New England Protestants favored Romney (43-35). Catholics and Jews favored Obama (43-37 and 59-29).
Looking only at Maine, we see the same trend. Protestants (n=678) were 44-38 for Romney and Catholics (n=475) 48-35 for Obama. The 18 Maine Jews surveyed were 83-11 for Obama.
Maybe Catholics and Jews just happen to have a heightened susceptibility to "mutated Puritanism" -- or maybe people like foseti should start to strongly consider the possibility they have been pwned by Moldbug.
30 comments:
Or maybe you should consider the possibility that you've got nothing:
See:
Being the Dutch | West Hunter
and:
"This isn't likely to be a very effective way to examine the issue because:
...
* Even if we found less liberal voices claimed to be more of the old Yankee stock, an open question would be why? Perhaps the more liberal Yankees were less averse to marrying outside their group (something with which I have direct, personal experience)"
Ignorant Twat,
These are not the same thing:
(1) asserting that some idea "could" explain away data
(2) stating an idea that could plausibly explain away data
(3) demonstrating that an idea actually does explain away data
You're invited to lay out for us an "effective way to the examine the issue" that involves objective data. Then to carry that analysis out.
@n/a:
Hey, I'm going to challenge you to debate without slinging insults. Grown-ups (and sane people) don't do that, just so you know. Appearances and all...
"These are not the same thing:
(1) asserting that some idea "could" explain away data
(2) stating an idea that could plausibly explain away data
(3) demonstrating that an idea actually does explain away data"
Indeed, but the relevance of the distinction depends on the situation. If you assert some fact that purportedly conclusively demonstrates some claim, it fails to do so if there are any viable alternative explanation for that fact.
Even better, if you are asserting that some fact challenges a claim put forward by someone else, it would help if the claim in question predicted that that fact shouldn't be. That's not the case for my assertion.
"You're invited to lay out for us an 'effective way to the examine the issue' that involves objective data. Then to carry that analysis out."
I've already been doing so on my blog. For finer grained analysis, we may have to wait until we have large genetic datasets, coupled with political and other behavioral attitudes, which are presently lacking. I'd predict that for modern White Americans, those with more Puritan or Quaker ancestry will be more liberal than those with Ulster Scot or Cavalier ancestry, for one.
Now let us zoom out for a second here. Answer these:
Why do the beginnings of "leftism" predate the arrival of non-WASPs (particularly the historic divide between New England and the Deep South)?
Why is "leftism" a reality in across Northwestern Europe, even (or especially) the areas that have no Catholics or Jews?
You need to take the totality of evidence into account.
This is analysis is completely flawed because it ignores New England whites that don't identify with any of the three sets. An atheist with Jewish parents usually almost always identifies as Jewish. Show me an atheist with Baptist parents who identifies as Baptist. "Jewish" is an ethno-religious term, almost all protestant denominations are purely religious. "Catholic" is somewhere in between.
I'm willing to bet anything that your self-identified Protestant subset attends religious services at much higher frequencies than your Catholic or Jewish subsets. All you're doing is proxying religiosity on voting patterns. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that more religious people vote Republican, that's not exactly a novel result.
If you want to test your hypothesis you need to control for religious attendance. Here I see little evidence for your position. In fact the most Republican voting demographic in the country are probably highly-religious Orthodox Jews:
“Take a four-square-block slice of Gravesend, Brooklyn, a warren of high-priced residences dotted with Sephardic temples and yeshivas that happens to be the deepest single bloc of Republican support in all five boroughs. On Election Day, 97 percent of the voters there supported Mr. Romney, who beat Mr. Obama 133 votes to 3.”
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/obama-and-orthodox
I fail to see how the two statements are inconsistent. Again I strongly suspect that I come from "better breeding" than you.
As for "concern trolling", if pwning the idiots at Sailer's site with copious and meticulous facts and logic constitute "trolling" then I guess I'll own up to it
DR,
"If you want to test your hypothesis you need to control for religious attendance."
If you combine "None" with Protestants, you get a group just slightly more pro-Obama than Catholics and nowhere near as pro-Obama as Jews. Of course, "None" are not in fact all or likely even disproportionately "ethnic Protestants". In the GSS data, New England residents reporting English ancestry and New England residents reporting Irish ancestry are about equally likely to report no religion.
And, yes, I am aware of Orthodox Jews bloc voting for whichever candidate their rabbi tells them to.
JayMan,
"Even better, if you are asserting that some fact challenges a claim put forward by someone else, it would help if the claim in question predicted that that fact shouldn't be. That's not the case for my assertion."
So you're asserting what now, exactly? That Catholics and Jews in New England are actually of predominantly Puritan stock? Lay out the scenario whereby you believe intermarriage could explain the polling data.
Exactly how politically divergent do you imagine the in-marrying and out-marrying Yankees would have needed to be? What level of leftism do you imagine unmixed Catholics and Jews were at prior to their mixing with Yankees?
'Why do the beginnings of "leftism" predate the arrival of non-WASPs (particularly the historic divide between New England and the Deep South)?'
There were more than "beginnings of leftism" in Europe.
As for regional conflict in America, much of this was economic (e.g., manufacturing vs. exports, slave vs. free labor). The idea that ethnic/genetic differences between New Englanders and Southerners are deeply relevant, but ethnic/genetic differences between Jews or Southern European peasants and colonial Americans are not at all salient is comical.
'Why is "leftism" a reality in across Northwestern Europe, even (or especially) the areas that have no Catholics or Jews?'
No one ever said there were no "leftist" NW Euros.
As for the extant political reality in NW Europe, this is not exactly independent of America and WWII.
In New England, what percentage of Catholics are Latino/Hispanic?
In fact the most Republican voting demographic in the country are probably highly-religious Orthodox Jews
Yes, but they only make up a very small part of the Jewish population.
@n/a:
"So you're asserting what now, exactly? That Catholics and Jews in New England are actually of predominantly Puritan stock? Lay out the scenario whereby you believe intermarriage could explain the polling data."
I think DR touched on one of the problems. As I've repeatedly explained, stated religion is a poor proxy for ethnicity. Even self-stated ancestry is highly unreliable.
All residents of New England are likely part Puritan, to some degree, just as virtually all are part something else as well. You're working around a made-up problem.
"Exactly how politically divergent do you imagine the in-marrying and out-marrying Yankees would have needed to be?"
No point trying to nail down precise figures when we have no constraints to work with. But, to answer this, even small differences would lead to divergence over time, because we're talking several generations here.
"What level of leftism do you imagine unmixed Catholics and Jews were at prior to their mixing with Yankees?"
In the case of "Catholics" (i.e., Irish and Southern Italians), I'd imagine that they weren't very liberal as a group (higher levels of clannishness).
Nevermind that this is, at the moment, a red herring. It hasn't been established that such a split even exists, yet.
"There were more than "beginnings of leftism" in Europe."
OK then.
"As for regional conflict in America, much of this was economic (e.g., manufacturing vs. exports, slave vs. free labor)."
The conflict between New England and the South was far more than economic. Each group had (and still has) deep ideological differences that have clashed in the country's history.
"The idea that ethnic/genetic differences between New Englanders and Southerners are deeply relevant, but ethnic/genetic differences between Jews or Southern European peasants and colonial Americans are not at all salient is comical."
Did I say that the differences between those other groups weren't relevant? I specifically said otherwise in my blog...
"Yes, but they only make up a very small part of the Jewish population."
The point is that within self-identified Jews, the degree of Jewishness is negatively correlated with leftism. Modern-day Jews that look, dress and act like 19th century mainline protestant universalists are the most left-wing. The modern-day Jews that would be most at home in Fiddler on the Roof are highly right-wing.
This is a major problem for the hypothesis that Jewish culture is left-wing. One that I've never seen any proponent seriously address. After controlling for heritage, Jewish culture is in fact highly correlated with conservatism. The flip side is that I've never seen any evidence that Protestant apostates are any less left-wing than Judaic apostates. (And for that matter if you read discussion boards with atheists who grew up in evangelical families, they tend to be highly progressive-liberal).
The only difference is that Jews apostate from traditional religion at much higher rates than Protestants. This is really no surprise, Judaism is a "harder" religion than most Protestant denominations. It tends to be more solemn, serious and demands more sacrifice (diet, sabbath, clothing, etc.).
In fact highly similar patterns can be seen with Hindus in America. They vote Democratic at even higher rates than Reform Jews (I believe only 22% voted for Romney). Like Judaism, Hindus raised in a Western environment also become apostates at very high rates. Again because Hinduism is a "hard religion." Unless you think Hindus and Jews share some sort of special connection, Occam's razor suggests that my model is a much simpler explanation.
"If you combine "None" with Protestants, you get a group just slightly more pro-Obama than Catholics and nowhere near as pro-Obama as Jews."
All this tells you is that the "None" group (which essentially are non-religious people of Protestant heritage) isn't very large. Because most Protestants don't become completely non-religious. Over half of Jews are atheists, whereas only 10% of Protestants are (http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsdontbelieve/). Only 1 in 6 Jews attend religious services once a month, while nearly half of all Protestants do.
Study after study has shown that besides for race religious observation is the strongest predictor of electoral preferences. It's no surprise that Jews vote Democratic, since the vast majority of the non-religious vote Democrat, and the vast majority of Jews are non-religious. Like I said this isn't exactly a novel result.
But none of this works as evidence for your hypothesis. You have to show that Jews vote left, because they are Jewish. The bulk of the evidence shows quite the opposite, Jews vote democratic because of just how non-Jewish they actually are.
I fail to see how the two statements are inconsistent. Again I strongly suspect that I come from "better breeding" than you.
"Couldn't be any less ethnic", "mid-1600s", "pure Anglo-Germanic stock", "part Irish Catholic", "rest old-stock WASP", are inconsistent descriptions and suggest that you're not being forthright. I strongly suspect you're a bullshitter and that you're more likely to be some sort of jewboy than what you claim to be.
Here's a tip: when you pretend to be a WASP on the internet, you might not want to go around saying that you "come from better breeding than anyone else". I'm sure some Hollywood caricature or other led you to believe that that's something WASPs go around saying to try to impress people, but it's not. They're not insecure Jews or something.
As for "concern trolling", if pwning the idiots at Sailer's site with copious and meticulous facts and logic constitute "trolling" then I guess I'll own up to it
You don't have any facts and logic. That's why you resort to desperately calling people "anti-Semitic". You're a concern troll. You're hypersensitive about criticism of Jews and you pop up to deflect against such criticism and to blame gentiles.
"DR" said:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/07/race-modest-proposal.html#7225022801322622646
"If jews have such unrelenting support for leftism and white replacement (by your account until at least Western civilization collapses), why is it that the most leftist, least white president in American history only has a 42% approval rating from them?
http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/04/american-jewish-support-for-obama-tanks/
Also why are you mentioning Europe as evidence of Jewish policies? That makes no sense, you do realize that most European nations have very tiny Jewish populations. Because of this little thing called the holocaust, or do you also think that that's made up?
Considering that among the Western nations that America is the least liberal, but the most Jewish, I think that runs pretty counter to your narrative that Judaism is synonymous with leftism."
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/07/race-modest-proposal.html#757228645232986213
"Also if there is a giant jewish conspiracy please explain two things. First why the least assimilated jews (Orthodox) are the most conservative and the most assimilated (those that never go to temple) are the most liberal.
Second I'm going to assume that you follow Kevin MacDonald's narrative and think that the leftism of judaism if a group evolutionary strategy. Let's forget for a second that most evolutionists post-1970 reject group evolutionary strategy. Let's say that group evolution is a valid means of evolution. One thing is clear that if a group is going to pursue a group evolutionary strategy the punishment for defectors must be very high.
If it's cheap for jews to defect from the leftist line (i.e. there's not much personal cost) then this leftist Jewish strategy will fall apart. That's because individuals are going to spend their personal resources (money, time, missed opportunities) on a group good, instead they'll free ride.
Therefore if MacDonald's narrative holds then we should expect conservative Jews to be few, isolated and highly ostracized by other Jews. Instead a very sizable proportion of Jews are ultra-conservative/libertarian. Just go talk to a cross-section of investment bankers. Or count up the number of prominent Libertarians that were Jewish (Rand, Rothbard, von Mises, Nozick, and Friedman).
Nor are they isolated. Go visits the wealthy suburbs of New Jersey or Long Island. You will find that over 75% of Jewish families there voted for McCain and probably over 50% accept HBD (I doubt the number's that high anywhere else outside of the deep South).
Nor are they ostracized. Certainly not in corporate america or finance where there are thousands of very conservative Jewish hedge fund managers, executed and investment bankers. Certainly not in small business. Even in academia and the media it doesn't seem like conservative Jews are any more discriminated against than gentile Jews. Just compare the careers of Milton Friedman against FA Hayek.
Therefore MacDonald's narrative reduces, not increases explanatory power over the much simpler Occamian explanation: Jews have very high IQs, being a left-wing activist/academic/figure has been a lucrative path to success for the intelligent in the 20th century, ergo we see a lot of Jews in left-wing movements. QED."
"DR" said:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/petition-against-reactosphere.html#9198657079988924578
"If you are a reactionary you accept a hierarchical society. That means accepting that people will be dominated by their genetic superiors. When a reactionary sees group A own and control a society to a significantly higher proportion than group B, he doesn't cite injustice. He celebrates that group B has such a wise and superior group A to shepard and guide it.
Given the modern distribution of IQ, talent and wealth there is no way to be a reactionary and reject the need for a very large section of Western society to be owned and controlled by those of Jewish descent.
By definition a reactionary must accept that Jews are genetically superior to gentiles, and therefore have the right to a much more prominent position in society."
"DR", who claims colonial American, "mid-1600s", "old-stock WASP", "pure Anglo-Germanic", etc. ancestry and "better breeding", says that he "grew up and went to high school with" "white trash" and that he associates almost exclusively with Jews and Asians. He says that his "race is far inferior to the Jews, East Asians and upper-cast South Asians" and that "Whites suck compared to them":
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/petition-against-reactosphere.html#2331205028872790846
"Okay first of all I'm not Jewish. Not a single drop. I just can't stand white trash, of which 99% of the anti-semites in the reacto-sphere are. Objectively speaking my race is far inferior to the Jews, East Asians and upper-cast South Asians. There is no debate about this. That doesn't mean I am, but my race most certainly is. Whites suck compared to them, hence the reason >75% of the people I associate with are Asian or Jewish."
"And what I can tell you is that the difference between this group, which gentile whites make up a very small part, and the white trash I grew up and went to high school with is night and day. At least equivalent if not greater to the difference between ghetto blacks and middle class whites.
Is there anyone here who seriously thinks that if the franchise was restricted to Ashkenazi Jews, East Asians and upper-caste South Asians that the country wouldn't immensely improve immediately? If you disagree you are clearly delusionally racist."
"DR" said:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2011/07/petition-against-reactosphere.html#560251665778896979
"For gentiles the Jewish issue is a litmus test of whether someone is a true reactionary or not."
"A reactionary therefore must by definition be willing to submit to his superiors. To relinquish power."
"The Jews are an objectively superior group to gentile whites. In Reaction they will almost certainly increase their power relative to gentile whites (i.e. the sum total of power held by Jews will increase relative to the sum total of power held by gentile whites).
If you as a gentile hear this fact and think, "Good, that's great. I want power to be held by the most worthy and talented" then you are a true reactionary."
Average Joe,
"In New England, what percentage of Catholics are Latino/Hispanic?"
In this poll, I'm looking at "white only" Catholics.
JayMan,
This is exactly where I saw this "debate" going, and why I wasn't interested in having you waste my time.
"All residents of New England are likely part Puritan, to some degree,"
This is definitely not true for Jews.
Also not true that anything approaching "all" New England Catholics are "part Puritan". Data on intermarriage, etc., exists from which to estimate the ethnic makeup of New England Catholics, if you were serious about pursuing the truth rather than attempting to force the data to fit your theory.
Whatever the exact level of Puritan admixture in Catholics turns out to be, it will certainly be a minority element and not something one would expect to be the primary determinant of political orientation under an additive genetic model.
We're also not limited to looking at this generation. Again, Catholics and Jews have been to the left of native New Englanders since mass immigration commenced.
"No point trying to nail down precise figures when we have no constraints to work with."
Again, data exists with which you can begin to test your "theory". That you have no desire to do so shows a lack of good faith.
"But, to answer this, even small differences would lead to divergence over time, because we're talking several generations here."
No, that's not what we would expect at all. A priori, we expect that when two groups mix, they become more similar. We expect that any differences between New England Catholics and Protestant New Englanders would have been larger in the absence of mixture.
"In the case of "Catholics" (i.e., Irish and Southern Italians), I'd imagine that they weren't very liberal as a group (higher levels of clannishness)."
Who said "clannishness" was incompatible with leftism?
"Nevermind that this is, at the moment, a red herring. It hasn't been established that such a split even exists, yet."
Exactly. Nor would any remotely plausible split explain what you'd like to use it to explain. So why do you want to waste my time arguing about it? Again, I'm not interested in what "could" explain the data (but which if you'd bothered to think it through you'd have realized actually couldn't). I'm interested in understanding the world as it actually is.
DR,
"the "None" group (which essentially are non-religious people of Protestant heritage"
I just got done telling you that, no, they are not just "non-religious people of Protestant heritage".
"But none of this works as evidence for your hypothesis. You have to show that Jews vote left, because they are Jewish. The bulk of the evidence shows quite the opposite, Jews vote democratic because of just how non-Jewish they actually are. "
I don't "have to show" anything of the kind. I never said Jews are leftists because they practice Judaism. Even if you were right (and I'm 99% sure that even controlling for religious attendance Jews are to the left of white Americans), how exactly would you solve the problem?
@n/a:
(part 1 of 2)
"This is exactly where I saw this "debate" going, and why I wasn't interested in having you waste my time."
Perhaps then you shouldn't make claims – or criticism – if you aren't willing to defend them?
"'All residents of New England are likely part Puritan, to some degree'
This is definitely not true for Jews."
You sure about that?
In any case, Jews are in the few percent range as a share of the population in any U.S. state. Even if you factor in non-identified Jews, they are still negligible in terms of the numbers either politically or genetically. We can safely ignore them in this discussion.
"Also not true that anything approaching 'all' New England Catholics are 'part Puritan'. Data on intermarriage, etc., exists from which to estimate the ethnic makeup of New England Catholics, if you were serious about pursuing the truth rather than attempting to force the data to fit your theory."
Good luck with that. Genetic analysis would be a far more fruitful, reliable, and much more efficient method.
"Whatever the exact level of Puritan admixture in Catholics turns out to be, it will certainly be a minority element"...
You sure about that as well?
..."and not something one would expect to be the primary determinant of political orientation under an additive genetic model."
Complete nonsense. See below.
"We're also not limited to looking at this generation. Again, Catholics and Jews have been to the left of native New Englanders since mass immigration commenced."
That sounds like a project for you (i.e., that sounds like it depends heavily on how you define "left"). It's worth noting that political stance is a relative term. I'm not saying that New Englanders will have always held identical positions to what they hold today – which they clearly haven't (and neither has any other White American group) – only that New England has been to the "Left" of the South for most of its history.
"'But, to answer this, even small differences would lead to divergence over time, because we're talking several generations here.'
No, that's not what we would expect at all. A priori, we expect that when two groups mix, they become more similar."
You don't think they have? What do think is one of the factors behind assimilation?
And in any case, that's assuming that admixture was random, which it almost certainly wasn't. In general, I'd expect individuals who score high on the personality trait openness to experience (one of the hallmarks of liberalism today) to be the most "open" to marrying outsiders – in both groups. The admixed group could be considerably to the left of "pure" individuals who remain in either group.
"Who said 'clannishness' was incompatible with leftism?"
Though not completely mutually exclusive, the two don't tend to go together:
A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers” | JayMan's Blog
liberal (white) guilt as altruistic punishment | hbd* chick
libertarian crackers | hbd* chick
clannishness paradox? | hbd* chick
(cont'd part 2)
@n/a:
(part 2 of 2)
'"Nevermind that this is, at the moment, a red herring. It hasn't been established that such a split even exists, yet."'
Exactly. Nor would any remotely plausible split explain what you'd like to use it to explain. So why do you want to waste my time arguing about it? Again, I'm not interested in what 'could' explain the data (but which if you'd bothered to think it through you'd have realized actually couldn't). I'm interested in understanding the world as it actually is."
As am I, and I can certainly respect that motivation. But let's be clear on a key point of contention: I am saying that your data, while interesting, doesn't show what you think they show. All you have are polling data that show people who say that they are Protestants vote more to the right than people who say that they are Catholics. We, unfortunately have no way of assessing the genetic make-up of these groups, so on that point, that's curious, but we can't really continue.
Additionally, you have a few examples of specific individuals with apparent WASP ancestry who appear to be to the right. Unfortunately, you have the statistics of small numbers problem.
And further, let's note, that even if more liberal politicians turned out to have a higher fraction of non-WASP ancestry (which itself is not necessarily meaningful thanks to non-random admixture) how do you think they get votes? Many people with considerable Yankee ancestry must vote for them, which brings us back to looking at the population itself.
Now mind you, I'm not completely uninterested in your point about the genetic influences of non-WASP residents in New England (indeed, my wife – who herself is half Yankee and 1/4 Midlander and is quite to the Left, regards the area south of I-90/I-495 to not be the "real" New England). It just seems your position is more extreme than mine; I regard modern New England liberalism to be – in part – the heritage of its Puritan founders – among many other contributing factors.
JayMan,
We're not having a contest here.
I gave you the opportunity to make your case. You demonstrated you were confused in exactly the manner I knew you were confused.
I slowly explained to you things that should not have needed to be explained.
You still fail to comprehend.
I'm done dealing with you until you develop a level of humility in line with your actual knowledge/abilities.
@n/a:
"I'm done dealing with you until you develop a level of humility in line with your actual knowledge/abilities."
Translation: "I once again have got nothing, so I'm going back to sweeping dismissals (with insults likely to follow)."
Whatevs man. Thanks again for playing.
So much for good faith discussion...
Ultra-Orthodox (the most theologically conservative branch of Orthodox Judaism) Jewish voting behavior:
"Ultra-Orthodox Williamsburg Jews Promise A Chance At Cash For Votes"
http://gothamist.com/2013/09/10/williamsburg_satmars_promise_a_chan.php
"New York Election Law § 17-142 states that any person who "offers or promises to pay, lend or contribute any money or other valuable consideration to induce such voter or other person to vote or refrain from voting at any election" is guilty of a felony. That being said, South Williamsburg voters at IS 71 can get a chance to win $250 cash prizes and gift certificates—all they have to do is cast a ballot.
A 16-year-old who said he was being paid $350 to man a booth a little more than 100 feet from the polling station at IS 71 told us that families of area yeshiva students received this card in the mail before the election. The card promises entry into a raffle boasting $250 cash prizes and gift certificates when presented to a worker after voting. You could also pick up one of the special cards from a van sitting outside the polling station.
Another worker told us that the United Jewish Organizations, a "Hasidic umbrella group" dominated by the Satmars, was sponsoring the raffle, and said that voters were given literature suggesting that they vote the UJO's candidates, but that it's not mandatory.
"They just give out a name for who to vote for, it's not like you have to vote for them, they can do whatever they want," said the man, who declined to give his name. "We just want to get people to come out. It's basically an idea to get people out of their homes and out of their job, because if not they're gonna stay at home."
Who does the UJC seemingly endorse? According to the literature taped to the table: Bill Thompson for mayor, Stephen Levin for councilmember, Scott Stringer for Comptroller, Daniel Squadron for Public Advocate and Charles Hynes for Brooklyn DA.
The 16-year-old at the table told us that the voters handed him cards because "They agreed to vote for Hynes." We were told that there were at least five of these tables at other voting locations in Williamsburg.
As we've previously reported, Hynes is fighting for the Satmar's invaluable support against challenger Ken Thompson, while also fighting mounting evidence that as DA he protected the identities of sex abusers in the Hasidic community.
Two messages to the head of the UJO, Rabbi David Niederman, have not yet been returned. The Daily News spoke with Rabbi Niederman about a similar raffle in 2006, and he repeated what the man we spoke to said: anyone who votes and turns in a card is entered into the contest, it doesn't matter who they vote for."
More on Ultra-Orthodox (the most theologically conservative branch of Orthodox Judaism) Jewish voting behavior:
http://gothamist.com/2013/09/05/the_ugly_race-baiting_campaign_for.php
"In order to win the Democratic primary on September 10th (there is no Republican challenger) both candidates have worked to win over the single most important and nearly unanimous voting bloc in the borough: The Satmar Jews of Williamsburg."
"For years, Hynes has worked to protect the identities of sex abusers in the cloistered community, a privilege afforded to no other group in the city."
""When a Jew is arrested, to whom do you go [for help]?” implores one poster, with a picture of Hynes standing next to the Munkatcher Rebbe, who works to keep Jews out of jail. “To Jewish leaders who act on behalf of the Jewish community,” it continues. Next to Hynes it is written, “He helped us, he helps us, and he will help us some more.”
Critics of the 78-year-old Hynes, who starred in his own reality show this summer, say he's cultivated the support of the Orthodox Haredi community by half-heartedly prosecuting sex abusers from the community. Since the media has brought Hynes’s neglect to light, he has worked to portray himself as tough on sex abusers. But as the election has drawn closer, he’s been eager to play the role of the candidate that will protect the Haredi community.
New York City Councilman David Greenfield, a surrogate for Hynes, has said that Thompson will “target the Jewish community.”"
"Throughout the campaign Hynes has often put his foot in his mouth, first comparing the Orhtodox community to the mafia, and then also telling an Orthodox newspaper that “the black community, by and large, is mine.”"
"“Hynes is not treating neighborhoods exactly the same in Brooklyn. In the Orthodox community, certain defendants, pedophiles, weren’t being treated the same as they were in other parts of Brooklyn."
"The race, however, will most likely be decided by the ultra-Orthodox voting blocs. Hynes has continued to give the impression that he is protecting ultra-Orthodox sex abusers, most recently prosecuting a Hasidic whistleblower who was ostracized after he pushed for justice on behalf of his son and other alleged victims of sexual abuse within the ultra-Orthodox community. Yesterday, Hynes won the votes of the powerful Ahrony sect, who will now vote en masse for Hynes, a payoff for his long-time protection of the Haredi community.
“In their minds, no Haredi belongs in prison, even if guilty, except for an out of control murderer, perhaps,” Shmarya Rosenberg, an influential blogger who covers the Haredi community, told us.
While Hynes has prosecuted a handful of sexual abusers in the community, that hasn’t been enough to turn the community against him."
"Rosenberg adds that many Haredi “will probably vote for Hynes if their rabbis and rebbes signal that they should do so. And many hasidic rebbes and haredi rabbis are, in fact, working to turn out their bloc votes for Hynes. They fear what would happen to their special deals with the D.A. if Thompson is elected.”"
@n/a:
I'd like for you to know that I am discussing with you because I'm interested in what you have to say. If you have any additional information on this matter, which you believe demonstrates what it is you are saying, I'd like to know. Part of the discussion is so that pertinent information can come out. Others are intetested as well. Just an FYI.
Jayman, I used to read your blog sporadically. Obviously this was a mistake. I thought your blind spot regarding the JQ was due to you wanting to expand your reader-base. This quote, however, reeks of deceit.
"In any case, Jews are in the few percent range as a share of the population in any U.S. state. Even if you factor in non-identified Jews, they are still negligible in terms of the numbers either politically or genetically."
Really? Jews are negligible politically? Jayman, I have seen you comment on other blogs which I frequent and I know that you know about the massive jewish influence over both the USA and Europe. My only conclusion can thus be that you lie and obfuscate the truth. It is clear you have no place in an intellectual discussion and that the small sum of your mental powers are dedicated to rationalization rather than rationality.
N/A, thanks for an excellent blog. I regularly visit but there's seldom an update, shame since I value your words very much. I look forward to reading more from you.
I highly doubt that very religious orthodox Jews are the most right-wing demographic. I'm quite confident that Mormons are more right-wing.
I earlier found data indicating to me that Jewish liberalism is more motivated by religious than ethnic identity. This is the case even though the least religious jews are the most leftist. Being "not Christian" is a more important part of their identity than it is for lapsed Protestants.
@Anonymous September 11, 2013 at 11:58 PM:
"Jayman, I used to read your blog sporadically. Obviously this was a mistake. I thought your blind spot regarding the JQ was due to you wanting to expand your reader-base. This quote, however, reeks of deceit.
'In any case, Jews are in the few percent range as a share of the population in any U.S. state. Even if you factor in non-identified Jews, they are still negligible in terms of the numbers either politically or genetically.'
Really? Jews are negligible politically? Jayman, I have seen you comment on other blogs which I frequent and I know that you know about the massive jewish influence over both the USA and Europe. My only conclusion can thus be that you lie and obfuscate the truth."
If you are going to comprehend what I write so poorly, you probably shouldn't bother to read my blog.
Think really hard about:
a) what I actually said
b) the context in which I said it
We're talking about the number of votes and genetic input in the population at large. Jews are a negligible fraction in both cases in any American state.
Jayman,
What you actually said was what I quoted, and the context in which you wrote it does exclude my conclusion.
This is your exchange between N/A:
""This is exactly where I saw this "debate" going, and why I wasn't interested in having you waste my time."
Perhaps then you shouldn't make claims – or criticism – if you aren't willing to defend them?
"'All residents of New England are likely part Puritan, to some degree'
This is definitely not true for Jews."
You sure about that?
In any case, Jews are in the few percent range as a share of the population in any U.S. state. Even if you factor in non-identified Jews, they are still negligible in terms of the numbers either politically or genetically. We can safely ignore them in this discussion.""
This is no way implies the discussion was about the absolute number of votes of ethnic groups. Infact, this whole post has been about ancestry and political affiliation. The only reason you say it does is because acknowledging the Jews leading role in leftism severely undermines your argument.
It's supposed to be "does not exclude" in the first sentence. A freudian slip a Jew might argue.
When are people going to realize "moldbug" is a tedious fraud? I tried to read his cathedral nonsense, it took him 10000 words to define religion. Meanwhile, state went entirely undefined. But the real problem is the dullness. How can anybody read that stuff?
Post a Comment