Here you have the great Steve Sailer being interviewed by the great Craig Bodeker.

I really like both of these guys.  They do consistently great work.  People complain they don’t talk enough about Jews, but they are not Jew-deniers, they just tend not to focus on it.  This is fine, in my opinion, as long as they don’t attack those who do talk about Jews.

Anyway, interview is fantastic and definitely one to pass around to your friends who may be unfamiliar with this sort of information or just getting into it.  It is very non-offensive.

Deogolwulf has solved the mystery of why superstar Marxist academic Slavoj Žižek’s famously opaque prose suddenly became so much more lucid when Žižek summarized psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s controversial theories about Jewish influence.

Žižek simply lifted, with only minimal rewording, sizable parts of Stanley Hornbeck’s review in the June 1999 issue of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance of MacDonald’s 1998 book The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.

Deogolwulf observes:

The reason for the cat’s barking, the dog’s meowing, or rather, this obscurant’s lucidity, is simple: it is someone else’s summary, namely, Stanley Hornbeck’s, from a review that appeared in American Renaissance over seven years beforehand.

Much of the plagiarism is word-for-word. Some passages are lightly rephrased.

At his With Endemanndom blog, Deogolwulf compares side by side passages from Žižek’s 2006 essay in Critical Inquiry with Hornbeck’s 1999 review in American Renaissance.

To take one example out of eight, Žižek wrote in 2006:

One of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity—but only for others. Ever since the nineteenth century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.

Hornbeck wrote in 1999:

Prof. MacDonald claims that one of the most consistent ways in which Jews have advanced their interests has been to promote pluralism and diversity – but only for others. Ever since the 19th century, they have led movements that tried to discredit the traditional foundations of gentile society: patriotism, racial loyalty, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint.

In some of the other examples, Žižek changes a few more of Hornbeck’s words, but Žižek never even bothers to recast Hornbeck’s clear prose into his own style.

I don’t see any citations by Žižek of Hornbeck, although I don’t have access to all versions of Žižek’s essay A plea for a return to Différance (with a Minor Pro Domo Sua). Using Google, I don’t see any citation of Hornbeck by Žižek, or, for that matter, that anybody online before Deogolwulf this week has noted Žižek’s debt to Hornbeck and American Renaissance. (But perhaps Žižek attempted to give full credit to the true author of this text, but the citation was lost due to editorial fumbling?)

Deogolwulf offers seven additional side-by-side comparisons of passages. Read them at his blog and you can judge for yourself whether you agree with Deogolwulf’s claim that this rises to the level of “plagiarism.”

Masha Gessen, former head of the U.S. government’s Radio Liberty office in Moscow, writes in Slate:

Crimea Is Putin’s Revenge 

On March 24, 1999, the U.S. bombed Kosovo. Putin has been planning his payback ever since.

On March 24, 1999, Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov was on his way to Washington when he got word that NATO had begun bombing Kosovo. He ordered his plane turned around. A few hours later, he landed in a Moscow that was reeling from the insult of not being consulted. Russians had only a vague idea of what Kosovo was but a very strong concept of Serbia being a land of fellow Eastern Orthodox Slavs and of Yugoslavia being a rightful part of Moscow’s sphere of influence.

There was that incident involving Serbia in 1914.

Nnot being consulted—or even, apparently, warned—sent the very clear message that the U.S. had decided it now presided over a unipolar world. There was no longer even the pretense of recognizing Russia’s fading-superpower status: President Bill Clinton had chosen not to wait the few hours it would have taken for Primakov to land in Washington, allowing him to save face by at least pretending to have been in on the conversation.

From this point on, Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s administration, already weak and embattled, would be unable to justify its friendly, perennially de-escalating posture toward the West. Anti-American feelings ran so high you would have thought the U.S. were bombing Russia.

Kind of like how Americans didn’t much appreciate England being bombed in 1940 or Australia being bombed in 1941.

… The mood I found in Belgrade matched Moscow’s perfectly. The country was mobilizing in support of its nationalist leader, Slobodan Milosevic. The few groups and people who continued to oppose him grew more marginalized and embattled by the day. They also grew increasingly paranoid, which paralyzed them. A daily concert in the center of town was literally drumming up support for the war effort, which had acquired the proud status of a defense effort—against the Americans, no less. …

This bizarre outburst of anti-Americanism apparently being related to Americans bombing their country for 78 days.

… In August, Yeltsin anointed as his successor, a virtual unknown named Vladimir Putin. Within a few weeks, Putin became spectacularly popular by launching a new war in Chechnya. Politicians formerly known as liberals praised the Russian army for its performance there; one said it was “regaining its dignity.” He did not mention Kosovo, but he was referring to the general sense of humiliation that had stayed with Russians since the spring.

In December 1999, Putin became acting president, and the following March, he was elected to the office. Over the course of the following 14 years, he nurtured in the Russian public a sense of nostalgia for the Soviet Union and especially for the fear it inspired in the rest of the world. In 2008, Russia invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia and effectively annexed part of its territory. And now it has done the same with Ukraine. This time Putin mentioned Kosovo. Indeed, in his speech to parliament on Tuesday, he made it very clear that by annexing Crimea he had avenged Russia for what had happened with Kosovo.

“It was our Western partners who created the precedent; they did it themselves, with their own hands, as it were, in a situation that was totally analogous to the Crimean situation, by recognizing Kosovo’s secession from Serbia as legitimate,” said Putin. …

This raises three questions. First, if Putin thinks he is paying the West back for Kosovo, why has he waited so long to strike? Second, what could the United States have done differently to avoid setting off this long and frightening chain reaction? And finally, what can the United States do now?

In retrospect, the long wait makes perfect sense. Once Putin held power in Russia, he never planned to cede it, so he had all the time in the world. Two of Putin’s key character traits are vengefulness and opportunism. He relishes his grudges and finds motivation in them: He has enjoyed holding the bombing of Yugoslavia against the United States all these years—and knowing he would strike back some day. …

Could the United States and its allies have undertaken anything other than military intervention to resolve the Kosovo crisis? In fact, they did. After the bombing campaign, which strengthened support for Milosevic and weakened his opponents, the U.S. poured cash into rebuilding the Serbian opposition. The funding was contingent on the disparate opposition groups agreeing to work together and attending regular coordination meetings held in Budapest, Hungary, and run by people whom participants understood to represent the State Department.

That’s pretty interesting. The Wikipedia article on the subject doesn’t mention anything about American involvement in the overthrow of Milosevic, but I presume Ms. Gessen knows of what she speaks.

The plan for the anti-Milosevic revolution was worked out in these meetings down to the smallest detail, including where the leaders of each of the 18 participating political organizations would be if mass protests broke out in Belgrade. They did, in October 2000, and Milosevic didn’t seem to know what hit him.

In other words, the U.S. government hit him.

Could a plan like that have been carried out without the NATO bombing campaign? Could Milosevic have been removed sooner without the bombing? I think so. On the other hand, would he have succeeded in killing and displacing many more people in Kosovo before being deposed, if it hadn’t been for the NATO intervention? This is an impossible question to answer. What we do know is that Yugoslavia’s wars were very much one man’s wars,

They were?

Granted, I remember back when Milosevic was the New Hitler of the hour. But fighting over the breakup of Yugoslavia had been predicted in the West long before anybody had heard of Milosevic — for example, in British general John Hackman’s 1978 bestseller The Third World War, WWIII starts with a fight in breakaway Yugoslav Slovenia in 1985 that both the Soviets and the U.S. Marines intervene in.

and it was the removal of that man from power, not the bombing, that finally ended them. Russia’s wars are, similarly, Putin’s wars.

It is also impossible to know whether Putin would have happened to Russia if it had not been for the bombing of Yugoslavia. I believe he would not have. But now that he has been in power for more than 14 years and is planning to stay forever, what should the United States do? Bombing Moscow does not seem to be an option.

Keep that in mind: “Bombing Moscow does not seem to be an option.” Airstrikes on Moscow can’t be part of America’s Plan A. It’s just not an option. At present. And nuking Russia down to melted glass isn’t even part of Plan B. Yet. (However, it should be noted, just for the record, that it’s still only the beginning of Spring so that leaves plenty of time to invade Russia and conquer Moscow before winter sets in. It’s March 22, not June 22.)

But helping the Russian opposition in the same committed, involved, and even meddling manner as the U.S. once helped the Serbian opposition should be. Putin already believes the U.S. State Department is backing the few protest activists left in Moscow—and is punishing the activists for it.

In other words, nudge nudge, wink wink, the U.S. State Department is backing the few protest activists left in Moscow. Gessen and Putin seem to be on the same page when it comes to their understanding of How These Things Work (they’re just not on the same side).

Look, I don’t really know anything about these Color Revolutions. But I do have decent reading comprehension. And this former U.S. government official, who seems to be omnipresent in the U.S. media, is, when read carefully, being fairly blatant.

On the other hand, I presume Gessen is not financially disinterested. She’s been on the U.S. government payroll before, so it’s in her bank account’s interest to advocate more U.S. taxpayer spending on a Color Revolution in Moscow. But the concept of “disinterestedness” is now considered too boring to remember.

There are many differences between Putin today and Milosevic 15 years ago, all of which boil down to the fact that Putin is a lot stronger and harder to remove—all the more reason for the U.S. to put its best minds to work on helping Russians accomplish just this. It may be our only chance of righting the course of history.

In other words, pay Masha Gessen to wage World War G.

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist who is the author of Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot and co-editor of Gay Propaganda: Russian Love Stories.

Personally, I find the idea of risking A Land War in Europe by trying to destabilize Russia unappealing, but that just shows that I’m a wacko extremist, unlike the highly respectable Ms. Gessen.

The Swiss popular vote to end its half-decade experiment with allowing unlimited immigration from European Union countries (of which Switzerland is not a member) had multiple causes. One is that the EU has kept expanding eastward into low wage countries. On January 1, residents of Romania and Bulgaria became eligible to move to any EU country (and therefore Switzerland, too).

Romania and Bulgaria are home to a lot of poor people, most of them not particularly troublesome except from the usual impact of driving down wages and raising housing costs.

But some — the Roma — are unwelcome anywhere they go. If you were a Romanian official, wouldn’t you want to put on a slideshow for your Gypsy residents (whose neighborhoods resemble Borat’s hometown — it was filmed in a Romanian Gypsy village) about the glories of life in gleaming Switzerland?

And now the E.U. is, under pressure from the U.S., gesturing toward letting in 45 million very low wage Ukrainians. The E.U. doesn’t really want to do that, but Davos Man is angry and emotional right now, and is looking to pick a fight with Russia over Ukraine, so Washington and NATO might pressure the E.U. into doing something very stupid.

More generally, Switzerland is probably the most famously beautiful country in the world, so its residents aren’t happy with the steadily rising population. Of course, in America, we know that Switzerland would look much better if it were transformed into the set from “Her” or “Elysium.” If you don’t believe me, just ask Matthew Yglesias or Ed Glaeser. Admit it: unless you grew up in barn, all those cows are just creepy. And those peasants with pitchforks …

Many in America can’t understand why the Swiss aren’t as enthusiastic about importing their co-ethnics to better battle for ethnic domination within Switzerland as American minorities are said to be. For example, the largest number of non-Swiss in Switzerland are Italians, but the Italian-speaking canton voted strongly to crack down on immigration from Italy.

Here in the U.S., Marco Rubio and Luis Gutierrez are celebrated in the media for agitating for more Hispanic immigration. In 21st Century America, race/ethnic loyalty is held to trump ties of citizenship (unless the race is white and the ethnicity is pre-Ellis Island, in which case race/ethnic loyalty is unspeakable).

The Swiss, in contrast, put much value on what I call Citizenism. A Swiss Italian is expected to value the welfare of his fellow Swiss citizens more highly than his fellow Italian co-ethnics. And they do. In contrast to the U.S. where the federal government constantly absorbs powers allotted under the Constitution to the states, the Swiss keep much of government power at the level of the cantons, which are mostly monolingual.

This lowers the urge to wage Elect a New People campaigns. If Italian citizens pour into Italian-speaking Ticino the way Mexicans pour into California, it doesn’t give Italian ethnic Swiss all that much more power nationally the way it it perceived as giving Hispanic ethnic (although non-Mexican) politicians such as Rubio more power.

But Swiss voters are highly nationalistic about a few important policies.

Moreover, Swiss voters understand the law of supply and demand well. More immigration from Italy into Italian-speaking Ticino drives down wages for Italian speakers and drives up land prices. Why is that good Swiss Italian citizens and their children?

Steve Sailer has been mining comedy gold in the rich seam of 21st-century feminism:

Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”

From The Nation, an article about how black feminists scream at white feminists and then other white feminists pile on those vicious racist white feminists. And how “trans” feminists can get very, very upset at the Vagina Monologues-type feminists who actually have vaginas:

… In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. …

Reading this more closely, I realize I may have gotten this backward. The protesters may be individuals who have vaginas but are objecting to the cultural stereotypes that encodes vaginas as being – in some socially constructed sense – female. (Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”, iSteve, 29^th January 2013)

The article in question, Michelle Goldberg’s Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars (The Nation, 29^th January 2013), is simultaneously funny, freakish, frightening and fascinating. I was particularly struck by this paragraph:

Similarly, there’s a norm that intention doesn’t matter — indeed, if you offend someone and then try to explain that you were misunderstood, this is seen as compounding the original injury. Again, there’s a significant insight here: people often behave in bigoted ways without meaning to, and their benign intention doesn’t make the prejudice less painful for those subjected to it. However, “that became a rule where you say intentions never matter; there is no added value to understanding the intentions of the speaker,” Cross says.

The “norm” is obviously an attempt to turn Women of Color into mini-Popes: infallible and invulnerable to criticism. If a Woman of Color chooses to interpret a statement by a woman of Whiteness as “offensive,” the woman of Whiteness is permitted no defence. If she attempts one, she “compounds” the offence. In other words: “Shut up and obey.” This seems a good example of something I wrote about last year:

If parasitism [exists] among human beings, it will exploit some particular aspect of our biology. Wasps can easily inject chemicals into the brains of other insects. Human beings can easily inject ideas into the brains of other human beings. They do this using something called language. So words like “hate,” “bigotry,” “racism,” “antisemitism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia” and so on may be the verbal equivalents of a wasp’s neurotoxins: cheap and effective ways of inducing paralysis in a nutrient-laden host. (Verbal Venom: Biological Parallels for Western Pathologies, The Occidental Observer, 15^th October 2013)

When Black feminists claim “offence” and then deny their White opponents a right to defend themselves, they are clearly using verbal venom to paralyze a “nutrient-laden host.” But where does this tactic come from? Which group began the “more victimized than thou” competition? An article posted by Steve Sailer way back in 2007 gives the answer, from no less that the former rabbi-in-chief of the UK:

Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism; Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday.

Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, “The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society,” he said the movement had run its course.

“Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.”

Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”

“A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said.

In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.”

(Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism, iSteve, 20^th October, 2007; emphasis added)

Robert Mugabe, age 89, won a reported 61% of the vote in Zimbabwe last week, propelling him into his second third-of-a-century as ruler of the former Rhodesia. While he had to nominally share power with a rival for the last five years, his new 3/4th majority in parliament allows him to now govern alone.

Here are some music videos of what Zimbabwe looked like, despite international economic boycotts, when it was called Rhodesia in the mid-1970s.

Read More