most disturbed that there was any reduction at all. The ambition is clearly to keep expanding this lucrative gravy train, with Chuck Schumer demanding that it be increased to $1 billion annually. After all, a world in which Jewish car parks are open to the street would be simply intolerable.

Jewish groups are apparently not consoled by the fact Biden’s FY2025 budget, released on March 11, proposes a record $385 million for the NSGP. Even a temporary drop is unacceptable. In a joint statement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Orthodox Union said “these funds are not just grants; they are lifelines that have fortified vital institutions against hate and violence. The security measures these funds have supported at Jewish facilities across the country have saved lives and prevented tragedy. Together, we urge Congress to prioritize additional funding to make the NSGP program whole. Any national security supplemental must include funding for NSGP and there must be increased funding for NSGP in the FY2025 appropriations bill.” Jonathan Greenblatt was keen to maintain the ruse that the NSGP isn’t a Jewish earmark, stating that “these grants are critical to the safety and security of not only the Jewish community, but nonprofits and religious institutions around the country.”

The Security Shakedown Goes International

The tremendous success of the NSGP scam has led to its replication elsewhere. In Britain, they don’t even bother with the ruse that it’s a generalized grant for nonprofits. Just a few months ago, the UK government announced that the Jewish Community Security Trust would be allocated “more than £70 million over the next 4 years, as part of the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant.”  While crime has increased 15% across Britain’s multicultural schools, Jewish schools will benefit from more security guards, improved fencing, and other measures designed to make Jews more protected and comfortable. In France, 80% of the Jewish community’s “security” needs are financially supported by taxpayers through the Délégation aux Coopérations de Sécurité. Last year, the German government increased its funding for the largest national Jewish umbrella body, Central Council of Jews in Germany, by 70%, to include “creating a nationwide training program for security personnel at Jewish institutions.”

*****

The overall picture, therefore, is that Jews will continue to disproportionately lobby for the demographic marginalization of Whites while obtaining funds from the governments of these same nations that make their lives easier, safer, and shield them from the worst effects of multiculturalism. Jews can lobby for mass migration, safe in the knowledge that even in the big cities they can live, study, and worship behind electric fencing, dozens of cameras, and 24/7 security guards — at no cost to themselves. They can park their cars in private car parks, and get more money to do so every year because someone might bump into a Jew in Mumbai, or a Palestinian might throw a rock at an IDF soldier. There is surely no greater indicator that Jews are an elite than the fact that, just as in medieval times, an assault on a Jew is viewed as something symbolic, something more than the sum of its parts. In the Middle Ages, to compromise the security of a Jew was to attack the monarchy itself. Today, to compromise the security of the Jews is to attack democracy, to abuse human rights, or some other useful abstraction. In the quote from the Tao Te Ching opening this essay, Lao Tse comments on the total lack of peace found within the soul of the person who chases money. In other translations, it is expressed as “He who hoards gold and jade will never find peace.” Jewish outsized influence brings with it an abundance of insecurity, but it’s you who picks up the tab.

[1] “The Jews of England in the Thirteenth Century,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 15:1 (1902), 5-22 (p.14).