Are You A Bad Person If You Want Your Country Free Of Certain People?

Many of my Jewish friends would like the West to be free of Muslims, blacks and mestizo Mexicans. I am sure Muslims and many non-Jews in the world would like their lands free of Jews. I am sure that most Israelis wish that Palestinians would simply disappear and that Palestinians wish Jews would disappear from the Middle East.

I am not shocked and appalled by these sentiments. Different groups have different interests and these interests often clash violently.

I was just reading a Jewish historian write in the Washington Post:

The late Father Stanislaw Musial, a Polish Jesuit scholar, noted in the wake of the revelations about the mass slaughter of the Jews of Jedwabne that during the German occupation, many Poles believed that Poland had two enemies: an external one — the Germans — and an internal one — the Jews. He also believed that it was only due to Hitler’s unremitting contempt for the Poles that the Germans did not consciously seek collaboration on a national level. In other words, there was no inherent contradiction between Polish patriotism and participation in the plan to bring about a Poland free of Jews. Comey claims that “good people helped murder millions.” People who murder, rape and steal certainly cannot ever be called “good,” not even figuratively.

The modern state of Israel required murder, killing and stealing and many people regard the founders of Israel as heroic.

I take genocidal hatred for granted. It’s a normal part of the human condition. It is as present in Jews as non-Jews. It is not something weirdly confined to Germans or Poles or Muslims.

Posted in Anti-Semitism | Comments Off on Are You A Bad Person If You Want Your Country Free Of Certain People?

Anti-Goyim Bigotry

The hate that dare not speak its name.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* The press has a pattern of focusing on white crimes (UVA) while ignoring others, and of always taking the ani-white side in disputes (Duke Lacross, Ferguson.) This has the effect of demonizing white men. It’s not just that it paints a false picture of reality, it’s that it teaches people that it’s good and noble to criticize whites in an unfair manner. We see the results of this everywhere.

We can’t fight against this kind of anti-white bigotry unless we recognize it and name it, over and over again. Until the overarching pattern is documented, clear and undeniable.

Steve has the point that the left’s ideology is fringe vs core. But in practice, “fringe vs core” takes the form of anti-white bigotry. I imagine the typical journalist doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking to group libel whites, it’s more like they want to avoid “punching down” on a “vulnerable powerless minority.” But it is still functionally equivalent to anti-white bigotry, even if it’s not what they are consciously aiming for, even if they don’t realize they’re doing it. And it’s what we need to fight against.

And by doing so we can fight anti-core, anti-majority sentiment at the same time. We say anti-white bigotry is wrong at the same time we say anti-majority sentiment is wrong. Majorities have the right to be proud of their heritage, meaning whites have a right to be proud of their heritage. That majorities have a right to a home and to pass it onto their children, meaning whites have a right to a home and to pass it onto their children. The general principle is enhanced by its prime example, they fit together hand in glove.

* Why are jewish writers so obsessed with the misdeeds of white gentiles? They’re obsessed with chronicling, amplifying and broadcasting them. What gives? Weird.

* Is this really a thing: sleeping with men without having sex with them? Wasn’t “sleep with” a standard euphemism for “have sex with”? It seems like when I read about the campus rape crisis these days I keep hearing stories about some girl who sleeps with a guy but is shocked, shocked when he tries to have sex with her.

Posted in Jews, Whites | Comments Off on Anti-Goyim Bigotry

The Human Biodiversity Synthesis

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes: A synthesis has been forming in the field of human biodiversity. It may be summarized as follows:

1. Human evolution did not end in the Pleistocene or even slow down. In fact, it speeded up with the advent of agriculture 10,000 years ago, when the pace of genetic change rose over a hundred-fold. Humans were no longer adapting to relatively static natural environments but rather to faster-changing cultural environments of their own making. Our ancestors thus directed their own evolution. They created new ways of life, which in turn influenced who would survive and who wouldn’t.

2. When life or death depends on your ability to follow a certain way of life, you are necessarily being selected for certain heritable characteristics. Some of these are dietary—an ability to digest milk or certain foods. Others, however, are mental and behavioral, things like aptitudes, personality type, and behavioral predispositions. This is because a way of life involves thinking and behaving in specific ways. Keep in mind, too, that most mental and behavioral traits have moderate to high heritability.

3. This gene-culture co-evolution began when humans had already spread over the whole world, from the equator to the arctic. So it followed trajectories that differed from one geographic population to another. Even when these populations had to adapt to similar ways of life, they may have done so differently, thus opening up (or closing off) different possibilities for further gene-culture co-evolution. Therefore, on theoretical grounds alone, human populations should differ in the genetic adaptations they have acquired. The differences should generally be small and statistical, being noticeable only when one compares large numbers of individuals. Nonetheless, even small differences, when added up over many individuals and many generations, can greatly influence the way a society grows and develops.

4. Humans have thus altered their environment via culture, and this man-made environment has altered humans via natural selection. This is probably the farthest we can go in formulating a unified theory of human biodiversity. For Gregory Clark, the key factor was the rise of settled, pacified societies, where people could get ahead through work and trade, rather than through violence and plunder. For Henry Harpending and Greg Cochran, it was the advent of agriculture and, later, civilization. For J. Philippe Rushton and Ed Miller, it was the entry of humans into cold northern environments, which increased selection for more parental investment, slower life history, and higher cognitive performance. Each of these authors has identified part of the big picture, but the picture itself is too big to reduce to a single factor.

Posted in Race | Comments Off on The Human Biodiversity Synthesis

Black Murderers Matter

Dennis Prager writes: The “Black Lives Matter” campaign is based on as big a lie as the “campus rape culture” lie, the Rolling Stone magazine gang rape at the University of Virginia fraternity lie, the gang rape by the Duke University lacrosse team lie, the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Ferguson lie, and all the other lies that animate leftist hysterias. Building hysterias based on falsehoods is a primary modus operandi on the left. One can even say that without hysteria there is no Left. First a lie or exaggeration is manufactured. Then it is repeated over and over by the mainstream media and myriad left-wing groups; academics hold conferences and write thoughtful-sounding op-ed pieces about the fake issue; meanwhile activists on its behalf demonstrate, taking over public buildings and highways, sometimes violently.

The latest left-wing hysteria is “Black Lives Matter,” based on the lie that black lives don’t matter because white police kill blacks wantonly. Two weeks ago the cover of Time featured the words “Black Lives Matter” in stark white letters on a black background. The cover also featured photos of what appears to be the morally inexcusable fatal police shooting of Walter Scott, a black man, as he ran away from a routine police stop. Credit the Left with never giving up. In North Charleston, South Carolina, the Left finally found its seemingly perfect example of a wholly unjustified police killing of a black man. Hence the Time cover.

The problem with the mantra and the hysteria is not that no blacks are ever killed unjustifiably by police. The problem is that it is so rare as to constitute a libel. In 2013, of America’s 6,261 black homicide victims, more than 6,000 of them — 97 percent — were killed by people other than police. About 3 percent of black homicide victims were killed by police. And of that 3 percent, nearly every one was armed and dangerous. To label that an epidemic of police racism is a libel. In addition, more than nine out of every ten blacks murdered were murdered by another black person. Now that is an epidemic — an epidemic of black murderers. (In response, it is pointed out that about 83 percent of whites are murdered by whites. But there is no equivalency here. Blacks murder at nearly eight times the rate whites do — 34.4 per 100,000 versus 4.5 per 100,000.)

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on Black Murderers Matter

Nazism As A Reaction To Anti-Racism

Anthropologist Peter Frost writes: [Frans] Boas didn’t really change his mind on race until the 1930s. The cause is not hard to pinpoint. When he died in 1942, an obituary mentioned his alarm over the threat of Nazism:

Dr. Boas, who had studied and written widely in all fields of anthropology devoted most of his researches during the past few years to the study of the “race question,” especially so after the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Discussing his efforts to disprove what he called “this Nordic nonsense,” Prof. Boas said upon his retirement from teaching in 1936 that “with the present condition of the world, I consider the race question a most important one. I will try to clean up some of the nonsense that is being spread about race those days. I think the question is particularly important for this country, too; as here also people are going crazy.” (JTA, 1942)

Hitler’s rise to power created a sense of urgency among many academics, both Jewish and non-Jewish, thereby convincing fence-sitters like Franz Boas to put aside their doubts and take a more aggressive stand on race. Thus began the war on racism, which foreshadowed the coming world conflict. -30-

* Three quotes by Hitler:

You know, it is really unbelievable that it was possible to preach this insanity of internationalism to millions of people and people believed in this idea; incredible that the Jew who has been in our midst for thousands of years and yet remained a Jew, has managed to persuade millions of us that race is completely unimportant, and yet for him race is all-important. What would that really mean,—that race does not matter? That would mean that if today I was to remove the Germans from here and take them to Central Africa and brought the Negro here, things would look the same as if the Germans were here.—Adolf Hitler, 1927

First, a people has intrinsic value in its race. That is the primal value. A people that has the best blood but does not understand it, squandering it, receives no protection from its intrinsic value. And the purity of blood means nothing if the nation can be persuaded of the absurdity that its blood is worthless. Such a deepest value can be present, but not recognized. Individual people today are placed in large groups that no longer enable them to see this value. To the contrary, their program almost claims that there is no value in blood. They see race as completely insignificant.—Adolf Hitler, 1927

It is maintained, in a general sense, that peoples have no innate values; rather, at most, there may be manifestations of temporary differences as a result of education; but there is no essential difference in value between Negroes, Arians, Mongolians, and Redskins. This view, which constitutes the basis of our entire international body of thought today, is so far-reaching in its consequences that ultimately a Negro will be able to preside at the sessions of the League of Nations.—Adolf Hitler, 1932


* Hitler seemed to think the anti-racist falsehood of the unimportance of race was extant in 1927. One might say that Nazism was partly a reaction to, and caused by, anti-racism. Nazi anti-semitism likewise to the (percieved) Jewish role in anti-racism.

Furthermore, being against slavery and the maltreatment of other races no more inevitably leads to it being considered a sin to think Whites are more intelligent than Blacks, than being against the maltreatment of animals inevitably leads to it being considered a sin to think men are more intelligent than pigs.

* The League of Nations after WW1 for example refused to include a racial equality clause in its principles. And all the major powers back in the day held to and defended racist policies, including the United States, and Japan. International anti-racist initiatives were heavily monitored, infiltrated, undermined and stifled by those powers. See stymied initiatives of WEB Dubois, and various other African colonial activists.

Even the Soviet Union, while paying lip service to the “brotherhood of proletarian peoples” was racist, and only tolerated blacks as long as they could be used as a propaganda handle to expose the hypocritical democracy of the capitalists. See the book Black on Red: My 44 Years Inside the Soviet Union by black machinist Robert Robinson, who went to Russia to help set up machine tooling and training during the 1930s and got trapped there. The regime benefited from his technical expertise and he quickly became a symbol of minorities oppressed by the capitalists when 2 white American workers assaulted him. But once political turmoil and purges made foreign experts suspect and WW2 started, the regime got his US passport. His propaganda usefulness faded and he endured daily racism. This same pattern of racism continued into the 1960s as African students to “fraternal universities” found out, and with the end of the Soviet Union, white Russian racism is alive and well, and notorious.

Time and time again prior to WW2 Communist party operatives tried to recruit US blacks alongside white workers and failed to gain widespread traction over the race issue, despite antiracist agitation. Time and time again internationalist projects on racism turned out to be little noticed conferences, or just lip service- additional propaganda levers deployed in the interests of the Kremlin, though within NATIONAL minority communities some genuine leaders and groups emerged- the Pan Africanists for example, but they had trivial impact. In short, internationalist anti-racism was a shaky or minor force during Hitler’s rise to power.

Interestingly enough, during WW2, German propaganda attacked the US for hypocritical democracy, based on its treatment of blacks. Below is the text of a German propaganda leaflet addressed to blacks.

are created free and equal
Yes, that is what the declaration of Independence says.
Well, it’s just Ballyhoo, always was. The white bosses want your peace-loving, hard-working colored boys just as
In World War I they promised your father’s racial equality as a reward for fighting the war.
What did they get? What did you get?
The lousiest jobs.
The lousiest flats.
The lousiest pay.
The lousiest chances.
Poverty, Unemployment, Race, Riots, Lynching, Hanging and Burning!
The general contempt of all Whites in the U.S.A.
(–When Jim Crow met John Bull: Black American soldiers in World War II Britain, by Graham Smith)

When it suited them, the Nazis could play the “antiracism” card pretty well. The overall thrust of many such messages is that the United States is hypocritical in complaining about Nazi treatment of the Jews, given what it does to American Blacks.

* I would say that Germany had a mix of views. Certainly one can find the hard core racists and anti-Semites, some a mix in the middle, but Germany also had a distinct liberal tradition. The relentless Soviet propaganda assaults against all Western democracies from the end of WW1 did not bode well for that liberal tradition, admittedly, nor did the threat from the right. See for example Liberalism in Germany by Dieter Langewiesche 2000. An exclusive “German” position on these matters may be stereotyped extremes. It may be possible that Boas and his followers traded at times in some unfair stereotyping

And everybody beats up on Germany for racism, often justifiable so. But much less known is how racist Russians are, and have been since Soviet times. Brutal suppression of Crimean Tartars, Uzbeks, Chechens and Ingush never got, and still don’t get much press from the “politically correct” set. Why haven’t they jumped on this, rather than perennially bashing Germans? Could it be that certain forces want an eternal German whipping boy? I am not forgetting a horrible German history but where are the legions of anti-racist indignation when the scene moves further East? This racism continues unbroken since the fall of the Kremlin bosses. Behavior is much more civilized in Nordic Germany these days on may counts. People may not like you but they are relatively polite and decent. No so further east on many counts. See for example how one American reporter learned the hard way.

* Q: Why is “diversity” and “multiculturalism” demanded in All white populations & Only white populations?

A: Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.

Q: Why don’t Self-Proclaimed “anti-racists” attack the “racist” immigration and social policies of, say, Japan? Korea? Mexico?

A: Anti-racist is a Codeword for Anti-White

* “The [French] FN has many Jewish members, including the well known writer and essayist Eric Zemmour. There are very few neo-nazis nowadays, in the FN or anywhere else. That term — like the term “racist” — is now used to assault and intimidate people whose only crime is to be opposed to levels of immigration that amount to population replacement.”

* I live in LA and believe me, whites are marginalized in the extreme.
UCLA is a particular cesspool of anti-white Marxist / Zionist racism.
The city government is just sucking the public tit dry and constantly raising taxes and building trains to nowhere.

It’s just too risky to even drive through some neighorhoods. Mexicans, forever imitating blacks, have become savage. Or were they always that way?

Of course the movie stars and the limousine leftists all segregate themselves in secure areas far away from blacks & Mexicans. You won’t see George Clooney hanging in the ‘hood’.

* “To a non-white person, the 20th century “anti-racism” was first and last a struggle for dignity, a struggle to gain the right not to be judged as deficient in mental abilities, character, and agency, purely on the basis of physical appearance. It was (emphatically) not meant to be a pet project for idle left-wing activists…”

In reality, the “struggle for dignity” was a struggle for power. Which is why it didn’t stop when the “struggle for dignity” was won; victory in the “struggle for dignity,” in fact, was taken as a sign of weakness in their enemies, and thus a signal that it was time to pile on.

If a country fights a “defensive war,” then goes on to occupy the enemy country for generations (while decrying the very idea of an end to the occupation as villainy), then obviously no one’s going to buy the “defensive war” thing. Everyone will realize the “defensive war” thing was just a pose, a way to characterize the war as “just” and mobilize its own population.

Non-whites behave like sociopathic grifters who have found a target with a vulnerability to exploit – because they are sociopathic grifters, at least in this context.

* A libertarian society cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a certain behavioral foundation. Otherwise, it will liquidate itself; it will revert to a kind of society where kinship and physical force are the main organizing principles.

No human society has ever been fully libertarian, but Northwest Europeans have come the closest to that ideal. They have a long history of weaker kinship and, conversely, greater individualism that goes back to at least the 12th century and probably earlier. As a result, they have been able to create larger, freer, and more open societies, which in turn have made possible the market economy. Markets, in themselves, are nothing new. People have known them since prehistory, but the market mechanism could produce its benefits only within small points of space and time, i.e., marketplaces. It was only with the creation of freer, more open societies that markets could expand beyond the confines of the marketplace and eventually encompass most economic transactions.

But freer, more open societies cannot exist in a vacuum. They require certain behavioral adaptions. For one thing, kin-based morality is no longer sufficient to enforce social rules, since the threat of kin retaliation is no longer sufficient. There has thus been a shift from kin-based morality to universal morality, and this shift has been accompanied by a greater willingness to identify and enforce the rules of universal morality. A related adaptation is a greater capacity for feelings of guilt and empathy. Finally, there is a greater willingness to exclude, punish, and even kill people who break social rules and are judged to be morally worthless.

This is the foundation of a libertarian society, or rather the most libertarian society that humans have evolved. If you allow that foundation to disappear, libertarianism will disappear too.

…But now things are trending in the opposite direction. I saw this when I was a student in Russia. There, libertarianism meant that much of the population was free to engage in self-destructive behavior: alcoholism, sexual amorality, and a disastrously low fertility rate. Today, Russians are moving away from the libertarian model. They have no choice. It’s either that or collective suicide. The same trend is starting to happen elsewhere. Our model of extreme libertarianism, which doesn’t work very well for ourselves, is proving to be disastrous for most societies on this planet.

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Communism, Germany, Nazi, Race | Comments Off on Nazism As A Reaction To Anti-Racism

Illegals Will Never Make Australia Home

Steve Sailer writes: The statespersons of Europe seem baffled over what to do to prevent a large fraction of the 1.1 billion people of Africa from climbing into boats and inundating the heart of Christendom.

One possibility, however, is to do what the Australian government has done with a fair degree of success: post a video on Youtube telling would be Camp of Saintsers that they won’t be let into Australia, so don’t bother trying.

It’s so crazy it just seems to be working!

Posted in Australia | Comments Off on Illegals Will Never Make Australia Home

DailyMail: Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED


Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED: World’s top Holocaust deniers… filmed at secret race hate rally where Jews are referred to as the ‘enemy’
Shocking rally seen by undercover team at Grosvenor Hotel saw several speakers unleash sick anti-Semitic rants
Comes as UK marks largest ever Holocaust remembrance event tomorrow, 70 years after Bergen-Belsen liberation
Nazi sympathisers at meeting laughed at Charlie Hebdo massacre and cheered at the mention of Spanish Fascists
Star speaker at rally was self-confessed Nazi Pedro Varela, 57, whose adoration for Adolf Hitler is unrivalled

Wow, this is truly shocking. There was a gathering in London of a group of people whose interests are at odds with the interests of other groups, including Jews. This is the worst thing ever. Nobody should be allowed to question conventional historical narratives. How dare they? The Holocaust belongs to the Jews. Non-Jewish critics of Jews must be crushed.

“Nazi sympathisers, Holocaust deniers and their supporters from across the world have held a sickening secret rally in Britain at which speakers unleashed anti-Semitic rants, referring to Jews as ‘the enemy’ and ‘children of darkness’.”

Well, Jews have enemies and Jews use negative language about their enemies, so what is so shocking that this group regards Jews as their enemy?

In my morning Jewish prayers, there’s a special mention of how rotten Amalek is, and “Amalek” can function flexibly in Jewish life to refer to anyone we don’t like, such as Nazis and Palestinians.

As I wrote recently: Every nationalism contains a victimology and every victimology a nationalism.

From the RCA Artscroll Siddur (Jewish prayer book): The Torah commands that six events be remembered always. Consequently, some authorities maintain that the verses containing these commandments should be recited daily. #3 REMEMBRANCE OF AMALEK’S ATTACK (Deuteronomy 25:17-19): “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way, as you departed from Egypt, How he encountered you on the way and cut down the weaklings trailing behind you, while you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear God. It shall be that when HaShem, your God, lets you rest from your surrounding enemies, in the land that HaShem, your God, gives you as a heritage to bequeath; you are to erase the memory of Amalek from beneath the heaven. Do not forget.”

When Jewish groups campaign for laws against hate speech, is banning this sort of thing what they have in mind?

How is wishing the complete erasure of a group of people not a call for genocide? Why stir up hatred against a people for something their ancestors did?

I put “Amalek Palestinians” into Google and got 42,000 results. “Amalek” is a flexible term that Jews can use on their enemies.

I have no problem with this. I have no objection to Judaism. I have no objection to Jewish texts that say negative things about Jews and non-Jews. I have no objection to Judaism commanding us to wish every day to wipe out Amalek. My objection is when Jewish groups campaign to ban racial and religious vilification but never consider applying these rules to their own group. This is why I started Jews for Consistency, a group dedicated to monitoring Jewish groups to make sure they never seek for non-Jews anything different from what they seek for themselves.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Holocaust | Comments Off on DailyMail: Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED

The Demographics Of Publishing


* I covered book publishing for more than 15 years as a reporter, up till the early 2000s, and during that time it was my impression that the editorial side of the business was about 3/4 female, and that many if not most of the men were gay. (It’s a very unappealing field for a straight white male to get involved in.)

And sure, IMHO at least, that fact definitely affects the kinds of books that get published. If boys are reading books less than they once did, that’s at least partly because books (especially fiction) have become a lot less alluring and entertaining (in a boy sense) than they used to be.

Another thing to recall: book-publishing gals don’t tend to be earthy, showbizzy, rock and roll, or motherly types. They’re English-major types, generally. Recall the smartest girls from your college Lit class — that’s the kind of person the book publishing industry is largely staffed by. In another era we wouldn’t have been shy about referring to many of them as librarian or even blue-stocking types. Not the sorts of people whose work is likely to attract the attention of a lot of irreverent, rowdy boys.

* Back in the 90′s, some national organization of bookstores estimated that blacks, who were thirteen percent of the population, were buying one percent of the books sold in the country. Of course, they were lamenting that fact, and blaming whitey for it. But I doubt if that percentage has changed much at all, because the simple fact is that the vast majority of blacks have zero interest in reading. And the books they do buy tend to be trash, and I’m not talking about Toni Morrison or Maya Angelou level hogwash. I’m talking about stuff like Baby Momma Drama and Confessions of a Side Bitch.

* This seems way off to me. Pop publishing for black audiences is a major niche market — go to any Barnes and Nobles in the Northeast or an area with a significant black population and you will see lots and lots of books on the shelves by black authors for black audiences. Black romance (some of which is effectively soft core porn) is a huge genre, so is self-help and religious/christian. Black editors must play a major role in this business.

At the fancier/more literary level, blacks have done pretty well in the major literary award/prestige sweepstakes — James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison back in the day, Toni Morrison today (whatever you think of her she has been very successful in those circles), lots of respected mid-range authors like James Ellroy (genre), Colson Whitehead (literary) etc. When you consider that blacks are just 12% of the population they seem if anything overrepresented in literature at lots of different levels. As they are in many of the creative/performance fields.

* There’s nothing special about books. Many people are prone to get sentimental and/or pompous about “the book,” but in reality “the book” is just a container for content of one sort or another. Books don’t automatically mean wisdom, seriousness, significance or permanence, let alone immortality — most books that are made wind up getting pulped (as in not-sold, and then chewed up by giant machines). Many are dopily commercial, many are padded-out magazine articles or short stories, the fact-checking in many nonfiction books is worse than the fact-checking is (or at least was) at magazines … The idea that the book industry of the past did a lot of responsible caretaking of the culture is a myth. Some publishers and editors did, but a lot of them were pirates, opportunists and bandits.

And now that we have digital electronics, publishing material in book form often doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are often more appealing options. Reference works benefit from constant updating, multimedia and hyperlinks; there are many statements that are better made at shorter rather than longer length; fiction is easier and often more appealing to digest when it’s acted-out and made visual; blogging and social-networking technologies make getting ideas, jokes and observations out in public a lot faster and easier than ever before. Think about the quality, the brains, the quickness and the humor that we Steve fans get from Steve on a near-daily basis, for instance. Those are huge virtues that no book or book-publisher can match. And electronics have enabled lots of people who couldn’t get published before to join in the general cultural conversation. That’s made the conversation a lot richer than it used to be.

What mainly strikes me these days when I prowl a bookstore handling new books is the question, “Did this really need to be a book?” And I’m often struck by the impression that the editors, agents and authors wrestled with that question too. (If you’ve been in and around book publishing, you experience bookstores very differently than civilians do — you see the books, and understand the books, as so many publishing decisions.) Often the answer seems to me to be “No.” A substantial book might take me ten or fifteen hours to read. How many subjects do I really have that much interest in? Very few. Meanwhile, the number of subjects I’ve got a couple of minutes’ or a couple of hours’ worth of interest in is gigantic.

Focusing on “the book” per se often seems to me to be as misguided as focusing on the ad campaign instead of the movie, or focusing on the can instead of the food inside. The important thing is the material, not the packaging.

I say all this as someone who was a bookish kid and who still enjoys book-reading a lot, by the way. 15 years in and around the book biz will burn a lot of illusions off a person, though.

I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that the business is antagonistic to straight guys, though. An ambitious, dynamic, talented male youngster could make a big impact. That said, if that youngster were in many visible ways un (or anti)-PC I think he’d have a very hard time. (There always seem to be some slots for contrarians, though.) What’s happened is a more general, self-reinforcing thing: as the business of book publishing has become more corporate and more female, it’s become more bland and more worthy. And as that has happened (and as other technologies and media have proliferated), boys have lost interest in books and turned their energies and enthusiasms to other fields. I mean: Is the elementary-school world anti-male? I imagine a straight guy could land a job as an elementary school teacher if he really wanted to. But in practical fact there aren’t many straight guys who want to, because, hey, what’s really in it for them?

Nope, there are very few black people in the mainstream publishing business. That’s just a fact of life, and the business subjects itself to regular throes of self-flagellation about it. And reading and writing just aren’t the factors in black life that they are in (say) Jewish life or educated-Brit life. But that certainly doesn’t mean there are no black readers or writers. And black publishing, writing and reading are really interesting topics anyway — I did a lot of reporting about it over the years. There used to be a fairly large number of black bookstores as well as small publishers publishing black writers and catering to black readers. That’s less the case these days — as with book publishing and selling generally, many stores and publishers have closed up shop. As for mainstream publishing, every now and then some phenom (like Terry McMillan) will come along, sell like mad, cause a huge fuss at bookstores and leave publishers thinking, “Good lord, so there *is* a market for black-oriented books after all!” (I liked Terry McMillan’s early novels a lot, fwiw.) But then it all disappears to virtually nothing until the next phenom comes along. But as you point out, there are fairly lively subgenres (erotica, romance, etc) that do cater to black people. But generally speaking black people don’t read or write books (or get involved in the book publishing biz) in anything like the numbers that some other populations do. They’ve got their own verbal traditions: preaching, rap, storytelling, standup, playing the dozens, etc.

* The short version is that everything that is natural for a boy to do is wrong, nonconformist or violent. It seems a short step to me that the same gender that creates its own paper superiority (at who knows what innovation sacrifice) would be similarly bigoted in making decisions regarding what to publish. However, I am acclimatizing to the third world.
Fifteen years ago I remember resolving not to help a choking baby or girl so no angry crowd would mistake me for a pervert. Now when I talk to my age group, we want to survive, we want to not feel this way about our country, but we clearly are looking at keeping quiet in word and deed as a necessary survival strategy. Is whatever we have to offer our country in terms of really applying ourselves (as opposed to dropping out, disconnecting, NEETing and so forth) really worth the undisguised hatred and aggressive violence our country offers to us?

Posted in Books | Comments Off on The Demographics Of Publishing

Australia Tries To Rid Itself Of Persian Illegals

REPORT: Tehran (AFP) – Iran is not willing to accept its nationals being forcibly deported from Australia but will welcome back citizens of their own free will, a top official warned Sunday.

The remarks by deputy foreign minister Hassan Ghashgavi came as Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop visited Tehran but failed to make a breakthrough on a long-running immigration dispute.

Ghashgavi, whose brief covers consular affairs, signalled the two countries are widely at odds and he even launched a thinly veiled dig at foreign states who send people back to their place of origin.

“Any forced deportation is contrary to human rights, but we believe that the voluntary return of every Iranian to his country is not a problem,” the ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.

“All immigration countries make a selection. They welcome those they consider useful to their society… and reject others to be forcib ly deported.”

Iranians make up 23 percent of 1,848 people held in immigration detention centres in Australia, according to official figures from late March.

Under a hardline policy, asylum-seekers arriving by boat in Australia are subject to mandatory detention, and since 2013 have been denied resettlement even if found to be genuine refugees.

Posted in Australia, Persians | Comments Off on Australia Tries To Rid Itself Of Persian Illegals

Gifts Of The Persians

LINK: Zerangi can be both ethical and unethical. Coming to America and starting a successful business? That’s zerangi. Finding a way to avoid paying taxes? Also zerangi.

(Hey, David Brooks, if you are reading this, tell Obama to tell Kerry to make that a priority in the nuke negotiations: full extradition of all Iranians. Iran will send us back all the Iranian crooks who ripped off Americans for us to imprison and America will send Iran back all the Iranian crooks who ripped off Iranians for them to imprison. There will be tumbleweeds blowing in the streets of Beverly Hills.)


* This attitude of cutting corners, breaking the law if one is confident you won’t get caught, believing that cheating is a sign of being smart, etc. is common to many societies, not just Iran (you’ll see it in Latin America, Italy, and many other places).

* One can only hope that Iranians in the U.S. will assimilate but how many groups can a society absorb before people stop buying the narrative and there is no longer any predominate group? If they are surrounded by a native culture (the former blondes) that value trust and honesty, over time they would need to conform or be frozen out of local commerce. If there is chaos and no predominate group, they have no pressure to change.

* Years ago there was a scandal it the Los Angeles city purchasing department. An Iranian immigrant and his American buddy had city credit cards and ran up about 1.5 million in overcharges that were kicked back to them. The Iranian found out about the audit (probably another Iranian immigrant) and fled to Iran. The poor American sap had no place to hide.

* “Zerangi” sounds like “Ferengi”, one of the ET races from Star Trek. Not only do the words sound similar, but the Ferengi are depicted as a savvy mercantile culture:

They and their culture are characterized by a mercantile obsession with profit and trade, and their constant efforts to swindle unwary customers into unfair deals.

They’ve also been criticized as depicting anti-Semitic stereotypes:

* Can anyone with experience discuss the cultural differences between Arabs and Iranians with regards to these things? The Arabs I’ve known have come across as almost hopelessly naive and idealistic, which would explain their attraction to fundamentalist religious movements. At the same time, they’re weirdly dishonest although very bad at it.

* That ain’t unique to Iran, that’s pretty much the entire non-Germanic/Japanese/Anglo world.

* We must appear as fat dumb gullible sheep to the world. Don’t get me started on the Russians!

* The term “oligarch” unfortunately wasn’t known in America in the mid-1970s when the Shah’s friends started buying bolt-holes in the Hollywood Hills for the coming days of retribution for their thievery.

* Zerangi and the popular admiration of those who display it is not unique to Iranians, as the same outlook is found in all Mohammedan societies and in a great many Moslems.

Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, who has extensive experience of counseling Moslems in Denmark, has written a great deal on the mindset, outlook and behavior of Moslems, who hold themselves blameless because they see everyone and everything else as forces arrayed against them and thus causing and responsible for their behavior.

* Google Books has a few more interesting uses of zerangi:

Zerangi then means “cleverness,” being able to deceive others. Whereas in English this immediately conjures negative connotations, in Persian, it is an ability that is admired and aspired to… This leads to a cultural standard of generally not trusting people; yet not mistrusting in a negative sense, but being expectant of zerangi — it is “part of the game”.

The notion of “zerangi” has a convoluted cultural connotation that far exceeds the straightforward meaning of “cleverness.” It implies the presence of a special, desirable intelligence that takes advantage of an immediate situation, with no regard for larger societal considerations, personal convictions, or moral scruples.

As one specialist noted, Iranians often tried to substitute outward cleverness, or zerangi, for the alternative of putting a substantial effort into a task, and “studying it, by blood, sweat, and tears, so to speak.”

* The Iranian writer F.M. Esfandiary back in the 1960′s wrote about how Middle Eastern tribes lie about their wealth and hide it from outsiders. “The Beggar Rich

* Arabs are also notorious conspiracy-mongers, attributing all of their failures to dark forces outside their control. With some exceptions (almost completely correlated to the influence of Christianity, i.e., Lebanese and to a letter extent Syrians and Jordanians), they also shun accountability — this is most visible in places like Qatar, where the people are rich and coddled and don’t have to be accountable to anyone or risk material failure, yet still embody the zerangi mindset.

A related character trait in Arabs, shared by other eastern cultures, is the complete lack of directness and transparency (polar opposite to Germans, Dutch, and Scandanavians). An Arab will not tell you no directly, and will think that being honest and transparent tips his hand too much while he’s angling to screw you.

The upshot, I think, is that the “golden rule,” which so elementally defines Western, and especially Anglo-Saxon, culture, simply doesn’t exist in these societies.

* Everything said about Iranians also probably applies to Indians: the tendency to blame corrupt officials while secretly envying them, foreign invaders, Western powers; the blurred lines between cleverness, ingenuity, and cunning.

Posted in Persians | Comments Off on Gifts Of The Persians