Alt Right anti-Semitism

I’ve seen the famous quip that anti-Semitism means “hating Jews more than is absolutely necessary” attributed to various sources, so I’ll file it under “folklore”. There is no denying that segments of the alt right are hating Jews more than necessary.

This post is not about random clickbait. It is not about the 1488ers. It’s not about the ordeal endured by David French and others (which I have no reason to doubt, except for wondering how many of these trolls are agents provocateurs). In line with PTT’s aversion to vague generalities and insistence on concrete specifics, we will discuss two central, respected alt-right commentators: Steve Sailer and Roissy, both cited here at length previously.

I have not been collecting a hate-speech dossier on these two — leave that to the SPLC, whom I revile as much as the next decent fellow. My examples will come from the most recent posts: Roissy; Sailer.

[For those readers not in the know, “skype” is a code word for “kike”, to thwart digital censorship algorithms. It seemed clever at first but upon reflection is actually stupid. If the strength of your message hinges on the ability to use racial slurs, it wasn’t a very strong message to begin with. This is not justifying censorship but rather a challenge: put the censors in a position where they can’t latch onto a n-word to disqualify your entire (possibly valid) argument. It really is possible to sensibly discuss racial policy without that word.

As for Steve: Your mark at Rolling Stone had been rightly and thoroughly defeated and humiliated; the story was perfect as is. Was it really necessary to invent an “anti-Gentilic malice” angle?]

It is perfectly OK to hate individual Jews and (ostensibly) pro-Jewish organizations. It is malicious — and, quite frankly, beneath the intellect of Sailer’s caliber — to peddle the patent lie that the left-wing Jews are somehow pursuing a global Jewish agenda (financed by Likud shekels). Are you really going to argue that George Soros is pursuing a pro-Jewish agenda? A Zionist one?

So yes, there is definite antisemitism at the alt-right, and not just at the fringes. But I maintain that Jews (both in the US and in Israel) have more to fear from Hillary than from Trump. I’d rather have a foreign policy set by Steve Sailer or Pat Buchanan than Max Blumenthal.

This blog continues to oppose Hillary Clinton and hence willy nilly support Donald Trump.

Aaronson really gets it

Especially this comment (but do read the entire post):

Let me be as clear as possible. It’s not that I don’t understand the idea that many social-justice activists have been trying, with considerable success, to establish as the consensus of the educated world—namely, that there’s this huge swath of political views, even extremely mainstream ones in the US, that don’t deserve any of the usual social protections that classical Enlightenment liberalism would afford to individual conscience, because such views “cause already powerless and marginalized people to fear for their safety,” and are therefore themselves a danger to marginalized people, much as if the arguer had pulled a gun.

Rather, it’s that I do understand this idea, but that the idea itself makes me fear for my safety. I regard this idea as precisely the thing that Scott Alexander once called a rhetorical superweapon. And my own experience causes me to lack any baseline level of trust that this verbal thermonuclear bomb will be deployed only against targets who deserve it.

It’s probably easiest if I personalize the issue. As a Jew who lives his life in and around college campuses, I’m extremely used to the experience of “feeling silenced” and “fearing for my safety” whenever I pass by protesters who advocate for the nonexistence of the State of Israel, often bolstering their case with an endless loop of graphic videos of mangled Palestinian children (of course, never mangled Israeli children), in an attempt to evoke the same emotions evoked by the medieval blood libels.

To be sure, Aaronson still gets a lot of things wrong. But the plain and simple common sense expressed above is now so rare in the academia (see him being attacked for it in the comments) — that he deserves a full 2.5 cheers for it. As for feeling threatened by Palestinian activists on campus: get that carry permit already!

Now it makes sense

Much like Hitler, who used WWII as a platform for launching his media empire, it turns out Trump is planning to do the same. Thanks for clearing that up.

With a canny mastery of subtle, understated irony, this piece uses the phrase “alleged unregistered sex offender” six times. [Editor: “You used that phrase 37 times!” Sarah MacManus: “OK, I’ll cut it down to 6”.] As to the source of this nugget (“”, natch!) — it was hocked at me on social media by the same background noise generators who used to bark “Hitler!” with Pavlovian regularity.

Et tu, Krauthammer?

Quoth Charles: “In America, we don’t persecute political opponents.” So — just to name a random example — the IRS thing (mentioned by Krauthammer) doesn’t count as political persecution? He concedes that it does (“Is the Republican response to do the same?”), and thus contradicts himself. In today’s America, we do persecute political opponents. You don’t have to like it (I certainly don’t), but it’s a fact on the ground. Trump’s fault here, as usual, is pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Chekhov understood game

We previously mentioned Chekhov to give him priority over who-whom. It seems that his understanding of “the game” also predates the PUA gurus by over 100 years.

Check out this quote from his short story “Agafya“:

With all his soft-heartedness and good-nature, Savka despised women. He behaved carelessly, condescendingly with them, and even stooped to scornful laughter of their feelings for himself. God knows, perhaps this careless, contemptuous manner was one of the causes of his irresistible attraction for the village Dulcineas. He was handsome and well-built; in his eyes there was always a soft friendliness, even when he was looking at the women he so despised, but the fascination was not to be explained by merely external qualities. Apart from his happy exterior and original manner, one must suppose that the touching position of Savka as an acknowledged failure and an unhappy exile from his own hut to the kitchen gardens also had an influence upon the women.

Alpha jerkboy? Check. Vulnerability game? Check. ZFG? Check. (Trouble making out the abbreviation? Hint.)

I’ve observed men like Savka operate in the field, and to the uninitiated, it’s mesmerizing. Flies in the face of everything you’ve been taught about being a gentleman and a “nice guy”. Roissy has broken it down to a science, but Chekhov understood it well before. Being a gentleman made sense before feminism killed chivalry. Now that chivalry is dead, men who aren’t willing to MGTOW would be wise to take a page from Savka’s book. (Another option is to join a religion with traditional, firmly regimented gender roles — but that’s for another post.)

Let’s cut the bullshit

The Juanita Broaddrick video matters.

If you want to argue that it doesn’t, you’ll first need to decide if you believe her story. If you don’t, you risk falling afoul of #YesAllWomen, so you’ll probably want to go with “Irrelevant cuz Bill isn’t the one running”.

Hillary Clinton didn’t just share a last name and a residence with rapist Bill (no need for the qualifier “alleged” since we’ve agreed to take rape survivors at their word). She actively enabled him. Now you could say she stuck with him out of love and devotion and for the sanctity of marriage. If you can pull that off with a straight face, I urge you to quit your day job and audition for Comedy Central. So you’ll probably want to go with “She cynically stood by Bill in order to implement her political vision later in the future”. I’d argue that Hillary’s thirst for political power likely dwarfs any vision she might have, but whatever. If we’ve gotten this far, and you’re voting for Hillary on the issues, then let’s talk about the issues and leave character out of it. Character matters, but in this election, neither candidate is running on character.