Lawgiver

I had an exchange recently with a Jewish victimist fanatic in which I quipped that “often, Jews deserve their anti-Semites.” He asked why. I pointed to the little post by Walter Block.

He objected that the proper thing to do was not to resent Jews many of whom are socialists, but to resent socialists many of whom “happen to be” Jews.

I agreed and joked that the connection between Jews and their atrocious politics must be “totally mysterious.”

A hysterical barrage of abuse followed. Now to clarify, I was not of course implying any direct “genetic” link. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say that the Jews’ super-high IQ and clannish insular inward- and past-looking culture make it more likely that they will fancy themselves central planners, eager to run the economy “scientifically.”

It’s like that Seinfeld episode:

Leo: Move back with Lydia?
Jerry: C’mon, you’re lucky to have anybody.
Leo: Last week you told me I was in my prime, I should be swinging.
Jerry: Swinging? What are you, out of your mind? Look at you, you’re disgusting. You’re bald, you’re paunchy, all kinds of sounds are emanating from your body twenty-four hours a day. If there’s a woman that can take your presence for more than ten consecutive seconds, you should hang on to her like grim death. Which is not far off, by the way.
Leo: But she’s an anti-Semite.
Jerry: Can you blame her?

Exactly. Clean your own house first, my Jewish brethren, before joining in to the virtue-signaling hate-fest.

It’s perfectly fine for this guy to concern himself with “what’s good for the Jews.” But I’ll tell him what’s most definitely not good for the Jews, and that’s falsely accusing random innocent people he hates of “anti-Semitism.”

It must give him great joy to smear folks and ruin their careers — a favorite tactic of socialists and neocons (but I repeat myself).

Or perhaps he’s just a nutjob who sincerely sees “anti-Semitism” everywhere.

Sicko National Review manages to be both monstrous and tedious at the same time.

For example, one article accuses the left of anti-Bolton bias. Are you serious? Who cares about Bolton? A war with Iran will leave millions dead and Iran in ruins. If Bolton is plotting an attack, he ought to be assassinated immediately.

You read this right. Let’s kill this baby Hitler before he grows up.

Another demands that we hate China and its tech companies.

Allowing these companies to operate undisturbed in the U.S. would pose serious national-security risks. …

They pose a threat to the U.S. because of their ties to the PRC, whose ambitions of espionage and cyber-warfare are no secret.

That is your reason to cut off trade? Every nation spies on every other. Who cares about “state secrets”? The state should have no secrets, anyway. Let the mutual spying commence, as long as there are peace and free trade.

Yet another objects to the Dems voting “in favor of legislation that would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ as protected classes.” It does so on virtually irrelevant grounds, something about sports. In any case, you worthless cons, how soon after this law is enacted will you begin conserving it?

Oh, but they have a few articles opposing socialism. How heroic.

I’m not sure 100% who is speaking here, David Gordon, Anthony Flood, or C.L.R. James, but:

The Stalinists, James claimed, viewed blacks as subordinate shock troops of a prospective revolution rather than independent actors, and this Stalinist line Aptheker faithfully followed.

The Dems view blacks exactly this way, too.

For example, the crimes that blacks, damaged and weaponized by the welfare state and drug war, commit are just one more way of shocking the bourgeoisie.

My immediate family, myself included, were born in the Soviet Union, but I was largely spared the atheistic indoctrination.

My mother and uncle were not so lucky. But it’s not that they are atheists — they don’t know enough about God to deny that He exists with any competence. They couldn’t tell God from a hole in the ground.

They are “apatheists” — they don’t care whether God exists. God could appear before them in glory, and they’d say, “I don’t know who you are, and I don’t care. Scram, you.”

As apatheists, they cannot of course claim that God does not exist (and they don’t), because they don’t know what the word “God” means. “God does not exist” is for them as meaningless as “Splorg does not exist.” And they have found no reason in their lives to entertain the idea of God.

I can’t even talk to them about this stuff, because they find it irritating and uninteresting. I can’t unleash any proofs on them — the arguments for God’s existence are for fellow scholars, not for non-philosophers. They seem “happy” as apatheists and decent people. They consider the Catholic “rituals” to be preposterous magical incantations. There is no angle I could try to make them wonder.

I don’t know, perhaps with this kind of “invincible indifference,” they have a better chance of salvation that I.

William Lane Craig quotes Richard Wurmbrand:

I have heard one [communist] torturer even say, “I thank God, in whom I don’t believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.” He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

Think about it the next time you are tempted to ascribe “good intentions” to Bernie Sanders.

Syllogism:

1. Jews are very smart (not only true but a commonplace and well-known by all).
2. Some Jews are evil (true of any reasonably-sized random group).
3. Therefore, some Jews are smart evildoers (think Bernie Sanders and Alan Dershowitz).

So then, again, these evil Jews are smart. Or we’ll say, clever. Or even: diabolically clever.

Hence Farrakhan’s latest, “And I’m here to separate the good Jews from the Satanic Jews,” is entirely reasonable and a noble cause.

Bernie and AOC are not so stupid as to ignore the “unintended consequences” of their plan to cap credit card interest at 15%.

They are fully aware that many, perhaps all, government interventions are cumulative and are means to a step-by-step transition to socialism.

The masses will applaud them for this “benevolent” act; when the perverse consequences of this intervention come to the fore, “capitalism” will predictably be blamed and more interventions to “fix” the new problems, lined up.

Eventually, the market will be almost fully paralyzed, at which point “capitalism” will be declared to “have failed,” with socialism being our only salvation.

It’ll work, too.

If “protesting” could raise wages, wouldn’t there arise entrepreneurs and firms devoted to the big business of protesting?

It would become a fast-growing industry to organize protests and through them, better people’s lives.

These enterprises would serve consumers and create jobs for the professional protesters. (There might be chaos on the streets, but general welfare would still be promoted.)

So why don’t they exist?

Oh wait, they do exist and are called lobbyists.

Here’s how political correctness works.

Let’s say I hold up my fingers and ask you how many of them you see.

The factually correct answer is 2; the politically correct answer is 3, or whatever I want it to be.

If you answer “2,” then I will torture you. If you persist in answering 2, I will torture you more.

Once you are broken and reply, “3,” I will have you do it publicly, on TV, and recant your previous answer.

Then I will execute you.

Coming soon to political theater near you.

I’m actually curious how a “single-sex institution” can possibly “perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other.”

In an integrated organization, there are both men and women, and it is logically possible that the “men” might be able to dominate the “women.”

But in a single-sex community, there are only, let’s say, men. There is no one to dominate in the first place.

I guess women cannot help insisting on never letting men take a break from them.

Mises may be right in saying that “every progressive movement which began with the development of personality was prematurely frustrated by the women, who dragged men down again into the miasma of the harem.”