In this thread we will be considering an extraordinarily candid paper by Stephen Steinlight. Throughout I will refrain from commentary and simply reproduce quotations. I will quote tweet some of these for telegram viewers.
1. Here is go. On page 1 Steinlight calls on the Jewish community to cast aside political correctness to discuss immigration. But why? The quiet part is out loud.
2. Steinlight appeals to the self-interest of his fellow in-group to maintain their “present privilege, success, and power.”
3. He now turns to recognise demographic replacement as an issue and says that despite the official position of organised Jewish groups, privately many Jews are “terrified” of this prospect, but why? We will read on.
4. Before making his argument he stresses that white anti-immigration groups “must not be permitted to play a prominent role” in the debate.
5. Now we get to the only question that matters to this author, and why his readers should care about mass immigration from Mexico.
6. Steinlight worries that the newcomers won’t be as accommodating of his group as legacy Americans are, that Vatican II teachings haven’t reached Latino communities, that they lack familiarity with the Holocaust.
7. Muslims are a particular problem area for Steinlight, more on this later.
8. Now he identifies constitutional democracy and “pluralism” under threat from these new immigrants, as “the chief bulwark protecting America’s Jews.”
9. In an astonishing passage, Steinlight admits that, in 2001, American Jews were at the “high noon” of their political power. He sees Western decline as inevitable after this which is a systematic feature of their thinking: that the fate of the west is tied to their fate.
10. After lamenting the “identity politics” of other groups on page 1, here on page 6 Steinlight laments the decline of a Jewish identity among young Jews and “cheaply exploitative cinematic treatments of the Holocaust.”
11. In another passage of breathtaking candidness, Steinlight says that Jews hold “disproportionate political power” afforded by “great material wealth”.
12. What does that money and influence buy? “Candidates sympathetic to Israel, high church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with selective conservatism”.
13. He worries about the tightly cohesive Jewish vote being overwhelmed by Latinos, but in the short term the principle of the organised minority should hold firm against the disorganised mass of immigrants (elite theory in practice)
14. In surely one of the most jaw-droppingly mask-off and nakedly Machiavellian passages ever written, Steinlight says in the short term the organised Jewish community can “play divide and conquer” with immigrant groups and enter into “selective coalitions”.
15. Steinlight laments the fact that “astoundingly disproportionate” Jewish legislative representation and that 80 percent of the foreign aid budget might not go to Israel.
16. Here Steinlight gives an insight into his own upbringing, which includes being taught “Jewish superiority” to Gentile outsiders.
17. Steinlight confesses to a divided loyalty which was openly encouraged in his upbringing.
18. And now he just comes right out and says it.
19. Did you know an Israeli teenage was permitted, quite literally, to get away with murdering a Latino girl in Maryland? No, me neither.
20. Muslim immigration is especially a problem for Steinlight because of their anti-Zionism.
21. Steinlight laments the fact that Islam hasn’t had its version of Vatican II or “liberal Protestant churches”
22. Now he proposes a “five-fold” Jewish strategy on the Muslim issue. It strikes me that much of this was actually done in the 2000s.
23. Finally, at the end of one of the most jaw-dropping articles I’ve ever read, he backs his friends at MTV to win over the Muslim youth from the mullahs.
24. All I will say is that, aside from all the other remarkable things in that article, is the utter disregard for white Americans whose sole role is to be docile “good” Christians post-Vatican II / from liberal baptist churches. He talks a lot about self-awareness ironically.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hoppe starts his letter by framing it as a "break up".
He then accuses Block (as well as Randians) of "collectivism" over the issue of Israel. He points out (interesting) that Netanyahu himself endorsed Block's "classic liberal case" for Israel.
In this thread I will recommend 20 books that will help you on your political journey to celebrate 20k followers. Before starting, goes without saying you should read these two by yours truly. Let us begin!
1. Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind (2012)
Book that changed the way I saw everything. Even inspired another book of mine (Shakespeare’s Moral Compass, which Haidt himself praises on the back).
Much of my anti-theorycel orientation is owed to this understanding of humans.
2. Peter Hitchens, The Abolition of Britain (1999)
Should be a foundational book for any British dissident. Many details on how elites have carefully conspired for decades to manage public perception and manufacture consensus when majority opinion has always been against them.
WWYD: The Queen's Cup IV. Group Matches: Round 1. Window = 12 hours or 2,100 votes.
After almost upsetting former Commissioner Bellucci in WWYD4, Deschanel has been talked up as a favourite; Dormer crashed out of WWYD4 in Round 1.
Both looking to stamp themselves on the cup!
Why don't you sit right down and stay a while?
We like the same things and I like your style
It's not a secret, why do you keep it?
I'm just sitting on the shelf
Weisz had a very disappointing WWY4 crashing out in Round 1 to Cybill Shepherd, she's up against WWYD veteran Claudia Cardinale who'll be looking to work her way back up the rankings.
WWY3 will take place some time after Xmas. Between now and then, 64 stars must be previewed. In this thread, all of them will be analysed by Alan Hansen with Mark Lawrenson offering predictions for their final placing. The first 8 will be posted shortly at 10-20-minute intervals.
There are two basic archetypal forms each of which have three sub-forms for a total of 12 female archetypal sub-forms.
A thread 👇
1. The two basic forms of woman are angel and devil. This was recognised by most traditions as well as by Classic Anglo-Feminism in a reconstructive mode. However each of the basic forms comes in two sub-forms and a third “dark masculine” form…
2. The two sub-types of angel are essentially “otherworldly ethereal beauty” and “girl next door”. Many super models are of the first type, more like a platonic form, unattainable, more like an idea. The girl next door is by contrast lives in the real world, she’s “approachable.”
The Queen's Cup II: Semi-Finals. Voting window 6 hours. Final follows tonight.
French 60s icon Deneuve will be dreaming of a showdown with Bardot in the final after overcome Moore, but she's up against 80s icon Shields who demolished Fisher.
Beauty is timeless.
Following the dramatic draw between Bellucci and Richards in the last round, Brigitte Bardot receives an automatic BYE to the final.