Thursday, July 06, 2017

Peak Russia

The Fraudulent News Network gets caught admitting the putative Putin-Trump connection is "bullshit" and a "witch hunt" that mendaciously garners big ratings:

This is the same fake news outlet that ran with the risibly fictitious dossier. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us 1,441 times, shame on us.

The New York Times' "conservative" house pet David Brooks, who harbors the predictable (((visceral disdain))) for Trump, concludes there is nothing to the Russian dog and pony show.

Reuters-Ipsos had been running a daily tracking poll on whether or not Trump was obstructing the Russian investigation for several weeks as the charges of collusion--affirmed by 17 US intelligence agencies!--and the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate were bandied about in the news. R-I quietly decommissioned the poll on June 26, an exceedingly unusual move for the organization given that the issue isn't officially settled. The discontinued poll is now effectively archived.

Speaking of the 17 US intelligence agencies, that turned out to be, well, more bullshit.

In mid-May, at the height of the Russian scare, markets showed the chance of Trump's impeachment by the end of 2017 rising as high as 33%. Those odds have steadily declined since then and are now bumping along at 8%. The true likelihood would be even lower than that were it not for the sunken cost fallacy working its destructive magic.


Anonymous said...

visceral - relating to deep inward feelings rather than to the intellect.
disdain - the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect.

Your blog largely makes an intellectual argument that blacks are unworthy of the respect of whites, but the commentary here is full of emotion. Perhaps your blog makes an analytical argument, but your motivation is emotional, and you are projecting that feeling. I think you are worried that Jews harbor the emotions towards other whites that you harbor towards blacks.

Graduate degree holders also voted for Clinton by a very large margin, but you don't show the same emotion in discussing them as you do towards (((us))). By the way, I voted for Trump, although I would tell the polsters I voted for Clinton.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps your blog makes an analytical argument, but your motivation is emotional, and you are projecting that feeling. I think you are worried that Jews harbor the emotions towards other whites that you harbor towards blacks."


Nah, folks like AE started with empathy and a positive attitude towards blacks, Jews etc., and had it beat out of them by those communities. It is blacks and Jews, etc., who hate whites despite the fact that those communities are demonstrably worse off without whites. How do blacks perform without European whites? How about Jews? It is they who have the visceral hatred. Whites are open and helpful. Neither blacks nor Jews built great civilizations, and the Jews even had the master of the universe on their side.

Even so, AE is moderate and measured in his accurate and fact based criticisms. Trump has modest and reasonable goals. His goals are even generous towards blacks, Jews, etc., just not suicidal. Trump and his supporters are modest, reasonable, even generous by any reasonable standard. Were the shoe on the other foot, Jews, blacks, etc., would not be kind or generous to European Christian whites at all.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - let AE respond. My comment was directed towards him, and your points are incorrect. Jews perform very well without other Europeans in Israel. Our civilization predates yours, it is just smaller, and we have our own state. Half of Jews live in Israel, and that number will increase if we encounter greater external hostility.

If we hated other Europeans, Israel would undermine Western military power by developing a fifth generation fighter jet with China. They are willing to provide economics of scale if we transfer our technology to them. This would reduce the American military technological advantage and force it to spend huge amounts of money on F-22s.

If we hated other Europeans, we also wouldn't be marrying them at such a high rate in the United States. We also wouldn't have been so over represented in the Manhattan Project. You typically don't marry people you hate and you typically don't help people you hate develop nuclear weapons.

Audacious Epigone said...

Your blog largely makes an intellectual argument that blacks are unworthy of the respect of whites

Disagree. If I advocated the same sort of outcome vis a vis whites (IQ ~100) and (American) blacks (IQ ~85) that you assert I perceive the Tribe advocated vis a vis Jews and whites, I'd be clamoring for more Somali immigration (IQ ~70). Despite blacks being more dysfunctional, on average, than Amerindians from central and south America let alone Asians, I'm sympathetic to the idea that white America's obligation to legacy blacks should have primacy over any obligations to browns or yellows.

R-I shows graduate-plus going 57%-43% for Clinton in a two-way race (n = 5902), so it's not the best comparison, though the "clever sillies" phenomenon is one that has been visited on this blog on multiple occasions.

While I wouldn't state it as strongly as anon (proving the perspicacity of his comment, I suppose!), that's a pretty accurate characterization of my sentiments. Most of us on the alt right come previously from more mainstream backgrounds, and mine is thoroughly cuckservative.

There's a reason the "Every. Single. Time." meme is devastatingly effective. So many high-profile Jews putatively on the right--Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Ben Shapiro, John Podhoretz, etc--have viscerally (yes, viscerally) expressed a loathing and disdain for Trump and the deplorables that was and continues to be impossible to miss. And that's just the ones who are theoretically more or less on our side, politically! The list of leftist Jews who hate Trump and the Deplorables is twenty times as long.

Michael Savage is a counterexample. There are probably a few others though none come immediately to mind (except maybe Milo Yiannopolous who is half-Jewish IIRC and made his name in large part by riding Trump's coattails). I'm happy to make common cause with them.

In truth, I don't think of them as Jews at all. I have to be reminded of it. It's not on my instinctive radar. The last couple of years has started to change that, but the transition is still ongoing and I'd be thrilled if I were given good reasons to stop it from happening.

NW Euros are the most outbred--and thus pathologically altruistic--people in the world, much more so than Jews--Ashkenazi or otherwise. There is not a nicer, more naturally hospitable population of people on the planet. That many of us have been pushed to our limits should be perceived as a sign that others have gone too far.

Anonymous said...

I'm not talking about outcomes, lets stay focused what I said. I'm talking about the statements you make over and over again:

all whites (IQ ~100) are 15 IQ points higher than blacks (IQ ~85)

which is the same relationship as:

Jewish whites (IQ ~115) are 15 IQ points higher than all whites (IQ ~100)

I think this is where your emotion comes from. Since you don't like the graduate student comparison, Asians went for Clinton by 79% to 18%. That is a much larger margin than by which Jews went for Clinton. They don't elicit the same emotion from you, which shows that it isn't the source of your emotion. Their overall politics is reflected in Asians in the media, which doesn't elicit the emotional reaction. By the way, your perception of Jews, compared to who we are, is way off.

The emotion also doesn't come from our charitable giving. Jews are giving charity at a higher rate than non-Jews. 19 of the top 53 philanthropists in the US were Jewish recently (around 20 times what would be expected), and Jews give a higher percentage of income to charity that non-Jews.

So your emotion towards Jews isn't based on our politics, which is more Republican that Asians. It isn't based on our charitable giving, which is very VERY high. It is because you think (((we))) have the relationship to all whites, that you perceive you have towards blacks. I think you are having difficulty with this.

Anonymous said...

"the most outbred" - I'm not sure where this came from? I think I'm missing some context. I think all whites are marrying other whites at a rate of about 90%. I think in the United States, I think Jewish whites are marrying non-Jews at something like 50%. I never thought of us as outbred. That is funny. Where does that expression come from?

Sid said...

I don't understand why you see so many Jews scream and cry for unlimited Muslim migration, particularly from Syria. If you've read Israeli history for half an hour, you know that Israel has had no fewer than three wars with Syria, has been in violent struggles with Muslims from even before Israel was founded, and anti-Jewish attitudes are absolutely rife throughout the Arab and Islamic worlds.

If you're Jewish and want untold millions of people coming in from those countries, I'm sorry, but you're absolutely delusional. Even if you can pack your bags and be repatriated in Israel, there's no way Western countries will be a tenth as supportive of Israel if they have millions of Muslims voting for BDS in and discounted weapons deals out.

Yes, I get that these Jews are ultimately more afraid of nice blond men than Muslims, because blondies kind of look like a few SS officers and Cossacks. But they're still dangerously delusional in their risk assessment. In fact, I'd say antisemitism from European-descended Gentiles is spiking precisely because they resent millions of Muslims flooding into their countries. Talk about a twofer!

Smart, rational Jews have an obligation to absolutely and publicly tear up Jews who are advocating such self-destructive policies. The Jews who are advocating for Muslim migration may as well be getting in time machines and voting for Hitler in 1932.

Sid said...

Taking in Sunni Arabs from Syria is less like accepting Jewish refugees in the 1930s, and more like taking in Volga Germans fleeing persecution from Stalin in the 1940s. Granted, I feel bad for the Volga Germans who suffered during that time period, but I'm sure glad Britons and Americans didn't put up banners that read REFUGEES WELCOME and invite them into their homes, all in some vain attempt to virtue signal they were kinder than the Nazis and Soviets.

Feryl said...

"I think this is where your emotion comes from. Since you don't like the graduate student comparison, Asians went for Clinton by 79% to 18%'

Asians have much shallower roots in American culture than Jews. The degree to which an ethnicity is "new" to us or is alienated from American norms can be judged by their loyalty to the Dems. The liberal party/agitator party will always be associated with foreigners and misfits.

Feather Indians and legacy American blacks despise the GOP (outside of a handful of Big Man winners like Wilt Chamberlain, Charles Barkley, or David Clarke), with some highly motivated and agreeable, aka smart, blacks being outliers. Like Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, and so on. Blacks have been here for eons, but it doesn't seem to matter.

As Steve Sailer has observed, "Hispanics" tend to gravitate to the trends of an area; they evidently were fairly supportive of Trump in Texas, while in liberal Cali. they hated him. But keep in mind that that the SW states have had sizable brown populations for many generations at this point, and I suspect that the whiter Hispanics in particular don't want to cause that much trouble. With America's lax enforcement of immigrant quality control, we're getting a lot of perpetually mediocre central Americans these days. It's obviously hit Cali the hardest (we're a long ways away from 1960's LA, when whites and Mexicans kept crime at a lower level than in other big American cities). Had we not passed the '65 act and other dumb policies, we'd be having less problems with Hispanics, who by now would've had decades to better assimilate and they'd be whiter too.

Asians are a tougher call; they've always been most numerous on the West Coast, the most liberal part of America. Similar to Hispanics, older generations of Asian Americans were more likely to come from the higher functioning types within their group. Unlike Hispanics, no Asians (non-mixed Asians, of course) are anywhere close to being racially white. This raises the troubling prospect that all completely non-white groups will never want anything to do with the conservative/white party in a Western country. Africans and mongoloids don't want to be led by another Charlemagne

I really do wish there were more fireworks between West Africans, East Africans, Asians, Arabs, etc. in American politics, but as long as the Dems can extort their votes by warning them about GOP neo-Nazis, the conflict can be suppressed.

Feryl said...

For the record, "Hispanic" is a worthless category. There's no such thing, at all, as a "Hispanic" race. Hell, for that matter it might not really be an ethnicity, either, since Latin Americans primarily identify with their ancestral country and moreover, a particular caste within that country.

To be concise, you can't list every single different Latin ethnicity, which would still have to be qualified by the castes in each of those ethnicities anyway.

If you're a light-skinned and tall 4th generation Mexican-American, what ethnicity are you, exactly? Again, for brevity and clarity, we can't create 10 different sub-categories.

Sid said...


On Hispanics, I'll add that quite a few of them don't want to be associated with illegals, just the way upper middle class whites don't want Europeans to associate them with rednecks. I don't know the percentage, I don't even know how pervasive the attitudes are, but plenty of the whiter ones would like to keep Indios away and live like Southern Italian-Americans: they're noticeably swarthier than Anglos, but they're close enough that they're integrated as long as they don't make a fuss.

I'd argue that integrating Asians into white culture actually makes them more non-white, strangely enough. The Asians I've talked to who were either born in Asia (and speak English as a foreign language) or even those with immigrant parents tend to have political attitudes closer to the homeland. A lot of Asian-Americans fled from Communism or the threat thereof, and hold extremely negative attitudes towards leftism. Furthermore, many of them know or remember what it was like being governed by Asians, and tacitly believe that it might be for the best for whites to handle law and governance while they take up technical positions. More broadly, Asians tend to believe that politics is best left to politicians and lawyers, so they don't encourage each other to take up strong political views.

Yes, believe it or not, Asian parents want to their kids to study math more than civics.

Asian-Americans whose parents were born here, speak English natively and don't even speak their ancestors' language, and have many white friends and peers, ironically, become more conscious of how fragile their Asian identity is, and hence cling to it even more bitterly than before. They hence become more involved in SJW agitprop, whine about how their white peers are somehow racist for treating them as if they were white, and work hard to get the cushy but competitive campus diversity jobs. That obnoxious Bengali boy who got into Stanford by writing BLACK LIVES MATTER a hundred times on his application is an example, though he of course was South Asian rather than East Asian.

I would say that Asian-Americans are an example of how it's not enough to just culturally assimilate Asians. Asians have the wherewithal to adopt our culture, but our society rewards people for not being white and for finding reasons to complain about whitey. Asians can learn English, get university educated and white collar jobs, but it's no good as long as anti-white attitudes run amok.

Sid said...

An analogue to culturally white Asians (Oreos) would be half-black, half-white people (Mulattos). Mulattos and very light skinned blacks (such as Valerie Jarrett) are notorious for being especially shrill and resentful towards whites. Their connection with the black community is fairly tenuous, so they have to amp up the anti-white sentiment to feel part of the black community.

In contrast, intelligent blacks with dark skin often find it easier to be conservative (the examples you mentioned come to mind here). They've seen firsthand that whites are overjoyed to find and promote successful blacks, and attribute black failure to problems in their culture.

Sid said...

(Excuse me, "Oreo" should be "Twinkie" in this instance.)

Anonymous said...

Feryl - I think your entire premise is incorrect. There is a longer history of Asian migration to the United States than you realize. You should also be careful what you wish for:

Sid - "rational Jews have an obligation to absolutely and publicly tear up Jews who are advocating such self-destructive policies."
This is a good way to become the target for a terrorist attack. I would never do this, but I was willing to write Trump a campaign check and vote for him. I think what you are proposing is unsafe and unwise. We live in an era of fascism masquerading as anti-fascism.

I'm not sure if American or European Jews as a group support taking in refugees from countries with hostile attitudes towards us. I have spent about half an hour looking for a poll of Jews in the United States or Europe and I can't find one on this subject, which reeks of censorship. However, European Jews are very wary of Muslim attitudes towards them:

Remember, it isn't a huge majority of Americans that supported the President's decision to temporarily ban entry from six countries with high levels of terrorism. Most Americans, and most American Jews, just aren't aware of the hostile anti-American attitudes that a large number of people from those countries hold.

I'm guessing you don't know a lot of Jews. Believe me we aren't afraid of European looking people, we look European. Your description of our attitudes way off the mark. However, many American Jews did have family members who were killed because they weren't able to find a country to accept them as refugees. There are many individuals who see their family history of religious persecution in the Alawite persecution of the Sunis in Syria. I agree with you that this is incorrect and that these people are largely uninformed of the danger of what they are advocating.

Audacious Epigone said...


R-I shows Asians going 67%-33% for Clinton a two-way, sample (1,205), similar to the nationally commissioned poll. Maybe the special interest poll with 10x the sample is more accurate since it takes a tower of Babbel approach. I do not think Asian immigration is a good thing on net, though. Asians punch below their weight culturally. Jews punch above it.

I'm not following wrt to this relationship thing you're asserting. If most influential Jews (there are very few influential Asians) were like Michael Savage, I wouldn't have a problem with them. I wouldn't think of them much differently than I think of Methodists or Episcopalians.

Jews, by and large, are pushing massive immigration into Western countries that are bad for those countries' host populations. I am not pushing massive immigration even though it hurts blacks more than it hurts whites and certainly more than it hurts comfortably middle class professional whites like myself.

The outbreeding is from historic mating patterns and refers to degrees of genetic separation. In Iraq, for example, half of marriages are to second cousins or closer--very inbred. HBD chick is the go to for this. I'm asking her for a summary post if she has one to recommend.

Jewish inbreeding is what allowed for such a large IQ advantage (see Gregory Cochran's paper on Ashkenazi intelligence). It's easy to think of "inbred" as a pejorative here, but that's not how it should be viewed. It's not Deliverance-style inbreeding. There doesn't seem to be any obvious negative consequences of mating with a third-cousin, but it does have implications on clannish, openness to outsiders, social trust, etc.

Two-thirds of Asians living in the US currently are first generation. Yes, there have been small Asian populations mostly out west for centuries, but the surge in Asians living in the US has come in the last 50 years. There is a strong Core America v Fringe America dynamic at work here.

Feryl said...

Yeah, I suppose we should make a distinction between politics and culture. Comfortable, more European Jews and Hispanics can be both culturally and politically conservative at least in comparison to the liberals of their ethnicity.

But as for blacks and many Asians, it doesn't matter how culturally conservative they may be, they still feel qualms about voting for the white party.

Politics may not be downstream from culture as much as downstream from race. And woe onto us for allowing the dregs of Asia and Central America to invade us over the last 50 years. The Dems were busy importing Puerto Ricans into Florida prior to the '16 election. They know what they're doing. The darker an ethnic group, the more shit they stir up (with the exception of dot Indians, of course). Pre '65 Asians and Hispanics were comparatively light skinned, notable exception being Puerto Ricans to NYC.

At this point, the Dems and cuck Repubs have been so negligent about flooding America with aliens (and we already were strained by a 1/10 black population during the immigration moratorium of 1925-1964) that for the lion's share of non-super elite whites, at least the ones East of the Rockies, the GOP is becoming the de facto white party.

Having to warehouse a major chunk of the black population in prison to keep order should've taught us a lesson. As should the well-established history of immigrant terrorists and assassins. The MSM still insists on calling some Arab and East African trouble makers "Americans" or, even more sneaky, residents of a particular American town. Ohio has very recently imported a lot of Muslims, and after one of them went on a recent rampage, the MSM called him a "man from Cleveland". Give us a break. Decadent elites have totally trivialized the concept of national identity. Merely existing in a particular place for a few months doesn't entitle you to have a claim on it. I know too that the MSM wants people to believe that these assholes are adopting America's "culture of violence", as laughable a meme as any other. 86'ing the blacks would cause America's violence levels to meet or even fall below that which is standard in other Western countries, with the caveat that access to handguns would likely make it easier for white trouble makers to kill people. All the same, property crime is lower in the US than it is in Britain, unfavorable demographics and all. And that should serve as a warning against cultural nihilism and neutering the police, which has little to do with demographics or gun control.

Feryl said...

Two thoughts:

George Clooney is having second thoughts about his Brit home, evidently he doesn't feel safe anymore. But, I thought that, according to liberals like Johnny Depp, America is the big bad nasty country?

I saw an article WRT Brit police, and evidently "leadership" there advises police to hide their occupation when not on duty. Especially when near one's home. Does that sound like a nice safe place to you?

We get distracted by murder rates (which are bound to soar if you've got large populations of impulsive blacks), while it looks like many countries doctor their general crime stats to flatter authorities. In America, whites in effect have mobilized the police for many decades to keep blacks in check. America honestly and thoroughly reports crime, because we don't care about accusations of having a police state and so we give cops the power to deal with crime which we know is a problem and we'd rather not have it sugarcoated to us.

Meanwhile, in other Western countries, they're afraid of American police tactics/incarceration rates. "We can't be like Americans". There neutering of the cops and light sentences causes crime to be unnecessarily high, yet they're in denial about it since it would reveal that their anti-American law enforcement policies are a joke. But as long as they don't have many blacks, homicide rates will be relatively low and they'll get to delude themselves about how morally superior they are. And nasty black criminals will, I repeat will, cause even the most bleeding heart Protestant whites and Jews to develop a hardened hostility towards crime that will enable longer sentences, more arrests, more executions, etc. That's what happened in America soon after we imported vast numbers of blacks, and it's been that way ever since. Notably, the 1960's trend to reduce incarceration of criminals and the mentally ill caused crime to explode in the 70's. The 60's and 70's were a notable exception to the general rule of harsh treatment of criminals in America.

Feryl said...

According to this, both the U.K. and especially France have quite a large number of blacks. I dunno how modern these numbers are, and I'm not sure how they compare to past numbers. I do think that when cocooning ebbs over the next 5-10 years, these countries are going to be in for a helluva rude awakening about black sociopathy, like the one American whites had in the 70's and 80's. I'm sure some of them already are woke, but the ones in denial will be slapped hard by reality in the next couple of decades.

Audacious Epigone said...

advises police to hide their occupation when not on duty. Especially when near one's home. Does that sound like a nice safe place to you?

I had two separate cops who lived on my street in my first house. They both parked their patrol cars in their driveways. Can't think of a better deterrent for property crimes. That's a mark of civilization. When the cops are a magnet rather than a deterrent, it's indicative of societal collapse.

Anonymous said...

AE - our "influence" over whites, is your "influence" over blacks. You haven't even produced a poll to show the majority of Jews support the position you are stating. Pamela Geller (who is Jewish), has to walk around with body guards due to her public stance. If people can't feel safe to express one opinion in public, don't be upset when they don't. The country has enough problems without you attacking people that aren't trying to hurt you:

As to genetics: does the name Ivanka Trump mean anything to you? There was always "interbreeding". Otherwise American Jews wouldn't be so European, and Ivanka Trump wouldn't be Jewish. 80% of European Jewish maternal ancestry is European. 23andMe, a genetic testing company, says 2% of people who did not identify as of Ashkenazi origins had our genes in the United States:

It is not just in the United States, 20% of people in Spain have "Jewish" genes:

The person you cite is wrong about Jewish intelligence scores. If they were because of no "interbreeding", the scores wouldn't exist. It certainly wouldn't exist in me, as I am "interbred", and my scores are well beyond the resolution of what your wordsum scores.

Anonymous said...

AE - " it's indicative of societal collapse" - I think this is too strong a phrase. We are in societal decline, but it would be a long way before we collapse. Also, if a major civilized country collapses, it will send valuable young refugees that will strengthen the remaining ones. It will buy us time to solve our biological problems, or to evolve around them.

Audacious Epigone said...


From R-I:

Approve/disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration (approve-disapprove)?

Non-Jewish whites: 53%-42%

Jews: 29%-68%

You're looking at interbreeding too broadly. A country ethnically/religiously exclusive can have very low rates of interbreeding. Cousin marriage has been pretty common throughout the history. The Church began fighting against it in ~7th century and west of the Hajnal line it has been frowned on for several centuries (whereas in much of the Middle East and Africa it is perfectly acceptable still today).

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone.

You seem to have compared apples to oranges? The poll seems to say there aren't enough Jewish respondents to show by time period? I think it is giving Jews from the entire time frame? What time frame are you trying to look at? Looking at the 206 respondents that say they are Jews, only 187 of those say they are whites. I can't get find their ethnicity, but I would assume these are multiracial (half Jewish). I'm going to exclude those we are not comparing to multiracial whites. They don't seem to be middle eastern Jews, who are the most against immigration from Muslim countries.

If we look at those 187, 124 reported college or beyond college. That is way above the rate for Jews overall, and it is above even the rate of Reform Jews. Reuters doesn't seem to understand or care that religious Jews will not respond to telephone polls on the Sabbath (Saturday). A poll that was specifically focused on Jews would avoid this effect. I can't adjust for this mistake. We really would need a poll that made sure to sample correct portions of Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and non-denominational Jews. The you get into the issue of do you count someone as Jewish with a single Jewish parent.

However, just removing non-White Jews, I'm seeing:

Jewish Whites: 43.5 - 50.2

It would be interesting to see what a larger sample would look like if we could avoid the under sampling of more religious Jews. They are much more Republican, so we would assume a higher level of support. Reuters is not really attempting to capture overall Jewish attitudes. We would also want to see non-Jewish attitudes in the time frame for a comparison as support is fluctuating among all groups with the news flow.

The other issue is this is immigration overall, not entry from countries of potentially hostile people. I would expect a higher level of Jewish support for banning entry of potentially hostile people. Bernie Sanders spoke out against low skill immigration on the grounds that it lowered wages and that it drained the social safety net. However, I don't think that is a concern for as many Jewish people as the security issue. I also know that Trump's style is bothering people around me more than policy. Inflaming social tensions is not a winning election strategy in the urban areas.

I don't think you understood my comment about "interbreeding". I was saying that I had a family tree rather than a family trunk. I was also saying that I had ancestors that converted to Judaism. It hasn't hurt my IQ. (At least I think it hasn't)

Anonymous said...

AE - Those numbers should have been 32.6 - 63.9 for overall. Fairly large margin of error rate since only 187 respondents. Same problem with under sampling religious Jews and not sampling jewish whites and all whites at the same time.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yes, the Jewish sample is suboptimal because it's small and doesn't focus on attaining a truly random sample of Jews. The Jews it does sample though are skewed towards the ones that have the most influence in contemporary American society.

Anonymous said...

AE - "The Jews it does sample though are skewed towards the ones that have the most influence in contemporary American society."

Not really and we are not comparing influential Jewish whites to all influential whites anyway. The survey could have missed many very influential people I know. Only some conservative Jews keep kosher, but the tradition is to get together for meals at home on Saturday with other families. You go for morning services and stay for the afternoon. You always have to go to the homes of people that keep kosher because they won't eat at homes that aren't kosher. You aren't going to pick up your phone on Shabbat at a Kosher home.

The people with friends that want to keep more of these religious customs tend to be more right wing, but conservative Jews are very highly educated and much more numerous that the Orthodox. Reuters is under sampling the more right wing influential Jews.