RSS
When it comes to Israel the US, Ben Shapiro is color-blind. He explains:
“Color doesn’t matter. Ideology does.”
Hmm, let’s evaluate that.
How pro-life blacks and whites voted in 2012:
Oops. Let’s try among blacks and whites opposed to same-sex marriage:
Well darn. How about blacks and whites opposed to income redistribution:
Ben’s not licked yet. There’s still drug legalization. Blacks and whites who are against it:
This is getting embarrassing. Maybe when the ideology is more abstract, like the idea that government does too much and is too large. Surely blacks and whites in agreement on that vote similarly:
Oh boy. We’ve yet to look at those who explicitly self-identify as politically conservative, however! That’s an indisputable ideological marker. Black and white conservatives certainly must be on the same page:
Zero-for-six. We could do this all day long.
Turns out color does matter. It matters more than ideology, in fact. And the more racially diverse the country becomes, the more color will matter and the less ideology will. As the late Lee Kuan Yew put it:
In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.
The alt right understands this. Cuckservatives like Shapiro do not. Or if they do, they don’t care because the people they care about are not the people they’d have you or I believe they care about.
GSS variables used: PRES12(1-3), HISPANIC(1), RACECEN1(1)(2), POLVIEWS(5-6), MARHOMO(4-5), ABANY(2), EQWLTH(5-7), GRASS(2), HELPNOT(4-5)
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Obama was the first (half) black president. That meant a lot to many blacks and is something of a confounding factor. It would be interesting to see the data for 2000 to 2008. Race relations are not great in the United States, and I think they worsened during the Obama years. However, I agree with the Republican plan to change the immigration system to be based on merit. Given the current low birth rate, I'm not sure we have a better policy option. Of course, ideally there would be a medical breakthrough that increases the health of our population and raises the birth rate. This would make us less dependent on immigration in a time of already high social tensions.
What cuckservatives believe is that blacks, Hispanics, and immigrant groups will "assimilate" into American culture in a generation or three, and then they can win over those demographic groups at the voting booth.
Hey, we had Irish, Italian, and Central European immigrants in the 19th century who eventually assimilated into our culture and became Americans! It can happen again!
Of course, this idea is just plain stupid. I personally believe there are genetic differences between European nationalities (both in appearance and in behavioral outcomes), but the differences are subtle compared to those between those of whites and Native Americans, Asians, and especially blacks. If Hungarians, for example, couldn't create a democratic government on their own, they can at least learn how to act like Englishmen in the voting booth.
Theoretically speaking, I expect that the relatively small phenotypic differences between European nationalities (Englishmen and Irishmen don't look exactly the same in the aggregate, but the differences are usually subtle) mean that it's easier to create a "white" identity in the US. Southern Italians like noticably different from Northern Europeans, but if a Sicilian and a German have children, the children will almost always look "white." In contrast, Asians, Native Americans, and blacks look substantially different, so it'll always be a lot easier to identify them as "other" than it is among white Americans.
More practically, European immigrants were under significant pressure to drop their European identities and adopt an American one. In today's world, non-white immigrants aren't just encouraged to keep their culture – they're trained at school to actively search for and nurture grievances with Core America. A college application essay about how you're an alienated overachiever who despises WASP culture has a better shot of getting into an elite school than an essay about how you're an agreeable but hardworking person who admires the American small town values of neighborliness, thrift, and industry.
Finally, we all know the truth – differences in IQ between European nationalities haven't been shown to be all that significant. Yes, I am open to the possibility that IQs in Europe may vary, but I couldn't tell you about IQ differences in Europe without consulting Richard Lynn. In contrast, Hispanics have IQs around 90 and Northeastern Asians have them around 105. Blacks have not been fully integrated into American life for centuries, due in large part to their lower average IQ of 85.
Simply put, you can expect immigrants from Italy or Poland to have IQs around the American white norm. You can't expect that out of Hispanics, which makes turning them into interchangable Americans nearly impossible. Similarly, the high quantitative IQ of Asians but their comparatively lower verbal IQ means that they're overrepresented in tech positions but underrepresented in leadership positions. Again, more tension.
Think of how much strife there is between SWPLs who went to elite universities and proles who struggled with community college. In fact, these tensions often emerge within people of the same family! The idea you can take people with an average IQ of 85-90 and then make them interchangable with people of an average IQ of 100 is absurd.
Working with my dad on some days in the warmer months….ideology, behavior, and voting. My dad openly admits that areas with lots of blacks, Muslims, and immigrants are more dangerous and generally unpleasant. At the same time, he still clings to the idea that the Dems are the good guys. How many white Boomers who aren't complete idiots on HBD remain shackled to the MSM and thus are blissfully unaware of the anti-white venom wafting at greater and greater levels from Leftists over the last 50 years? At least in the 70's and 80's, horrible black crime rates pushed a lot of whites to vote GOP when it really counted (the Pres. election) in spite of whatever was considered acceptable ideology/behavior at the time. By the mid 80's, most Americans were recorded to be publicly cucking on race. But there was the Willie Horton thing in 1988…..
X-ers and Millennials who abysmally cuck on racial matters (and don't have the same antipathy towards da urban yoofs that most white Boomers do) have spent most or all of their life in post-Giuliani America where urban/vibrant areas got (relatively) tamed by the authorities….Even if at times that's meant warehousing the undesirables in correctional facilities and several dystopian cities (Baltimore, Detroit, some of Chicago, etc.). Areas and people beyond our reach are written off with a sigh, but we've succeeded in at least confining the worst people and habits mostly to these areas, the better to allow younger whites to have an insouciant attitude towards HBD.
We may be getting less white, but blacks will put in even heavier millstone around the necks of Dems when crime rises (just heard about an Obama commutee being a crack head who violated every condition of her probation, the last straw being her getting busted for stealing to support her addiction) and whites desert them come the pres. election. How did Nixon/Reagan Dems come about, do you suppose?
(((sweetards))) seems create a opposite ideological mirror to american blacks over american whites. Indeed seems majority of''liberal blacks'' are in the true conservatives because they are more aware about ethnic genetic interests while ''conservative blacks'' are indeed more leaning-real white-leftists.
''Conservative blacks'' are more prone to blame themselves as a group for their own mistakes as well ''liberal whites'' tend to do, but maybe with less masochism, while great majority of black-americans who vote for dems are more prone to blame others for their own mistakes as well most ethnocentric people regardless the race tend to do.
Legate of Judea,
2012 is the most recent election for which that data is available (2016's election won't be available until spring of 2018) and Obama's identity in particular probably accentuated the trend towards Yew's observation with regards to blacks and whites.
That is the direction the US is going in, though, so it's more predictive of the future than the 2000 election probably was. I'll look at that and 2004 though, as the GSS started asking about race in detail in the 2000 iteration of the survey. I'll also look at the same with Hispanics.
Sid,
How long do those who genuinely believe it expect it to take? Your destruction of the presumption that contemporary immigrants will assimilate comparably to 19th/early 20th century immigrants provides the answer. Or rather the lack thereof–it will never happen without Idiocracy-level miscegenation.
Feryl,
But a Republican wouldn't win today with Reagan's level of white support in 1980 (he only got 56%; Trump got 58% and still lost the popular vote). The effect from being "on the street" so-to-speak is going to have to be at least as strong as it was then, probably stronger.
Sid –
There's tribe, and then there's race. Anglos and Celts are like different tribes within a race….But whites and blacks? No white American says to themselves, jeez, as an Irish guy (or whatever) I ought to vote for party X since party Y represents WASPs. Decades removed from the motherland, gentile American whites largely think of themselves as Joe or Jane six-pack white person. Being around more racial diversity intensifies this; before the 70's, there were greater ethnic divisions among white Americans (e.g., urban Irish/Italian Catholics, blonde farmers of the Midwest. Suvvern hillbillies, and severe looking old-money scions of the Northeast). Now that we're many decades removed from mass white migration into America, and into 50 years of a brown/black/yellow tide, old-world tensions within white people have (in comparison to the past) ebbed. Half Italian Springsteen and the very Italian Stallone represented both sides of the 1980's Vietnam revival, and no white person said that neither was qualified to represent the views of white Americans.
The experience of blacks in America ought to be a cautionary tale. Centuries after arriving, the phrase keeping it real is not an ironic joke. Italians could become representative of American (e.g., white) culture after just two or three generations and the much needed 1925 immigration overhaul. Imagine if Italians still insisted on dressing in a distinct way, having distinct slang, demanding that they own the agenda of a particular political party, etc. I heard Jay Leno talk about dealing with Mafioso types in his early career, and he said their culture scared him. Funny thing is, at times they treated him like part of the family (Hey Leno. you're Italian, right?) in the way that blacks talk about brothas and sistas, being too ignorant to apparently grasp that by the 70's some Italian-Americans had dropped out of the hyphenated-American clannish identity neurosis.
Post 60's, there's been a lot of encouragement of ethnic ID politics rooted in grievance that's had varying popularity among different ethnic groups. It's been revealed that Jews and blacks remain aloof from the culture and needs of "real" Americans, while many Texas/Florida Hispanics and a fair number of West of the Rockies Hispanics wish to remain on good terms with whites but you'd never know this due to the over-coverage of professional ethnic activists. Asians are a tougher call; their taciturn personalities and "grinder" ethics make rocking the boat not terribly appealing, but then again, they are a much different race than whites so just how close can they be with whites?. A pretty good number of Boomer and Gen X Asian-Americans have generic white first names but I'm not sure how younger and less North Asian cohorts are assimilating.
Feryl,
"
But a Republican wouldn't win today with Reagan's level of white support in 1980 (he only got 56%; Trump got 58% and still lost the popular vote). The effect from being "on the street" so-to-speak is going to have to be at least as strong as it was then, probably stronger."
For what it's worth, now that America is heavily post-Boomer (in demographics if certainly not in socio-economic-political stature), America inevitably is experiencing even greater racial balkanization in it's politics. If we enter a post-striving era (as we will at *some* point….), the need for good whites to bash bad whites would diminish and more white professionals and hipsters would be up for defecting from the black party. Also, the desire of Asians and Hispanics to be protected from the predations of (heavily black) criminals could induce them to ally with white GOP'ers; In Cali (the only 1990's state with a large number of Asian voters), the post-'92 drop in crime made it easier for Asians to join the bash-whitey Dem cause.
When more blood is spilled in the streets and bedrooms of America, non-black minorities (and swpl whites) will have ask themselves one question: Do I ally with the party that wants to keep dirtbags locked up (the GOP), or do I ally with the black party (the Dems) who by default must pander to a large portion of their electorate (low IQ gorillas who feel that white/high standards of behavior and accountability do not apply to them).
The only ethnic group that habitually defends it's sociopaths are blacks, which is itself evidence that blacks to a man are far more sociopathic than other groups.
That 2nd paragraph could've been written better. What I was getting at with the post-Boomer comment is that post-Boomers are much less white than previous generations. Thus, younger generations of whites are probably going to feel more "squeezed", in terms of racial territory/competition, than older whites. Pre-Trump elections were based on ideological battles; now both the GOP and the Dems are set to clash more frequently and openly on ethnically based squabbling (and granted, the Dems have been doing that since at least the Ellis Island days, the GOP has a lot of catching up to do). Somewhat conveniently, Muslim is a religious identity moreso than racial one; as such, "Muslim" is becoming a group that the New Right can focus their ire on without getting into *too* much trouble. Soon enough, "criminal" will also enter the Right lexicon prominently as it did in the late 60's-90's; liberals will surely bitch that criminal is a stereotypical identity of people who the Right doesn't like (such as blacks); but after enough rapes and murders most normies will tell liberals to shut the hell up.
Right now we're fighting the tide of one "good" thing (crime falling for 2 1/2 decades) and one thing that's horrible for us (high striving). If one and/or the other trend reverses, the Dems will become in the public's eye the party that enables and excuses violent assholes. Low crime makes people glib about the dangers of going easy on sociopaths, while high striving causes swpls/elites to become infatuated with the foreign and exotic (and cheap labor!) rather than concerning themselves with their duty to protect the traditions that built the countries they now rule.
Only slightly off topic, but often I will hear our establishment media say that elections in other countries are suspect if a candidate gets over ~90 percent of the vote. There had to be some arm-twisting or chicanery going on. For instance, in 2014 Assad got almost 90 percent of the vote in the Syrian election. The Crimean Referendum of 2014 was passed with 95 percent voting in favor of union with Russia. Yet Russia-haters will often say that the vote was rigged and there was no way that it could have been that popular. But in America, blacks routinely vote for one party 90 percent or more in every single election, yet we never hear how our democracy is suspect because if this.
Didn't John Anderson swipe a lot of votes from Reagan in 1980? The Wiki article is inconclusive; the lolbertarian party got almost 1 million votes, doing especially well out West (which was a heavily Republican region before the 90's). Conservatives seem more amenable to third parties in the post-1970 era; maybe because Leftists have a strange combination of weak feelings of visceral loyalty while being prone to snobbish cult-of-personality (or cult-of-party) worship of whoever represents righteous progress. Meanwhile, righties are more prone to gut based decision making on whether someone's a friend or foe; if the GOP's candidate seems like a turnoff, then screw 'em, let's vote 3rd party instead.
Conservative 3rd party candidates seem to do much better than liberal ones, whether we're talking about Anderson, or Perot in '92, or Johnson in '16 (as opposed to Stein). Liberals get in line to support the Good Party, conservatives are more fickle with "their" party (or perhaps in some cases, like Johnson voters in '16, petty and prissy). Conservatives (and blue collar Dems) are also bigger believers in vengeance; Perot voters in '92 felt like Bush's GOP needed to be taught a lesson. And in the '76 and '80 election, a fair amount of Nixon voters were smarting from Watergate; they either didn't vote, voted Dem, or voted 3rd party.
To get this over with, it seems like in periods where the populace feels low (as in 1980, 1992, or 2016), 3rd parties can do relatively well. It just so happens that for whatever reason, the more conservative of the 3rd party candidates usually does better. 2000 wasn't one of these periods, and Nader only got like 2 1/2% percent anyway.
High crime-wise, in '92 Clinton as the winner got just 43%. The 80's were a tough on crime period that continued into the 90's, and in '92 voters didn't embrace the Dems as much as they rejected the GOP's embarrassing standard bearer.
Feryl,
which is itself evidence that blacks to a man are far more sociopathic than other groups
"To a man" might be a little hyperbolic, heh.
The Roper Center is a good source for quick comparisons. In 1980, Carter got 38% of whites, Reagan got 56%. In 2016, Clinton got 37% to Trump's 58%. So Trump did modestly better with whites than Reagan, yet Reagan won in a landslide, while Trump eked one out. The popular vote margin between Reagan and Trump was 12 points favorable towards Reagan. Really puts in perspective how far the demographic tide has come in in just a generation.
tanabear,
Who? Whom? Need we ask more?
@#1
…Given the current low birth rate, I'm not sure we have a better policy option….
There's no reason birth rates need to stay low.
Trump got about 38% of younger voters. Many of these people must be feeling the nativism in the air. And if they went for Trump that means they also ignore much of the MSM and get their opinions from conservative sources.
So there just needs to be an effort to get as many of the young Trump voters as possible to have more children than currently predicted. Since these people aren't influenced by the MSM, the messaging campaign only needs to happen in the right wing ecosystem.
The first step is to convince people that its possible.
"The Roper Center is a good source for quick comparisons. In 1980, Carter got 38% of whites, Reagan got 56%. In 2016, Clinton got 37% to Trump's 58%. So Trump did modestly better with whites than Reagan, yet Reagan won in a landslide, while Trump eked one out. The popular vote margin between Reagan and Trump was 12 points favorable towards Reagan. Really puts in perspective how far the demographic tide has come in in just a generation".
The sad thing is that for all the lamenting about immigration policies, the real horror is that society let blacks breed like rabbits in the 60's-early 90's. White Boomer and Gen X women delayed marriage and family, while they were on the pill, getting surgically fixed, having abortions, or just opted to be sexually unavailable as they built up career credentials. If immigrants and Mexicans hadn't pushed blacks out of much of California, Texas, and Florida what would the black portion of the population be by now? 25% or something?
And Euros and Japanese could blame economic tightness/overcrowding on not wanting to start a family. Here in America, especially if you go back 20-30-40 years, it was pretty dang easy to afford a decent place in a decent area. The whining done by Gen X-ers in the 80's and 90's seems pretty laughable now, in light of how in recent decades tuition has skyrocketed, far more school districts have de-whitened, housing affordability has become a serious issue in much of the US for perhaps the first time in American history, medical costs have soared, and wages are a total joke. Millennials and subsequent generations now face a present and possibly a future in which behavior is determined almost entirely by economic circumstance rather than by personal priorities and desires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absenceblacks.png
Blacks hate cold, dry weather. Of course, these areas also don't have older/larger metro areas that have had decades to "acquire" blacks and their culture. Utah is a bit strange; I thought that Mormons imported a lot vibrancy over the last 20-30 years. Guess not. Maybe it's a self-identified ancestry quirk; black immigrants may not self-identity as "American" but I would think they'd be able to find over 29,000 blacks who identified as such. Blacks being like 14% of the Michigan population is pretty atrocious; far north, cold (though moderated by the lakes to a slight degree), shorter growing season, not too much sun, etc. If there's one public work project that would boost the Midwest, it would forcibly relocating all but the most gifted blacks of Detroit to the South where they belong. In case anyone think that's a punishment of the South, well, Southern culture and living arrangements are good for blacks. The Upper Midwest is a horrible place, culturally and geographically, for blacks. Which in turn is bad for everyone else up here.
Audacious Epigone – in addition to my previous comment, it is not the case that Jews are advocating for an ethnically European Jewish state in Israel. The "browning" of Israel took place in the 1960s. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, and his cabinet consciously allowed European Jews to become a minority in Israel. In 2015, documents were declassified revealing they did this with the belief that these immigrants would not perform as well educationally as European Jews.
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.653134
There has been no civil war in Israel, at least not between the lighter skinned and darker skinned Jews. Social tensions were high for a generation, but decreased subsequently. I think inter-marriage between the groups has decreased it to a large extent. Interestingly, in Israel the Middle Eastern Jews are currently considered more right wing.
Looking at Pew Data, Ben Shapiro's attitude towards Hispanic immigrants appears to be held by the majority of Americans of all ethnicities and political parties. There is no group expressing majority support to deport all illegal immigrants or prevent automatic birth right citizenship.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/24/what-americans-want-to-do-about-illegal-immigration/
There does seem to be majority support for switching to a merit based immigration system, an end to illegal immigration, and an overall reduction in immigration levels. There also appears to be a fairly significant level of intermarraige among hispanics and other American groups. This suggests to me that, like in Israel, social tensions between groups will reduce over time. This assumes immigration levels decrease from their historically high level, which I believe has contributed to the spike in social tensions.
For a supposedly smart guy, Shapiro's tweet is surprisingly ignorant. Or he could just be engaging in some cheap virtue signaling, which is my guess. Either way, the Democrats have been saying out loud for the last 20 years that they intend to use immigration, i.e. "the browning of America" to turn the country into a one-party state where the GOP will never be able to win another national election.
At this rate, Shapiro isn't going to be considered a conservative for much longer. He probably looks in the mirror every morning and sees the next David Brooks.
Off topic – Google is promoting refugees on their homepage. I'm going to make a more concerted effort to avoid their services. I haven't tried much till now because I really like their products. Do you guys have suggestions for alternatives? I like Edge as well as Chrome now. Just iPhones to replace Android? Or does anyone know of you use a custom rom like Lineage, is Google still getting a cut? Any recommended search engines? How about email (main criteria: good spam filtering like Gmail has)
Legate, can we please dispense with the obvious fig-leaf arguments?
Israel has a similar dynamic to America re: latinos vs. mizrahim. That much is true and obvious. But, as anyone with a moment's thought knows, the problems are neither to scale nor are they perfectly analogous. First, Average IQ in the Mizrahim is not as low as Mestizos. Second, they're from a closely related culture to the Ashkenazim. Mestizo are a particularly communist and identitarian variant of Catholic. Americans are largely Deist-leaning Protestants and are fanatically un-identitarian. The consequences are clear as day. Israel may get a little dumber and browner, but it won't cease to be a Jewish State. America will become a Morlock wasteland nothing like the Anglo-Saxon Republic that it was for centuries.
Add in the compounding factor that Israel does not take in any significant non-Jewish immigrants where America takes in a high number of all sorts of immigrants, mostly lower IQ than their white native average, and you have a disastrous double-standard. And if it's one thing that makes whites go fully insane with rage, it's the chutzpah-laden Jew making an argument based on just this sort of obvious double-standard.
Anon,
While it may be that I'm simply not able to objectify my own experiences well enough, it certainly feels like family formation–something I'd have said I'd never do when I was 20–was a consequence in large part of my ancestral awareness. There was no messaging directed at me, but Pat Buchanan's book "Death of the West" is when I recall my opinion beginning to change. I read it when I was roughly 23 or 24. Now I have two kids and I'm not finished yet. Iow, I think you're right.
Legate of Judea,
It's easy to fish for responses on immigration questions by how said questions are worded. Reuters asked it in the most objective way I can formulate and found majority support for deportation, albeit not necessarily of every single illegal, just a majority of them. If it turned out to be anything like Operation Wetback, we wouldn't need to deport most to have the majority leave on their own.
Re: Israel, increasing the total population of the country is a far more reasonable concern in 1960s Israel than 2010s America though, isn't it?
Sgt Joe Friday,
Yeah, it's either cheap grace or absurd ignorance. My money is on the former, too.
Glt,
I use Brave for my browser. It was created by the Mozilla man Brendan Eich who got booted for daring to public oppose same-sex marriage.
This data doesnt look right. Romney got 6 percent of all blacks. Would expect better among conservative blacks.
Dan,
The GSS shows Obama getting 97.7% of the black vote compared to Romney's 1.4%. The sample size is 570.
Audacious Epigone – the Republicans ran and won in 2016 on a plan to deport a several million illegal immigrants over the next four years. They may win in 2020 on a promise to deport a few million more. Sanders almost won the Democratic nomination on an anti-illegal immigrant platform that he later toned that down. I'm not arguing against implementing either of those positions. I'm not arguing for increasing immigration from low skilled countries. In fact, I think we can not do that. I think we need to deport a large majority of the illegal immigrant population because we need to increase our labor force participation rate by about 15 million jobs (primarily among the low skilled). I'm only argued that Hispanics here legally are assimilating, and intermarriage rates reflect that.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/
Issac – I think you could use both a lesson in Yiddish and one about the history of our Republic. Let me tell you a little family story about the creation of the American nuclear arsenal that never made it into the history books. They are all gone now, and I don't think they would mind. It is widely known that many of the Manhattan project scientists were Jewish. That is why it was in Manhattan. The military wanted to move the project, but too many of the wives didn't want to be near people "filled with rage" against Jews who they though lived outside the big city.
What isn't in the history books is that the engineers who worked on the detonator were Yiddish speaking Jews. You see, it was in the days before solid state electronics and the barometric mechanism (one of two mechanisms to measure the precise altitude for detination) used vacuum tubes. Who knew about vacuum tubes and high end electronics of the day? The people who had worked for the entertainment industry on movie projectors, and then televisions.
Of course, the work was compartmentalized. The engineers were not told why the military wanted a switch that triggered at a precise altitude. They would sit outside at lunch complaining in Yiddish about the chutzpah of the army to have them working on an altitude sensitive switch when there was a such a serious war going on. They were worried the United States would be invaded. Then when the first atomic bomb was dropped and realized what they had been working on they said Oy Vey!
My relatives that worked on the American nuclear project were some of the most talented the country has ever seen, and some of the nicest people I have ever met. I think about them all the time. If you want to see this country become less than it is, then go ahead and convince talented people they are unwelcome and should move someplace else. It isn't like they aren't welcome in other countries.
http://www.politico.eu/article/putin-invites-jews-to-russia/
legateofjudea said:
"It is widely known that many of the Manhattan project scientists were Jewish. That is why it was in Manhattan. The military wanted to move the project, but too many of the wives didn't want to be near people "filled with rage" against Jews who they though lived outside the big city."
You might want to check your history, slick. "Manhattan Project" was a codename. The only thing based in Manhattan was Columbia University where some of the scientists were from. But, the University of Chicago was where they obtained the first controlled nuclear reaction. UC Berkeley was another university involved in the project. The assembly plant was in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the bomb was tested at Alamogordo, New Mexico. Given your lack of knowledge about this, I would have to conclude you had no "relatives" involved, unless you count all jewish people as relatives.
James – they were my direct relatives and there were ten sites in Manhattan. It wasn't a typical code name. You will sound slicker if you check your history. Here is a link to get you started.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/science/30manh.html
Funny family story about one of those scientists at Columbia University that is appropriate for this blog (although he preferred the term PhD Nuclear Physicist). In 1968 there where race riots at Columbia University, which are now called protests. This mild mannered PhD Nuclear Physicist walks down to the lobby of his apartment building to see the super-intendant holding a shotgun to prevent rioters from coming inside. He wasn't used to guns, so this made quite an impression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_protests_of_1968
He walks over to the building that holds his laboratory. It turns out that it is on lock down and security in the lobby doesn't want to open it to let him in. He argues with them for a while. Even though they know who he is, and that his lab is in the building, they don't want to let him inside. He finally gets frustrated and tells them he has an experiment running in his lab, and if he doesn't shut it down, it is going to explode and destroy the building. As you can probably imagine, they let him into the building.
>Issac – I think you could use both a lesson in Yiddish and one about the history of our Republic.
You don't want to go there Moishe. I grew up in the settlements. I know our history and it's written in my family's blood. What I object to is not your spirited defense of Israel. It's the fact you want to hold our golem to a higher standard. One that will see them destroy themselves, if not us too, in the process.
Issac,
What is so maddening and infinitely frustrating for non-Jews on the alt right is that your understanding of things is in such short supply among the tribe. We should be natural allies, almost indistinguishable (beyond your general verbal IQ advantage).
legateofjudea:
Please bear with me. I want to make sure I understand. You're telling me that some old yentas "didn't want to be near people "filled with rage" against Jews who they thought lived outside the big city."? Is that about it? Aren't you people ashamed to be using this "we've been so oppressed" narrative by now? First of all, the Manhattan Project WAS moved, wasn't it? All the uranium WAS moved and many of these jewish scientists (and non-jewish scientists) did move outside New York City, didn't they? And didn't the "Manhattan Project" become the code name assigned to the atomic bomb project that was originally named the Manhattan Engineer District because that is where the Army Corps of Engineers had its North Atlantic Division? And the Army Corps of Engineers had the best and the brightest from West Point. So, you said that ""It is widely known that many of the Manhattan project scientists were Jewish. That is why it was in Manhattan." Hmm, I'm pretty sure it wasn't in Manhattan because of jewish project scientists. I think it was because of Columbia University, some of the scientists associated with Columbia University, because of General Groves' use of the North Atlantic Division of the Army Corp of Engineers, and also because of Edgar Sengier, a Belgian with an office in New York, who had his company mine about 1,200 tons of high-grade uranium ore and store it on Staten Island. Plus, we see that by the late summer of 1943, little more than a year after its establishment, the headquarters of the Manhattan Project moved to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, don't we? So, your statements that the Manhattan Project was in New York City because of jewish scientists and that they had some obnoxious wives which forced them to stay there seem to be demonstratively false. Your relatives not withstanding.
Issac – I'm not following what you are saying. Audacious Epigone seems to understand, so let me try again. I expressed support for the Republican immigration plan. I am in agreement with the optimism the President is expressing about his ability to execute that plan, and what it will mean for the country. Are you saying the Republican plan is incorrect, the President's optimism about the results of his implementation of the plan is incorrect, or did you misunderstand my position? My Israeli example was meant to illustrate what I thought would happen with people who legally came here from different cultures over a generation or two.
Audacious Epigone – I think Jews are voting primarily in line with the areas they live in. NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami are overwhelmingly Democratic voting cities. I have noticed a pattern of people moving outside of the NYC bubble to uptown New York, to rural New Jersey, to retirement areas of Florida. You don't see the other side as much when you live in the big city and everyone you know is a Democrat that reads the New York Times.
James:
>> You're telling me that some old Yentas "didn't want to be near people "filled with rage" against Jews who >> they thought lived outside the big city."?
They weren't old Yentas, certainly not at the time. They were young first generation Yiddish speaking immigrants who fled religious persecution.
>> Aren't you people ashamed to be using this "we've been so oppressed" narrative by now?
I don't feel like I'm a victim. However, I was born in this country and my life has been very good. People have been kind to me. This country has given me great opportunity. I personally feel an obligation to give back to it. However, I don't think it was surprising that some of my relatives felt the way they did in the 1940s. They really were persecuted in Europe, and coming to this country saved their lives. Many of them remained fearful for many years and decades after arriving here. It was a very different world and time. I don't think how they felt was surprising.
>> So, your statements that the Manhattan Project was in New York City because of jewish scientists and
>> … seem to be demonstratively false … Plus, we see that by the late summer of 1943, little more
>> … than a year after its establishment, the headquarters of the Manhattan Project moved to
>> … Oak Ridge, Tennessee, don't we?
The projects first headquarters was in Manhattan, it only moved to Oak Ridge after the first nuclear chain reaction had been demonstrated and a large amount of Uranium needed to be produced. They needed to build a manufacturing city, and the land in Oakridge was cheap. The theoretical work to create a nuclear chain reaction never occurred in Oakridge. There was still theoretical work taking place at Columbia University until at least the 1960s, and probably later, though the focus had shifted to the Cold War.
legate- You wrote a plain-as-day defense of mestizo immigration which we both know is far too large for assimilation, and that's before we admit that it never happens at scale anyway. Assimilation is when 10 mestizos move to New Hampshire and in three generations their grandchildren are 75% Anglo or whatever the local ethnic is. Mizrahim are our close cousins compared to the Americans and Mestizos. I called you to account for that. Don't play dumb and resurrect the tiresome argument about legal status. We both know that legal status doesn't stop these people from birthing citizen children in America. We both know we wouldn't stand for that in Israel.
AE- I wouldn't go so far as to suggest we should be natural allies, but Jews need liberal whites (and vice-versa, I think, but I don't want to start a flame war here), preferably Americans since we've got a millennia of baggage in Europe, and it's clear to me that immigration is going to ruin that. I don't want to be ruined.
Issac,
Non-Jewish American whites don't need Jews, but their ability to enhance so much is indisputable. We need to figure out how to show them that there is plenty of room for common cause here, and that we need not be perceived as their enemies.
Audacious Epigone – I don't know any American Jews that perceived whites as their enemies. Almost all Ashkenazi Jews perceive themselves as white. GenetIcally, as a group we derive about 80% of our genes from Europe. Most places in Europe I visit, people can't tell I'm not a local until I start to speak.
I certainly knew a few American Jews that few that felt Republicans were their enemy. However, that view is unfortunately becoming more common among Republicans and Democrats. I have been spending an increasing amount of time trying to calm people down.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/genes-most-ashkenazi-jews-trace-back-indigenous-europe-not-middle-east-259321