Yair Netanyahu

understands the PTT theses. And Caroline Glick nails it in her analysis.


The new political map

and the Zman, who nails it down:

a political map devised by 18th century radicals has little value today. The spectrum with Right at one end and Left on the other no longer exists. The political map is now ideological spheres that do not overlap in most cases. Where they do overlap is in the area of public policy and not ideology. You are either in the ideological camp based in biological realism or you are in the camp that embraces the blank slate and egalitarianism. If you reject both, you are a lost boy, staggering around in the darkness.

There is more there, including stuff on libertarianism, which also resonated with us. Read the whole thing.

PTT theses: a clarification

The previous post drew some commentary (both here and elsewhere) comparing our division of Jews into groups (A) and (B) to the infamous letter written by Rabbi Weinberg to Hitler. This was so far from my intent that I’m still not quite seeing how the post could invite such an association, but will be happy to clarify my position. The “PTT theses” was in no way an attempt to ingratiate the “good” Jews with the alt-right so they’ll spare us. We will survive, with or without the alt-right’s support. Alt-right needs us more than we need them (what with our control of the banks and media, who wouldn’t want to have the Jews on their side?). And as tempting as it is to say, regarding group (B), “you can have them” — no, you can’t; we’ll defend those too, and unlike them, we’ve learned our lessons. Oh, and speaking of lessons: to those harboring genocidal fantasies — how did that turn out for Germany?

Sailer catches the PTT bug

His recent couple of posts could have come straight out of our playbook.

For newcomers, let us recapitulate the PTT theses on this topic:

  1. The Jews are not a monolithic group. For political analysis, they can be divided into two rough categories: (A) those seriously committed to Jewish continuity and (B) those indifferent or downright hostile to the concept. The former are Zionist and tend to be Torah-observant (never mind the crazies — every religion’s got them). The secular Israeli Jews tend to be more knowledgeable in Judaism and (de facto) observant than American Reform Jews, so are not a huge exception to the rule. A secular Diaspora Jew who’s betting on Jewish grandchildren is playing against long odds.
  2. These two groups have diametrically opposed interests, occasionally to the point of bloodshed. This is something that people like Kevin MacDonald miss entirely. Any talk of a Jewish “group evolutionary strategy” must take into account the very sizeable faction actively undermining any such strategy. Even the far more insightful and subtle Zman manages to bungle the distinction between politically conservative Jews (who tend to be Orthodox) and religiously Conservative Jews (who are indistinguishable from Reform for all intents and purposes).
  3. Almost tautologically, any future the Jewish people have as a coherent religo-ethnicity lies with group (A) and not with group (B). The Jews indifferent or hostile to Jewish continuity are an aberration, transient noise, a self-correcting error.
  4. Whatever legitimate grievances the alt-right has toward the Jews as a group applies only to group (B). Group (A), on the other hand, are natural allies on key existential questions: borders, nationalism, and the Islamic threat. (Where to place Goldberg, Kristol and Podhoretz? Well, they’re secular, Diaspora Jews [er, except Goldberg] — so see above.)

The Chronicle of Higher Education

is concerned about “professors who have come under intense criticism for controversial remarks”. For some reason, their collegial concern extends exclusively to “scholars who are targeted by right-wing media websites”. However, in the generous spirit of open review, the Chronicle invites us to rectify any omissions

Did we miss any cases? We’ll be tracking future blowups here. Email chris.quintana@chronicle.com

PTT calls upon all conscientious readers to do a public service and speedily notify the Chronicle of the Bret Weinstein case (even the NYT isn’t 100% cool with what was done to him) and of the currently raging Wax-Alexander scandal. Do it… for the children.

(Reform) Judaism’s existential threat

I do not want to downplay what must have been a very unpleasant — and indeed, downright frightening — experience. Well, maybe just a little bit:

It has been a painful summer in tiny Charlottesville. They marched with fiery torches in June and the KKK showed up in July. We stood at the park when the KKK came, 1,400 locals shouting down 40 sad men in robes and it seemed like a bad movie. But by the time Richard Spencer and his friends crawled in last week, with rocket launchers and AR 15s and explicit threats of violence, the fear was visceral.

Rocket launchers? I searched in vain for any corroborating news report, and the claim sure strains credulity. A charitable explanation is that the author of that piece is typically ignorant of all things gun-related and confused some legal firearm with a rocket-launcher. (Less charitably, this would be irresponsible and mendacious hysteria-mongering.) But let’s not quibble over this relatively minor point. When a terminal cancer patient comes to get an annoying splinter removed, the doctor could offer the dubious reassurance: “This ain’t what’s gonna kill you”. Even if the patient insists that he’s been impaled with a wooden stake, the doctor would still direct his worries elsewhere. Reform Jews: Nazis and Klansmen ain’t what’s gonna kill you in 2017. Muslim terrorists are the ones you should be worried about. And if they don’t kill you, assimilation and intermarriage surely will.


is apparently a known trolling tactic in comment threads — so much so, that it’s been banned by Eidolon, the classics magazine devoted to “dissembling [sic] of this dangerously misguided dream of white Europe”. PTT hadn’t heard of “sealioning”, so we did some searching:

A Sealion is a person who, when confronted with a fact that they don’t care to acknowledge, say, the persistence of systemic racism in America, will ask endlessly for “proof” and insist that it is the other person’s job to stop everything they are doing and address the issue to their satisfaction.

The meme comes from this comic, which was helpfully transcribed here:

[Comic transcript:

Panel 1: Man and woman in an old-timey car.
Woman: I don’t mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions.
Man: Don’t say that out loud!

Panel 2: Human-size sea lion appears behind them.
Sea lion: Pardon me, I couldn’t help but overhear…
Man: Now you’ve done it.

Panel 3: Close up of sea lion behind annoyed-looking woman.
Sea lion: I would like to have a civil conversation about your statement. Would you mind showing me evidence of any negative thing any sea lion has ever done to you?

Panel 4: Man and woman at their dinner table, with the sea lion still behind them.
Woman: Go away.
Sea lion: There’s no need to raise your voice. I’m right here. I’m just curious if you have any sources to back up your opinion?

Panel 5: Woman in bed, with sea lion standing beside her.
Woman: You’re in my house.
Sea lion: You made a statement in public for all to hear. Are you unable to defend the statements you make? Or simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion?

Panel 6: Man and woman at the table the next morning, sea lion in between them.
Man: Told you, dude. Sea lions
Sea lion: I have been unfailingly polite, and you two have been nothing but rude.
Woman: I am trying to eat breakfast.
Sea lion: Very well. We shall resume in an hour.]

I find this terribly confusing. In the above scenario, who is the good guy and who’s bad? In the definition above, Sealionism was illustrated by racism-denial, whence I conclude that the sealion is the bad guy. And yet… Isn’t singling out the sea-lions out of all the mammals as somehow undesirable, well… racist? And then, in Panel 5, doesn’t “You’re in my house” smack of anti-immigrant sentiment? Reading the comic naively, I see a white, cishet couple being rude and abusive to a courteous brown migrant.