White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism
I've spent some time lately at Unqualified Reservations. The blogger there, Mencius Moldbug, is a talented writer and consistent source of insightful analysis. Definitely a mapper, not a packer.What originally caught my attention was his suggestion that a more or less clean reboot was possible, as opposed to say the violent anarchy, race riots, civil war, and genocide our elite's mass immigration policies and anti-White political correctness seem to be propelling us toward. MM's PC-violating essay accusing the government of spreading disinformation and pondering the real meaning of diversity further piqued my interest. This guy definitely thinks outside the box, and isn't shy about constructing a new lexicon for his unboxed thoughts.
MM's latest essay is entitled Why I am not a white nationalist. I've been pestering him with criticism for some weeks now, and I believe he was in part trying to answer me. I appreciate his effort. I had written a bit to flesh out that pestering here, but I never posted it. Now there's really too much to say all at once. All along the response I've gotten from his commenters has been fairly hostile, and MM himself never really addressed my points, at least until now. I definitely haven't felt welcome there, so I wasn't very optimistic anything useful would come of an extended critique. Well now the gauntlet has been thrown down, as it were, and I feel compelled to make some response.
MM identifies Lawrence Auster, Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse as white-nationalist blogs. I had never before thought of any of them that way, but I won't quibble over his label. Technically I think it probably fits me, and I suppose it fits Auster, VA, and OAL. By coincidence John Savage just gathered some links and wrote a bit about this very topic. I admit I haven't read them, even now. John's heart doesn't seem to be in White nationalism. But that's just my guess. I followed New Sisyphus until he morphed into New Nationalist a few months ago. Then NN went dead and he reactivated NS without explanation. I don't know what's going on there.
Personally I don't think AoT belongs in the list. I'll bet MM only included it because I was goosing him. Relative to the other bloggers I write less, of lower quality, and I'm a newcomer to the idea of White anything, much less White nationalism. Before this summer I really preferred to think of myself as colorblind and wished everyone else could be that way as well. I spent most of my blogging efforts handwringing about the jihadis and immigration, and poking holes in leftist logic. I like what I've read of Sam Francis. But I haven't written anything at all, unless you consider "deport every illegal today" White nationalism. I have however in recent months been forced to adapt my view of the world fairly radically. Among the things that died were my unthinking philo-semitism and my respect for neoconservativism. So I'll talk a little about that and how that relates to MM's critique of White nationalism and anti-semitism.
This past May the actions of President Bush and the US Senate forced me to conclude that the US government is not just "out of touch" with the electorate, they are consciously, deliberately at odds with us. Our system is not a constitutional republic. It is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy.
By June it was clear that open border policies don't even make sense when judged by their proponent's standards.
In July I began to fully appreciate the widespread and long-standing media bias, including how they pump up pro-invasion politicians, do their best to exalt even illegal immigrants, and vilify anyone who opposes immigration.
By late July the Senate's treason had been rebuffed, temporarily at least, and my support for the war in Iraq had changed. How could anyone concerned with America's security to the point they support sending our boys to die overseas think at the same time the immigration invasion is no big deal and that we should just leave our borders undefended? But that, I dimwittedly began to realize, is precisely the nonsensical position of neoconservatives. I had previously held their views in esteem. Once I realized they generally favor immigration I felt stupid and betrayed. I discovered Lawrence Auster, who on a daily basis dissects and connects neoconservatism and liberalism in ways I had never seen before. Eventually through him I discovered Vanishing American and an extended community who share a pride and spirit that for all I had known had already vanished.
By September the Senate had tried several times to force their shamnesty through in smaller, stealthier pieces. I had become thoroughly aware of the MSM's ham-handed "shaping" of public opinion. The vast extent and poisonous influence of political correctness had become equally obvious to me, as was the MSM's role in propagating and enforcing that PC. By this time I felt my understanding of and opposition to PC was firm enough to commit its most mortal sin. In response to VA's discussion of PC's roots I made the point that the Jews had as much to do with PC as White Christians did, perhaps more. And I recognized Jews as enemies.
Recently I made a more elementary point at John Savage's. Those who have the patience to read it can decide for themselves whether my argument makes sense. It concerns how one of Auster's ideas applies to Jews.
I realize very well that for Auster anti-semitism is a bugaboo. He does not like David Duke and scolds Jared Taylor for associating with him. I link and read them both now because as far as I can see they tell the truth. I suppose Auster would label me an anti-semite if he knew or cared who I was. I don't think he does, though he did link me once. It's a shame really, because I feel I owe him a debt for the information and analysis he provides. I've never met or corresponded with him, but respect makes me hesitate to disagree with him. It's not that I'm afraid he'll convince me I'm wrong. I really don't think he could. I'm more afraid he'll just ignore this, or simply dismiss what I say as irrational without explanation. Honestly though, there are people in my own family I have to face and explain my opinions to. I agonize far more over their misgivings than anyone elses. Perhaps he'll answer MM directly, or one of the other bloggers will answer and he'll remark on their comments. Perhaps he has bigger fish to fry.
From Auster's critique of Pat Buchanan I gather he thinks anti-semitism is not a matter of opinion. That, I say, is patent nonsense. Anti-semitism is a type of racism, and both words have been sufficiently abused as to make their meaning almost worthless without a paragraph or two specifying precisely what you mean. That's about as subjective as you can get. If someone who uses those words goes to that kind of trouble then maybe, just maybe, they're arguing in good faith. If they use either word alone they're likely just trying to slur someone in an attempt to shut them up or get other people to stop listening.
For the record I will stipulate that I believe people who want to kill Jews just for being Jews do actually exist. I do not want that, and I have ever met anyone who has admitted to me that they wanted that, but I would agree to call anyone who did say they wanted that an anti-semite.
By the way, why don't people who want to kill Whites get their own special label? Is it impertinent of me to interrupt this very grave discussion of anti-semitism and ask that question? In the US today murderous anti-White sentiment seems more common than murderous anti-semitism is. You can in fact openly call for the extermination of Whites as a race in public and people will applaud. Why won't the MSM report such statements, much less give this kind of racist hate a special label? Why isn't the SPLC on this guy like white on rice?
Anti-semitism has an answer for these questions. But I'm open to others. Are there any?
Is simple criticism of Jews anti-semitism? Most people who use the word seem to think so. Is my belief that Jews as a group are partly responsible for the predicament of Whites as a group anti-semitism? Probably. How about my statement "Jews are my enemy"? Literally. Because I made this blunt statement am I therefore an anti-semite for the rest of my life? Will I be forgiven if I recant and grovel for forgiveness? Well I'm not going to.
I strongly suspect I'm just wasting space even discussing anti-semitism. That's the whole idea, isn't it? Just as the person who cries racism hopes you'll derail yourself with apologia so does the person who cries anti-semitism. In response to extended protestations a critic can even accuse you of protesting too much, just as Auster does to Buchanan.
Well however you want to define anti-semitism I'm no longer afraid of that or any other slur, at least not from strangers who don't know me. First and foremost this is because I fear more for the future of my family and extended family. My race is not threatened by some past genocide, or some hypothetical future genocide. Due to PC and mass immigration my race is in the process of being genocided right now. So go ahead, call me or people I think are telling the truth whatever nasty names you want. It won't change my opinion. If anything it makes me more than a little suspicious of your guilty heart. Which brings me to my other reason. I know my own heart and I know it's true. If the interests of myself and my kin conflict with you and yours I'm willing to try and work it out in plain language out in the open. If you're not willing to do that then there's going to be a problem, because I'm not going to just slink off silently and die. You're going to have to stick me in prison or come right out and kill me.
One of the annoying things about finally getting up the nerve to point out the elephant in the room is the odd responses you get from those who previously took no notice of it. "What's the big deal?" "What are you obsessed with elephants?" No, I'm not obsessed with Jews, and I don't think they are to blame for everything. But I no longer consider explanations of what's going on in our world, or plans of how to deal with it, to be complete without talking about Jews. They're too successful and powerful to simply ignore.
Until recently I was so thoroughly blinded by PC that I not only never mentioned Jews, I actually did ignore them. Then I read this paper by Kevin MacDonald and caught what John Derbyshire calls the Jew thing. For me the Jew thing works alot like Rowdy Roddy Piper's glasses worked in They Live. It allows me to see things people like Derbyshire apparently cannot see. Derb, in professing his willful blindness, comes off sounding like Sergeant Schultz. I assume he considers that preferable to being branded an anti-semite.
You may be wondering what anti-semitism has to do with Mencius Moldbug, the fellow I started out talking about. As I alluded above what caught my eye at his blog was that he seems to see the same kind of rottenness in the government and media that I do. Unlike me he actually proposes solutions. MM thinks big. He seems to understand pretty well how the world works, and I'm not ashamed to admit his view is deeper and more comprehensive than mine.
Perhaps I'll write in more detail about it later, but I'm out of juice for now. Go read my comments at MM's blog if you really care. I'm pretty sure this essay is where I first got critical of his description of the workings of the world. Work forward in time from there.
In a nutshell I object to MM's definition of Universalism, which is what he calls "the faith of our ruling caste". It's an important observation, but I think he gets it only half right. He associates Universalism only with Progressivism, which he blames entirely on Christianity. He does not address the Globalist tendencies of our ruling caste, and he pretty much gives Jews a pass. To the extent they're involved at all he thinks they were "assimilated", tricked by wily Christians into being liberals. On anti-semitism he prefers Derbyshire over MacDonald. His position on Jewish involvement in world affairs is that he doesn't see it. I found MM's understanding and defense of White nationalism notably even-handed for someone who ultimately disavows the idea, but I think he dismisses it and anti-semitism too blithely.
MM makes no mention of Jew's favor for and favoritism under PC. No connection of that to PC intolerance for White nationalism. He notes how Hilter evokes "red flags" but Stalin doesn't. Perhaps if he could imagine for just a moment that he had the Jew thing he might see some link. The close alignment of PC with Jewish interests? The Jewish support for Marxism and Bolshevism and hatred of Nazism perhaps? Nope. He doesn't recognize the MSM signals that encourage us all to see Jews as poor defenseless victims and White nationalists as evil wannabe thugs. He does however clearly see how White nationalism is connected to anti-semitism via Hitler. He even suspects it might be too clear. His examination of that link is fairly nuanced, but he examines only that link and it is an entirely one-way perspective. No mention of the historically lopsided Jewish support for open borders, or how it predates Hitler. Jews fear White nationalism because it produced a Hitler and it might produce another. MM doesn't acknowledge much less express any sympathy for the fact that anti-semitism has arisen many times in many different places besides Nazi Germany and so perhaps anti-semitic White nationalists might have a legitimate reason to fear Jews or consider them enemies. Nope, MM concludes, anti-semites fear that which does not exist, therefore they are evil.
And here I thought anti-semites were supposed to make the demented arguments.
The cartoon is Pearls before Swine, dated November 9, 2007.
UPDATE 26 Nov 2007: Here is Old Atlantic's take on what it means to be called a White nationalist. I agree with him. To your typical PC-drone the label is essentially a slur that is reflexively escalated into White supremacist. Such labels are intended to dehumanize us, to put it in the hallowed terms of the worshippers of tolerance and diversity. They do to us what they claim they deplore. As OA points out, our governments have officially slated us subhumans for extinction. So why should any of us go quietly?
UPDATE 30 Nov 2007: Mencius links here and mocks what he sees: The Jewish question and other links. He believes the true test for a sane worldview is to explain the "Altalena affair". I have my own test. Explain the immigration invasion. Mencius, so far, fails.
Labels: immigration, mencius moldbug, old atlantic, white nationalism
posted by Tanstaafl at 11/23/2007 11:41:00 AM
134 Comments:
Tanstaafl, this is a good, thought-provoking post.
I happened to read the piece about white nationalism over at Unqualified Reservations. I was not aware of that blog at all until I found it through my site statistics, from a link to me.
I am not sure what to think of MM's essay; I don't follow his line of thought easily, and maybe that reflects badly on my intelligence, but I don't really get where he is coming from.
I don't object to his classifying me among the WN bloggers, although I have only recently been evolving towards that position, similar to the route you have taken in recent times. Considering that I no longer shrink from those labels that are designated slurs, I don't count the nationalist label as a stigma.
I think some of us, those he mentions, are probably nationalists of the old pre-PC style and in today's interpretation of reality, that somehow makes us 'white nationalists'. Yet the fact is, pre-PC America was a majority-white country with a European-derived culture. There's no getting around that fact. Just as it is superfluous to call Fjordman a white nationalist (since he is Scandinavian, of course his nationalism is associated with whiteness; what else could it be?) it seems silly to apply that label to old-style American nationalists, but as I said why shrink from it? We need to reclaim these labels and say, yes, I am; what of it? rather than denying that the label applies, and running from it as if it is a slander.
MM's idea of a reboot without major upheaval is interesting in that as you say, he is thinking 'outside the box' but yet the way in which it might come about is vague and unspecified. I agree with one of the comments which said that such a 'reboot' could only be accomplished with some degree of force, so that cancels the idea that it can be done peacefully.
We might have a 'velvet divorce' as in the old Czechoslovakia or a peaceful secession in the right circumstances. But I suppose MM's idea of how it is to be done with a minimum of disruption is yet to be explained.
Interesting ideas to contemplate, anyway.
-VA
You mentioned in another post that "Jews are not white" in the sense that they cannot be criticized, but you wanted me to comment in this post, so here I am. Black Muslims like Farrakhan insult jews all the time. Al Sharpton may even have incited the murder of jews. So they certainly consider jews to be just as valid targets as other whites. I've met Tim Wise in person (though I didn't let him know I wasn't part of the choir he was preaching to until he was leaving) and he explicitly states that his fellow jews are just as guilty of being the beneficiaries of white privilege. I think that bigotry toward any of ethnics that make up the broader category of white Americans isn't considered kosher. The commonplace bigotry documented here toward italians and japanese, for example, is not considered acceptable today.
Another of your reasons for claiming that jews are not white is that if they were they would not be supporting horrible policies like mass immigration. That's a non-sequitur, as there are many non-jewish whites with similar attitudes. Mormons, for example, are gaga over hispanic migration (they think the natives of this continent were visited by jesus) and they're as whitebread as it comes. In a sense, this attitude of jews may actually highlight how prototypically white they are. Asian countries don't endorse open borders, nor do latin american, middle eastern or african ones. Only majority white countries have that kind of migration.
Google "white nationalism" produces a FAQ page on Stormfront as the first hit. I agree with what it says. The neo-nazish font on the home page is a bit off-putting. Isn't that the same celtic cross that gave LGF the willies? I may link them just to violate LGF-think.
The wikipedia page specifically names Sam Francis and Jared Taylor. Good. Most of other ideas I don't disagree with.
The WN shoe fits, but I don't feel inclined to wear it exclusively.
It is not a matter of identity, Tanstaafl. If a man is of a people, he is of that people and shares genetic interests with them.
Identity-talk is liberalistic in character, the unavoidable suggestion being that we can alight upon, even author, an identity.
Nationalism, otoh, is very solid. It is an expression, first and foremost, of genetic interests. Nothing elective about it.
White Nationalism is weaker than nationalism per se, but it is the level best Americans can do in terms of expressing genetic interest, given the fractured nature of ethnicity in America.
Even so, there are "Nordic" Americans who reject pan-Europeanism in America, because of its inevitable failure to guarantee Northern European genetic continuity. There's nothing wrong with preserving one's Northern European genotype, however. Survivalism accords with Nature's imperative, and is the right one to live by.
But it is inconvenient and unhelpful to getting an effective white nationalist political movement off the ground in America.
Mencius Moldburg knows nothing very much of all this, and wrote his piece largely in ignorance. His high verbal IQ, of course, rails regardless. At our blog (MR) we have a commenter who is half Jewish, yet is possessed of one of the truest white hearts I know. So it isn't impossible for a half-Jew to be more than half-European.
That commenter has, with his typically fecund high verbal-IQ, come up with the notion that a "subversive gene" haunts the Ashkenazic genome, and those that have it go the way of Mencius and all points east. Those that don't can, if they are enculturated in the European pattern, married a European and fathered three-quarters European children, cleave to European genetic interests.
... but never, of course, to a mere European identity.
Fellow bloggers,
Culturism is a new word and book. I'd send copies to any of you commenters who went to www.culturism.us, found my email and requested a copy.
I am of Jewish descent. But do not think that important. I do not even think that race is terribly important. What is important is culture.
Diversity includes people that are illiberal and anti-American. Jihad, criminality, and low education are normal in many cultures. We must protect our unique culture from disintegrating towards such potentialities.
Multiculturalists do not believe in diversity. They do not think culture can have any negative effect. It can.
Multiculturists call those who would point out such truths, racists. That is supposed to shut down discussion. Culturism helps us refocus the discussion on cultural diversity and the need to protect and promote our unique culture.
Culturism holds that majority cultures have a right to protect and promote themselves. Just as China does so on a racist basis and Saudi Arabia does so on a theocratic basis, we must do so. That means defining, promoting and protecting ourselves. Culturism is against international humanism. It does not even get considered outside of the West. To protect any sort of humanism, we must protect the West.
Western civilization will be safer if we identify ourselves as culturists.
I've rambled too long. Visit www.culturism.us and write to socialbooks@gmail.com for a complimentary copy.
John Press
tanstaafl's conception of race strikes me as a bit po-mo, but I think even some socially constructed concepts lack validity. So I guess this Scots-Irishman isn't White. So what about jewish White Nationalists like Michael H. Hart or Nicholas Stix? Are they still not White?
Ask your privileged Jewish friends whether they think White nationalism is a good idea.
Ironically enough, the only people I've met in meatspace who displayed somewhat white nationalist attitudes were jews born in Russia who had lived in Israel. The more forthright one was from the boondocks of Russia and was something of a Russian nationalist to the extent that he did not consider a Muscovite to really be Russian.
JA, I agree on genocide. I think in order to qualify for the label, the population of the group must be smaller at the end than it was at the beginning. Crime in the U.S is actually quite low and whites aren't very likely to be victimized. They are more likely to be victims than perpetrators but a little plus a little still isn't a lot.
tanstaafl,
Thanks for the plug!
I think the most compact way to answer the "Jew thing" (disclaimer: I am half Jewish) is that the Jews who are actually influential in the Western world don't see themselves as acting with any ethnic solidarity.
When you look at Jews in the 20C, you have to divide them into at least four groups: assimilationists (including socialists and Communists), socialist Zionists (Herzl/Labor), revisionist Zionists (Jabotinsky/Likud), and a wild smorgasbord of Orthodox sects.
The idea that there is any concerted collective action across these boundaries is very unlikely, because these people genuinely hate each other. For example, the two kinds of Zionists were literally at the point of war in the 1948. Google "Altalena affair." (And read Jabotinsky's essay "The Iron Wall" - talk about prophetic.)
The Jews who are influential in the US are overwhelmingly either (a) Reform, or (b) Marxists who see Judaism as a medieval superstition (like my grandparents). Accusing these people of being Zionists is fightin' words. For example, the NYT actually helped cover up the Holocaust during WWII, for fear that it would make the war seem too Jewish. Among assimilationists, any suggestion that Jews should cooperate just because they are Jews is heresy. You might as well start talking about the "shvartzers."
There is no doubt that Universalism serves the interests of Jews, at least as compared to its immediate ancestor, pre-WWII WASP mainline Protestantism. However, if you see the combination of Jewish socialism with the American Establishment as a kind of corporate merger, you see instantly that the merger is quite advantageous to both sides. The Jews gain respectability, the WASPs gain Jewish brains, and both sides get a ruling creed which is simpler and more appealing to many.
No Jewish asabiya whatsoever is required for this transformation. It makes sense for everyone.
So this is my basic problem with Kevin McDonald's story: it doesn't pass Occam's Razor, and it conflicts with my own personal experience. Your mileage, of course, may vary.
Mencius: I think the most compact way to answer the "Jew thing" (disclaimer: I am half Jewish) is that the Jews who are actually influential in the Western world don't see themselves as acting with any ethnic solidarity.
Before you made that statement did you by any chance survey Jewish political organisations that exist in America ... number their ubiquity ... note their wealth and access to power and the media? Did you also survey the non-Jewish mainstream organisation that are led by Jews?
The "Jew thing" CANNOT be washed gently away. Sorry. Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism is real, and the advancement of Jewish genetic interests by degrading host interests is its principal, somewhat unprepossessing methodology.
"The idea that there is any concerted [Jewish]collective action ... is very unlikely"
How many Jews do you know who don't support open borders and free immigration? Well, there's ... Larry Auster ... Paul Gottfried ... a few ex-Amren kooks. Any more? Any?
How many Jews do NOT support Israel? Well, there's ... Neturie Karta isn't there? But you would have to say that 99% of Jews in diaspora do, in fact, support the Jewish state with just a tad of fervour.
Now, how many Jews do you know who don't support the entire Holocaust story? Erm ... there was David Cole, but he got beaten up and had to retract. But there ain't too many other. Well, no actually ... there's aren't any. Not even Finkelstein (who's concerned for the Jewish moral health, but does not question the Official Line).
Mencius, you are right that Jews take up all sorts of positions across the political spectrum. But on the issues that are key to Jewish ethnic interests they are astonishingly monolithic.
You have more experience of power elitism than I. My best take on it thusfar is my MR post here. Basically, I agree with your model of a confluence of interests.
But that is the power elite. Jewish ethnocentric aggression is not, itself, a servant of the elite (as Jewish intellectualism and political activism is). Jewish ethnocentric aggression serves Jewish genetic interests. It is Jewish nationalism, if you like.
Genetic interests is a numbers game. The bulk of Jews cannot profit in GI terms from Jewish participation in the power elite. No matter how much money and power the Red Shield brand can command, the interests of 17 million Jews are served by other means.
Occam doesn't help you here. Confronting the JQ more honestly will, if that is what you wish to do.
Perhaps it's time to make your mind up as to who, in fact, you are.
tggp, Holocaust revisionism is reviled because it is taboo. From what I've read of it the mere act of questioning the orthodox version is enough to get you branded a "denier". If you happen to live in the wrong place that can get you thrown in jail. What mysterious force counters the Western norm of free inquiry and free speech in this case?
jewish atheist, the wealth of today's America is largely an illusion. We finance everything at every level with debt. Mass immigration works similarly. Just look at the "interest" we've had to pay on slavery.
Your marriage numbers conflict dramatically with Saletan's baby numbers:
According to Entine, the rate of Jewish "outbreeding"—procreating with non-Jews—is half a percent. That's the lowest rate of any population in the world today.
I don't care who they decide to mate with. I do care that as a group they pretty single-mindedly promote exogamy, whether they adhere to it themselves or not.
Certainly Jewishness is more genetic and ethnic than religion. I'm not going to debate whether Jews are a race. It doesn't matter. As for Darfur, I think it would be a great idea to send troops there to stop the genocide. Israeli troops.
Holocaust revisionism is reviled because it is taboo.
Sounds circular to me. Out of curiousity, what's your position on the Holocaust?
If you happen to live in the wrong place that can get you thrown in jail. What mysterious force counters the Western norm of free inquiry and free speech in this case?
In America you are still free to say whatever you want about it. Neocon/Trotskyite Chris Hitchens defends the right to deny it. In France they have laws against it, but France isn't a very free place. You also aren't allowed to question the genocide of Armenians. Bernard Lewis got fined for doing so.
Your marriage numbers conflict dramatically with Saletan's baby numbers:
I explained to you that Entine's numbers largely reflect years before jewish emancipation. Currently the rate of outmarriage is very high.
jewish atheist, the wealth of today's America is largely an illusion.
I guess immigrants really are stupid to come here then. The question is why haven't you moved if things are that bad?
I do care that as a group they pretty single-mindedly promote exogamy
You care more about what people say than do? Are you sure you're not a pomo lefty? But seriously, I don't know if it can be said that jews as a group (Saletan is just one jew rather than all of them) promote exogamy, even while they engage in it. Perhaps you could check the General Social Survey.
As for Darfur, I think it would be a great idea to send troops there to stop the genocide. Israeli troops.
Why do you want Israeli troops in Darfur? I don't see how that advances any WN goals.
I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm guessing JA is more or less right - for Reform and secular Jews in the US. I suspect Entine's numbers are heavily diluted by, um, Israel.
American Jews of the influential sort - again, assimilationists - tend to be quite anti-Israeli. Increasingly so, in fact, as the distant memory of the days when Israel was actually something of a Soviet client state fade.
And ethnocentrism, or really any nontrivial intellectual descendant of the Jewish tradition, is extremely hard to find in the beliefs or practices of assimilated American Jews. Even Jewish cooking is nasty (boiled chicken) and has largely disappeared.
The one place where I do think that McDonald's arguments hold some water is his point that assimilating American Jews in the first half of the 20C tended to be drawn to the liberal (progressive, socialist, communist, etc) traditions which opposed American ethnocentrism and pointed toward Universalism. Inasmuch as they threw their considerable talents behind these movements, they can certainly be said to have helped steer the ship.
The question of whether liberalized mainline Protestantism would have assumed its present form without the Jewish injection is unanswerable. I think the answer is yes, because I think the First Amendment is practically a formula for "secularism." But your mileage may vary.
Certainly, however, unless Horace Mann's real name was Rosenbaum, the universalizing and liberalizing tendencies in the American tradition existed well before the great influx of Jews. (In fact, many Jews were on the Confederate side in the War of Secession - eg, Judah Benjamin.)
tggp: Sounds circular to me. Out of curiousity, what's your position on the Holocaust?
Well, why do you think Holocaust denial is reviled? My position on the Holocaust is that anything should be open to examination and questioning. The fact that the Holocaust isn't is wrong.
I guess immigrants really are stupid to come here then. The question is why haven't you moved if things are that bad?
You know, for someone who is so clueless so often I really can't understand why you so often cop such a smug know-it-all attitude. Immigrants obviously come here because it's good for them. Explain how importing millions of invaders who are poorer and less educated than the average American makes America more wealthy.
MM: American Jews of the influential sort - again, assimilationists - tend to be quite anti-Israeli.
Could you cite some names? Other than marginalized ranters like Chomsky I'm drawing a blank. Certainly the neocons are influential. Their support for Israel is such that if you disagree with them you must be either an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew. (I exaggerate, but only slightly.)
American Jews in the first half of the 20C tended to be drawn to the liberal (progressive, socialist, communist, etc) traditions which opposed American ethnocentrism and pointed toward Universalism. Inasmuch as they threw their considerable talents behind these movements, they can certainly be said to have helped steer the ship.
I think Eastern European Jews did more than just throw their talents into Progressivism, they gave life to the bulk of its many facets. And their support for it has always been more monolithic compared to non-Jews. Today we can see the results for Whites and their American traditions are disasterous. Our academia and media are wildly biased against Whites and busily promoting all kinds of debauchery and deviance in the name of tolerance and diversity. What is specifically not tolerated is any sort of allegiance to traditions that predate the dominance of Progressivism - for instance, White nationalism.
On the question of whether this would have happened without Jewish involvement my opinion does differ from yours. I think Progressivism is so contradictory and unnatural it would never have become popular much less dominant if it hadn't been for Jewish financing and their considerable talent for argument.
tanstaafl said:
"In response to VA's discussion of PC's roots I made the point that the Jews had as much to do with PC as White Christians did, perhaps more. And I recognized Jews as enemies."
Do you thus also recognize White Christians as enemies?
Do you thus also recognize White Christians as enemies?
Anyone who aids or abets the genocide, yes.
Because it is considered one of the most evil events in history, considerably well documented, and most people think those who deny it are just disingenous Nazi apologists.
I consider the current genocide of the White race a more evil event than the Holocaust. Hitler was forthright in his hatred. White genocide is well documented, but the propaganda ("diversity is a strength!") we are constantly fed keeps most from seeing it. PC and "hate" rhetoric keeps many more from doing anything about it. I think those who deny this are either brainwashed drones, or disingenuous White-haters.
The wealth of America today is not an illusion.
Really? Is your net worth positive? How about your friends and family?
Could you cite some names? Other than marginalized ranters like Chomsky I'm drawing a blank.
Um, does the name "Sulzberger" mean anything to you?
Or don't you think the New York Times is anti-Israeli? In that case, what's with Steven Erlanger? Why, every time there is a war between Israel and X, does the NYT always seem to be rooting for X?
On the question of whether this would have happened without Jewish involvement my opinion does differ from yours. I think Progressivism is so contradictory and unnatural it would never have become popular much less dominant if it hadn't been for Jewish financing and their considerable talent for argument.
Perhaps this is where we disagree the most.
To me, the roots of Progressivism are already very clear and very much dominant by the Civil War, and the evolution of the doctrine seems obvious. Hawthorne, for example, saw it very clearly in _Blithedale Romance_. Or read some of the great anti-Lincoln revisionist historians, like Edgar Lee Masters or Albert Beveridge.
Masters, in fact, uses the phrase "Hebraic-Puritanism" as a description of the ideology of the North, a clear ancestor of Progressivism and hence Universalism. But since the Union was relatively Heeb-free at that time, the label - while quite pertinent - is only an allusion.
In fact, as the ideology morphed toward Progressivism it lost most of the merciless, Old-Testament quality to which Masters meant to allude. I can't imagine what the likes of Henry Ward Beecher would make of the US today. I mean, of course, he'd want it destroyed with fire and the sword, but it's not at all clear what he'd prefer in its place.
Not only Sulzberger, but George Soros, Stephen Spielberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the list really goes on and on. Furthermore, Mencius is right: mainstream media (except for Murdoch's Fox network, and he's not Jewish) is virulently anti-Israel, and the owners of those media groups are by and large Jewish.
mm said: The Jews who are influential in the US are overwhelmingly either (a) Reform, or (b) Marxists who see Judaism as a medieval superstition (like my grandparents). Accusing these people of being Zionists is fightin' words.
Hmm, wonder who it is that makes AIPAC such a powerful lobbying group? They are influential, they are Jews, they are Zionists...one would think. But apparently these particular Jews are so powerful that they have erased themselves from your schema!
Why, every time there is a war between Israel and X, does the NYT always seem to be rooting for X?
Perhaps they feel US govt support for Israel is secure (AIPAC), and with their covering up the Holocaust during WWII they fear any additional support would make the overall support seem too Jewish.
To me, the roots of Progressivism are already very clear and very much dominant by the Civil War, and the evolution of the doctrine seems obvious.
The roots of Jewish dominance of finance, the Rothchilds et al, were clear even before the Civil War. The Money Masters video I linked several times in comments at your site traces the influence of the international bankers back before the founding of our country. At 1:15 it covers Lincoln's struggle to fund the war without becoming indebted to these proto-Globalists. They even tie them to his assassination.
Is it true? I don't know, I wasn't there. But it sounds more plausible than the idea that Jews had little influence because they weren't physically present in large numbers.
This argument, by the way, is essentially the same reason Derbyshire calls MacDonald's ideas foolish. How could such a small minority control a much larger majority? It's a very weak argument for anyone familiar with the concept of leverage. "Give me a lever long enough, and a place on which to rest it, and I will move the world." If Archimedes were alive today he'd probably be a financier. Or perhaps a media mogul.
Not only Sulzberger, but George Soros, Stephen Spielberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the list really goes on and on. Furthermore, Mencius is right: mainstream media (except for Murdoch's Fox network, and he's not Jewish) is virulently anti-Israel, and the owners of those media groups are by and large Jewish.
I'm glad to see some honest acknowledgment of Jewish media power. Whether they are for or against Israel the point is they can shape public opinion.
Yep, I'm not only Jewish but unlike most of my fellows I'm married to a Jewish woman, although not out of any conscious desire to preserve the race. If our tribe rules the world they aren't cutting me in for a very big slice of it, I can tell you. My middle-east political sympathies are roughly labor-Zionist, so anti-AIPAC/Likud, but I gave up following the whole mess, it's too depressing. My parents got out of Europe as teenagers just before the Nazis took over completely, my uncle turned the other direction and was in the Haganah. Why I waste my time with pathetic anti-semitic bloggers is anybody's guess, but what can I say, abnormal psychology is a hobby of mine.
I made a brief update to the original post to link Old Atlantic's take.
tggp, you might skim the posts at OA for more genocide info. I don't believe he uses that term, but the end result is the same.
tanstaafl,
Again, the reason I have difficulty in believing that the Sulzbergers are in bed with AIPAC is that the two are on opposite sides of the US political fence. Each would like nothing better than to defeat and destroy the other.
In medieval Europe, Protestants and Catholics hated each other much more than either hated the Turk. Exactly the same principle applies with Jews. Except in the most dire emergency, it is always the "near enemy" who is hated most and dealt with first.
So, when you imply covert collusion between these two adversaries, it rather strains my imagination.
I am not saying, BTW, that the NYT would like to see all Israelis massacred by the Ay-rabs. I mean, if it has to happen, it has to happen. But they'd much rather see Israel just fold up and deport itself to Brooklyn.
Certainly, as a charity case, any Jew is welcome. There is probably that much ethnic solidarity. I think.
Anyway, it seems to me that if you want to take an anti-Jewish line, you are far better off going with the theory that the conflicts of the 20th century are best explained as intra-Semitic contests, ie, Jew-on-Jew fights between warring tribes of Heeb. Admittedly, this one gives you a tough time with Hitler. But it certainly has some potential for explaining the Cold War. Perhaps you could look into it.
As for the War of Secession, a quick googling for "Jewish abolitionist" returned almost nothing, except for this Washington Post article - as copied by a very interesting site called, I kid you not, Jew Watch.
Presumably, if there were any significant Jewish abolitionists, the reporter would have mentioned it. He is certainly doing his best to play down the large number who were obviously involved in the slave trade. (Perhaps "Mills" is short for "Millstein. Or "Miljewsky?" But who can know?)
Were Jews in some way responsible for the American Rebellion and the English Civil War as well? Because the factional consistency across these three gringo-on-gringo wars is remarkable. If you invoke the Rothschilds for one, you might as well start looking around for the Hebrews in the woodpile behind all the rest. The Fuggers, perhaps? Or were they Flemings? But maybe it's "Fuggerjewsky."
tggp,
I have tried correcting MM on attitudes toward Israel before, but he doesn't seem to listen. He's got too much David Horowitz neocon in him, obsessed with the small "moonbat" left. This study shows support for Israel in academia is twice as large as support for Palestine [...]
Dude, you're on crack. Who do you believe, a study, or your own eyes? How much pro-Israeli activism do you see on American campuses these days? If you are a young, hip student, do you join your campus chapter of Betar, and spend all your time making signs with quotes from The Iron Wall?
Of course, if we define support as "the belief that Israel should be permitted to exist," and we define its largeness as boolean headcount rather than aggregate quantity of activism, we can probably get at the result you describe. (I haven't read the study. I prefer to believe my own eyes.) That is, you can probably get as much as two-thirds of actual professors saying "yes, Israel should be permitted to exist, if it makes adequate concessions to the victims it has so cruelly wronged." That is, only one-third of them will say, "no! The crimes of the Jewish entity are unatonable! It must be crushed and driven into the sea! No justice, no peace!"
Of course, by this standard, there is 100% support on American college campuses for Australia, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, etc, etc. Hm.
Anyway, it seems to me that if you want to take an anti-Jewish line, you are far better off going with the theory that the conflicts of the 20th century are best explained as intra-Semitic contests, ie, Jew-on-Jew fights between warring tribes of Heeb.
Notice the wording: any analysis of recent history that acknowledges group strategizing on the part of Jews is "an anti-Jewish" line.
Why I waste my time with pathetic anti-semitic bloggers is anybody's guess,
Well, it's pretty plainly spelled out in MacDonald's Culture of Critique. The fact is that Free Lunch, a gentile with verbal skills and the means to distribute his own writings, is awakening to Jewish group strategies. What would MacDonald predict? Depending on the size and influence of his writings, there would either be national press induced hysteria, a blackout, death threats, investigations by the SPLC , boycotts, etc. or what we have in front of us, an otherwise not busy comments section flooded with Jews trying to distract or divert FL from what he can see very clearly.
Mencius is plainly quite concerned. Of course, despite the fact that he is very well read regarding other aspects of history, he won't read Culture of Critique, or Ginsberg's Fatal Embrace or Shahak's book on Jewish Religion or Cuddihy's No Offense and Burden of Modernity or Goldberg's Jewish Power or Chad Powers' When Victims Rule.
I won't pillory Mencius for not reading Solsenytsin's 200 Years Together, since that book hasn't been translated into English (seven years and waiting). I would like for Mencius to explain how such a major work by such a major figure is squelched with so little comment from the otherwise "free" world. I guess the "Brahmins" and the non-strategizing Jews of his imagination decided that nobody is really that interested in what Jews have been getting up to in Russia. Does Mr. Moldbug have a plausible explanation for the non-existence of this book in English language markets?
The major works which Moldbug has not read and will not give any credence to are easily enumerated. They all conform to the one area of his worldview which was, a priori, excised. It's not that he can't percieve the things we're talking about, it's that he won't.
That's something else MacDonald might have predicted, in addition to the fact that an awakening gentile is swarmed by Jews who are employing a variety of tactics and approaches to prevent him from either himself reaching certain conclusions or from alerting others.
You'll see mtraven and jewish atheist and others all over the web where topics like this are discussed. Along with others in their cohort, they vociferously patrol and deconstruct the self/nonself boundary anywhere gentiles congregate.
If gentiles congregate consciously among themselves, then one or more will infiltrate by disguise - what MacDonald calls crypsis - to detour the process of coming to accurate conclusions about the architecture of political power.
Real world control over taboo parameters isn't enough; patrolling and more personal touches are also required.
It's embarrasing and shocking to see Mencius, otherwise so formidibe in terms of political knowledge, reduced to the bald untruths of a politician when this topic is raised. I'm personally very disappointed in him.
Again, the reason I have difficulty in believing that the Sulzbergers are in bed with AIPAC is that the two are on opposite sides of the US political fence. Each would like nothing better than to defeat and destroy the other.
This is delusional. The Sulzbergers put Judith Miller's "The WMDs are real!" story above the fold on A1 in the New York Times. The idea that the NYT is "anti-Israel" is so untrue that it's disturbing to hear a sane man say it in public. The NYT's extremely mild public corrections to *some* of Israel's more grotesque excesses is hardly being rabidly anti-Israel: it's the art of the possible. One can indeed polish a turd, but only so much. The Israel of America's imagination - "the little democracy that could" - is in fact, the highest gloss turd that can be produced using current technologies.
Non coverage - of Rachel Corrie, say, or the dissolution of Jew/non-Jew marriages, or the "spitting" controversy (Jews spitting on Christians), or the contract that guestworkers must sign, to not engage in sexual congress with Israelis . . . where is the above the fold A1 coverage of this stuff? Why doesn't it enter the news cycle? Why isn't it picked up the broadcast services?
Why can't people stage plays about Rachel Corrie? Why isn't the suppression of these plays A1 news?
Who is preventing Mearscheimer and Walt from speaking in public places?
Why did they have to publish first in the London Review of Books? Were the Brahmins who control discourse in the United States ashamed of people talking about how they had fallen under open Jewish control? Is that the cause of their silence?
Are "Brahmins" and "Brahmin" news services the ones who draft, propagandize, and provide the test cases for "hate" legislation?
The idea that there is anything even mildly anti-Israel in American discourse or public life is insane. People understand that you can lose everything by publicly contradicting Jewish power. Those "Brahmins" turned pretty quickly on Jimmy Carter when he made the smallest observations on the subject!
(con't)
Let's return to the site of Mencius' blind spot:
Again, the reason I have difficulty in believing that the Sulzbergers are in bed with AIPAC is that the two are on opposite sides of the US political fence. Each would like nothing better than to defeat and destroy the other.
Given that Mencius is of dual heritage, and that therefore his loyalties might fall one way or the other, this statement is either shockingly ill-informed or naked stragegizing so gross as to be almost useless.
Jews often say in debate - as they have since the twenties - "well first you say we are capitalists and then you say we are communists. Which is it?" They are certainly very adept in debate, which is a skill twice as adept at hiding truth as discovering it.
Although we do not have Solzhenitsyn's book, 200 Years Together, in an English edition - for reasons that continue to elude many Americans - we still have some information about how the Russian Revolution was co-ordianted transatlantically by Jews of ostensibly very different political views.
Banker Jacob Schiff - ostensibly a capitalist - sends Brooklyn lad Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) with 25 million dollars (which was a lot of money back then) to accomplish the revolution.
Skipping over a lot of mischief in the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, which would show high levels of collusion between "liberal democrat" Jews and "communist" Jews, we land smack dab in the middle of the McCarthy era. Jewish strategizing is so massive that even McCarthy has to hire a very visible Jewish assistant to keep the accusations of anti-Semitism at bay: as though 9 out 10 of the hundreds (we now know) of Communists in the American government weren't Jewish, i.e. mean old Tailgunner Joe is picking on Jews.
I'm also skipping over Stalin's constant embassies to New York Jews when he was in the middle of one of his purges. He was well aware that the 'world press' could turn against him and finance dry up if NY Jews percieved him as an enemy. Details of Stalin's humble legations are in MacDonald.
You might consult the transcripts of the Nixon White House for an interesting first person confession of how difficult it was to remove communist agents from positions of government power, on account of the huge - HUGE - overrepresentation of Jews there.
Keeping with Mencius' somewhat dimwitted (I'm going to assume him innocent until proven guilty) assumption that Jews don't collaborate across party lines, I'll ask: what was Arthur Miller's political outlook? Why did he write a play whose chief purpose was to convince gentiles that the ACCURATE idea that their government (and other institutions) were staffed by Communists was a MENTAL ILLNESS? Miller wasn't a "communist" as that word is commonly understood, but the production and reception of "Crucible" is a political act with wide ranging implications that stretch down to the current day. If he wasn't a communist, then why would he be so interested in explaining to the American people that they were in one of their periodic fits of gentile madness, when in fact, the government of the US at that time was rife with Jewish Communists?
You should think about that. It's a mindfuck on the grand scale. It certainly does not fit Mencius' model of Jews as ordinary factionalists (I don't deny that they disagree, outside gentile hearing, regarding points of strategy).
And of course, it's not just Miller: he's surrounded by legions of producers, critics, financiers, most of whom are first, second, or third cousins, and all of whom have a vested interest in hiding what's going on. They might even be "apolitical".
Crossing party lines is nothing to Jews. The 350 or so intermarried Jewish families that are referred to nowadays as "neoconservatives" were Trotskyists in the seventies who wouldn't give up on the Soviet Union, and its beloved promise of the Messianic Age, until it was made plain to them that absolutely nothing - nothing at all - could be salvaged for Jewry from it. Then, they became "anti-communists" overnight, though this - like any position they take - is not the result of reflection or principle, but self seeking advantage.
In addition to crossing the communist/ anti-communist line with the greatest of ease, they threatened to 'jump ship' to the Democrats during a period when the Bush administration was showing insufficient resolve in the execution of their plans.
Also, in the New Republic - another magazine that is quite useful for tracking inter-ethnic strategizing - Peter Beinart produced his famous 'come home' essay, where he invited the Neocons to join the neoliberals as they all supported big government, open borders, and democracy.
Beinart - the "neoliberal" now has a videolog in which he chats extensively with "neoconservative" Johah Goldberg. It's on National Review's site - I think (it's easy to forget which journal of Jewish opinion you're reading, when the reportory company performing all the roles hardly ever changes). They have long conversations about immigration, etc. which I'm sure are quite incomprehensible to people who don't have the skeleton key. If you want to understand why these "bipartisan" news summits occur, you need only know one thing about the participants. Mencius' model - that we are dealing with factions that want to "destroy" each other, is insupportable. It's the opposite of what we see in reality.
When you understand that "neoliberals" and "neoconservatives" are just the same old Jews travelling about in different masks - pulled from the travel trunk - then it all is less confusing.
Indeed, if you are a longtime reader of the New Republic, as I am, you get a real feeling for how the game is played. Just now, both "neoliberals" and "neoconservatives" are very, very mad at bad old Putin, who cheated them out of raping the Russian people for the second time in a century. You'll notice how closely "Western" media moves in lockstep with their moment to moment changes in mood. Putin is perilously close to the dreaded 'new Hitler' charge and all the newspapers and telescreens tell you so - without dissenting opinions - 24/7. It was the same during the Jew-financed revolutions in the Ukraine and Georgia.
Anther line that "neoconservatives" and "neoliberals" can cross with the greatest of ease is the Islamofascist/ Islamophone dialetical game. Gentiles are informed that the military occupation of Spain by Islam was the greatest thing since sliced bread by Bernard Lewis for forty years, as this tends to make them think less of their own civilization - so intolerant toward's God's pets, unlike those saintly Muslims!
Then one day Bernard Lewis turns on his whole life's work in one day, calling all of Christendom to destroy Islam, on account of its great evil!
Similarly, the neoconservatives tell us that we are in a 'clash of civilizations' and that, simultaneously, that 'Islam is a religion of peace'. They're keeping their option opens, though all of us can hear the clock ticking. On the whole, though, the Jewish collective is moving towards a position of accepting "Eurabia", despite some genuine internal debate and dissension. Even given their formidible intelligence and drive, there's no way to activate the gentile immune system without undoing a century of work of disabling it: and a working gentile immune system would, frankly, be "bad for the Jews". Far worse than Muslim occupation, in fact.
And by open options, I mean wide open. The same 300 or so Jews who directly created and managed this war (and who profit in the aftermath: Michael Ledeen's daughter is overseeing economic reconstruction)
also operate the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya - a backdoor to Muslims saying: we can deliver the gentiles to you anywhere else, but leave Israel alone. You can think of Serbia as a neocon affair (in a "Democrat" administration) orchestrated for the benefit of Israel-Islamic relations. Please don't think that high level communication between "American" Jews and Muslim nations don't include lots of "we gave you Serbia and will deliver the West against Putin so stop picking on Israel".
Another example: all of the eager public support for "Democrats" among Hollywood Jews doesn't stop the production of TV shows like E-Ring (about the Pentagon's E-Ring, wholly staffed by civilian Jews: Google Abram Shulsky and Office of Special Plans) and that torture show starring Sutherland the Younger. Plus - have there ever been so many postive war movies put out by Hollywood - ever? Maybe during WWII. I was watching "300", a movie about a bunch of white guys who invade Iran, and thinking, I guess PNAC forwards the minutes of their last meeting to studio heads, who turn it into movies! I remember the strong anti-war tone of movies in the seventies and eighties and was quite surprised by the recent spate of films celebrating the heroism of white men fighting dusky hordes (starting with Black Hawk Down).
I could go on all day. The idea that Jews are principled operaters who relate to objective reality in the same way gentiles do, is an illusion. When you have debated with Jews online as long as I have, you begin to sense the difference in the construction of the personality. Yours is susceptible to reason, fairness, the rights of other. To them, none of these things exist. Doestoyevsky says that mecilessness is what propels them, and I believe that in part, but more useful is Goethe's formulation:
"Observe this clever race! They have internalized the principle that unless chaos reigns, there is no profit to be made."
Jews differ - to a small degree - on what degree of crypsis and what degree or style of exploitation of the host population is most efficacious, but they all cover for each other, and none of them have political principles that run very deep at all. Outside of harming host populations, I don't think they have any enduring principles whatsoever. I've never met one that couldn't turn on dime and defend his new position as viciously, as venemously, and as vehemently as if he had held it his whole life long.
Keeping with Mencius' somewhat dimwitted (I'm going to assume him innocent until proven guilty) assumption that Jews don't collaborate across party lines, I'll ask: what was Arthur Miller's political outlook? Why did he write a play whose chief purpose was to convince gentiles that the ACCURATE idea that their government (and other institutions) were staffed by Communists was a MENTAL ILLNESS? Miller wasn't a "communist" as that word is commonly understood, but the production and reception of "Crucible" is a political act with wide ranging implications that stretch down to the current day. If he wasn't a communist, then why would he be so interested in explaining to the American people that they were in one of their periodic fits of gentile madness, when in fact, the government of the US at that time was rife with Jewish Communists?
Because Miller was a progressive.
(The government of the US was rife with Communists period, not just Jews. Many were of the John Reed WASP variety - Remington is a good example.)
You've got to understand that the line between "progressive" and "Communist" is very tricky. My (Jewish) grandparents called themselves "progressives" all their lives. In fact they followed the Moscow line at least into the '70s.
(Also, many progressives did split with Moscow. By some definitions, these people were not Communists. However, given that their beliefs didn't change at all, but they just became disenchanted with Stalin, who they felt was not living up to progressive values, it's not clear that this makes a huge difference. I think even most of the Americans who passed information to the KGB in the '30s and '40s felt that by doing so they were serving America.)
They also thought of Revisionists as, basically, Jewish Nazis. There was really nothing they hated more. Please follow that link to "The Iron Wall" I left above, and read the introduction (written by Jewish progressives).
As I said, there is a slight soft spot for Israel left in the progressive heart as the result of the long-lost Labor-Stalin alliance. Israel fought the war of 1948 with Russian arms.
It is a very long step between being cordial with someone, cooperating with them on a bipartisan effort, and engaging in a campaign of covert conspiracy.
"Neocons" are not Jabotinskian Revisionists by a long shot. In general, they really are progressives mugged by reality. It is very difficult to tell a post-Trotskyist neocon, like Paul Berman, from someone who may well have some real Revisionist roots, like Michael Ledeen, when they both wind up advocating the same policies.
But the idea that they and the Sulzbergers get together on some kind of secret Jewish mailing list to coordinate their ethnic genetic interests is just madness.
The terrible truth is that most people, and especially most intellectuals, are perfectly sincere. It is almost impossible to organize insincerity on any serious scale. To my grandparents, concealing their adherence to Communism was second nature. But their opinions were their opinions. They followed the CPUSA line because they genuinely believed in Leninist ideological discipline. And they had nothing but contempt for Jewish nationalism of any kind.
Of course progressive Jews react with extreme hostility at the suggestion that they are acting on the basis of Jewish nationalism. In my own terribly humble opinion, this is because (a) they consider it the worst possible insult, and (b) it is isn't true.
Imagine if you accused Stormfront of being a secret camarilla of homosexuals. You would probably get the same response, and for just the same reasons.
This is an interesting conversation. There is definitely a lot of Jews in this conversation - and yes, I am another one you can add to your list (I'm the anonymous who posted earlier more examples of Jews in power).
Look, both of you are right and, I think, both of you are wrong. There are, as Mencius says, two very different types of Jews. Reading the Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu, the head of Sayeret Matkal (Israel's Delta Force) who died in the Entebbe Raid, he commented that the wars between the Jews were the bitterest of them all.
There was almost a Jewish civil war over the Altalena affair. Look it up.
Internationally, the vast majority of Jews are leftist and Marxist. They promote liberalism, secularism and democracy worldwide - neocons through America, leftists through the United Nation. Because they see the world in terms of human desire, and because all human desire is equal, there is a large propensity to critisize the stronger hand within a conflict. Lawrence Auster notes that the New York Times will critisize Israel strongly over their misdeeds, then turn around and critisize Russia for not doing enough to prevent anti-Semitism within it's own ranks. Overall, the New York Times - with a couple notable exceptions - would, as Mencius says, like Israel to simply disappear and it's citizens move to Brooklyn. On top of the factors I just mentioned, as a national paper, the New York Times definitely doesn't want to come across as Jewish.
The other side comprising Jews are much smaller in number than Marxist Jews, unfortunately. They tend to be religious and capitalist. If you look at demographic figures within Israel, this segment of the population is growing enormously - but not fast enough - because they have so many children compared to the secular ones. Netanyahu (Benjamin) made sweeping capitalistic reforms when he was in power. Menachem Begin in polls is seen as the most-missed leader in Israel's history.
It's interesting and amusing to me that, while internationally most Jews may be antithetical to the interests of the countries in which they live, as time goes by, Israel as a country will be a greater and greater asset.
So, when you imply covert collusion between these two adversaries, it rather strains my imagination.
I am not saying, BTW, that the NYT would like to see all Israelis massacred by the Ay-rabs. I mean, if it has to happen, it has to happen. But they'd much rather see Israel just fold up and deport itself to Brooklyn.
It doesn't strain my imagination that Jews, as a group, see and enjoy the benefits of "good is what's good for Jews". Your second paragraph reveals that this is in fact a way of thinking that even you can see. The halves of the group that are "are on opposite sides of the US political fence" are that way mainly because they see different paths to advancing their collective interests. Zionists think Jews need a homeland they control absolutely, anti-Zionists think that's dangerously provocative and makes Jews everywhere vulnerable to criticism. That about sums up their differences over Israel, right?
The self-favoritism of Jews is so obvious because it contrasts starkly with the tendency for non-Jewish Whites to feel guilty and avoid any such behavior. This group-suicidal mode of thinking is vigorously promoted by academia and the MSM, and is intended specifically for Whites - not Jews, not Latinos, not Blacks, and not Asians.
What makes me believe that most cries of anti-semitism are specious slurs is A) the automatic presumption of guilt, which goes against the usual "liberal" treatment of fairness and assumption of innocence to those accused of anything, B) that even the mildest suggestion that Jews play some role is very quickly inflated into the charge that the suggester insanely believes that Jews conspire to micromanage everything, and C) that this trumped up "insanity" isn't treated with kid gloves like any other - it is ruthlessly sniffed out, hunted down, and lynched in the public square. Virtually any discussion that mentions Jews is eventually derailed in this way.
Some might say that the need to head off another Holocaust justifies all of this and more. Well, as I said above, I see the White race being deliberately destroyed right now. Our Holocaust is in progress. Tggp might be more inclined to agree if I qualified it as a slow-motion crypto-genocide, but the demographic white zeroist result (as OA might call it) is the same. I don't care what injustice any other group has suffered in the past or might suffer in the future, it doesn't give them any moral high ground over me and my kin.
I find myself agreeing with guessedworker and colin laney when they ask you to consider what's good for your non-Jewish half. Does it not deserve the same defense as your Jewish half? Do you have any instinct at all to decry anti-Whiteism?
colin laney, thanks for that list of books. I had only last night gotten around to reading Mearscheimer and Walt's paper. Previously I was for some strange reason under the belief that it was nothing but the ramblings of two insane anti-semites. As with many such over-heated accusations I can see now their only real crime is that they noticed that Jews play a role in the world's architecture of political power and wrote about it.
The Sulzbergers put Judith Miller's "The WMDs are real!" story above the fold on A1 in the New York Times.
Remind me again what this has to do with Israel?
Note that Miller has since been fired. There was a period in 2001-2003 when the MSM was, to some extent, going along with the neocon "mugged by reality" line. This was not out of principle, but consistent with their usual approach of bending with the breeze. Once their "insurgent" friends in Iraq began to score some victories, their backbone snapped back into place.
As for the rest of Israel's crimes, note how much like a progressive you sound. I really do mean it when I say that reversing Chomsky gets you very close to reality. Almost everything these people say is the polar opposite of the truth. I'm afraid I have no energy at all for debating Chomskian talking points - you will have to go elsewhere for that.
Suffice it to say that if you draw the line on Israel far enough to the left, almost anyone short of Chomsky looks like a slave of AIPAC.
The only way to escape from this maze of moonbattery is to realize that you are applying very different standards of judgment to Israel than to, say, Syria. If every time the Syrian government committed the level of offense that you think should be a cause celebre when committed by Israel, the NYT could dedicate a whole section to it.
Again, read "The Iron Wall" and contemplate what you would think of Israel if, today, now, in 2007, it adopted a pure Jabotinsky policy. Then try to come up with a way in which Syria is deviating from Jabotinskian doctrine - reversing Jews and Arabs, of course.
The irony is that we probably both favor the same US policy toward the Middle East - an absolute cutoff of aid to all sides. I've been at parties in SF at which everyone around the table is an absolute hardcore progressive, proposed this plan, and gotten immediate assent.
Of course, I also think that when Gazans fire randomly targeted rockets at Israel, Israel should feel free to drop a few randomly targeted shells on Gaza City. Somehow I don't think SF progressives would be quite as happy with this one. But when you don't care about the Arab-Israeli conflict, you really don't care.
It doesn't strain my imagination that Jews, as a group, see and enjoy the benefits of "good is what's good for Jews."
Remember when Lady Thatcher said, "there's no such thing as society?"
Nationalism is bunk. Groups do not "see and enjoy." Individuals act in accordance with their own beliefs and opinions. They may not understand the historical origins of their beliefs, but they believe them.
People can certainly act disingenuously. But in order for a large group of people to act disingenuously, they need a coordination network. And there simply is no secret Jew Internet on which only Jews get accounts.
The closest thing to a covert system of opinion coordination the world has ever seen was the Comintern. Which was Communist-internationalist, not Jewish-nationalist. And it has been defunct for quite some time. By and large, today's "progressives" don't even know that "progressive" was once a codeword for "Bolshevik."
Mencius: there isn't a secret network, but it's a fact that the vast majority of Jews worldwide are secular, liberal Marxists. And because of a genetic predisposition toward high intelligence, they have an inordinate amount of clout in promoting these ideals.
But in order for a large group of people to act disingenuously, they need a coordination network. And there simply is no secret Jew Internet on which only Jews get accounts.
Besides accepting and agreeing with what ezk says, I'll say this. You continue to hold up this strawman of a "coordination network" and beat it to a pulp. That isn't my position, or at least my position is not as cartoonish as you make it seem.
As for a secret Jew internet, don't Yiddish and Hebrew offer some cover? Can you not admit that Jews speak cryptically even in English at times when they are discussing their group's best interests? For example, Turkheimer's take on how to handle genetic evidence for differences in IQ. It definitely comes right out in the open whenever the anti-semite slur starts getting tossed around.
I agree individuals primarily act in their own self-interests. That doesn't mean their group interests don't also come into play whenever their self-interests are otherwise satisfied. Most Whites notably lack such group self-interests, and it is perhaps that half of you that makes you skeptical of vast tightly controlled conspiracies, as I am.
People can certainly act disingenuously. But in order for a large group of people to act disingenuously, they need a coordination network. And there simply is no secret Jew Internet on which only Jews get accounts. The closest thing to a covert system of opinion coordination the world has ever seen was the Comintern. Which was Communist-internationalist, not Jewish-nationalist. And it has been defunct for quite some time.
Ezk said... Mencius: there isn't a secret network, but it's a fact that the vast majority of Jews worldwide are secular, liberal Marxists.
You're both wrong.
I recommend consulting J.J. Goldberg's "Jewish Power" to see how far of the mark you are here.
Goldberg describes the functioning of NCRAC, "central policy making council of the organized American Jewish community. Its membership includes a dozen fo the most powerful and broadly representative groups on the national Jewish scene: the three main synagogue unions, Reform, Conservative, and Orothodox; the three main "defense agencies," Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, and American Jewish Congress; and the three largest Jewish women's groups, Hadassah, the National Council on Jewish Women, and Women's American ORT. Also included, along with a handful of other national bodies, are 117 locale community councils, representing the world of Jewish federated charities and their donors."
What do they do?
"NCRAC's policy positions are hammed out in intense, year-long negotiations among the agencies, then booted on at the council's annual assembly and published each fall in a booklet, the Joint Program Plan. ... The eighty-four page plan for 1992 included, along with ten pages on Israel and eight pages on anti-Semitism in Russia and the Arab world, no less than six pages on public- school education, six pages on abortion rights and the status of women, four pages on poverty, three pages each on immigration policy, federal courts, and universal health care, and four pages on the environment."
Enough of a "Coordination network" for you, Mencius? Not to mention AIPAC, JINSA, PNAC, et. al.
To give an idea of just how highly organized "Organized Jewry" is, here is Goldberg on some of the manuevering that resulted in the 1965 Hart-Cellar act:
"Everyone agreed that the Jewish community must undertake a massive effort to repeal the quota system, but the ADL and the American Jewish Committee refused to join an operation under NCRAC auspices. Instead, Minkoff put NCRAC immigration specialist Jules Cohen in charge of a "non-auspices committee," operated by NCRAC under its "non-auspices." In 1955, this committee spearheaded the formation of a broad coalition for immigration reform, made up of civic associations, labor groups, and Protestant and Catholic groups. For a decade the coalition lobbied, leafleted, planted articles in magazines, and held public meetings on the racist nature of the immigration quota system. The entire operation was run by a steering committee of the "non-auspices committee," made up of four staffers from the three defense agencies and NCRAC. The quotas were finally repealed by the Immigration Reform Act of 1965, passed by Congress during the civil rights surge of President Lyndon Johnson's early years."
You, and everyone else here, may consult Mr. Goldberg's book Jewish Power, pg. 127, for further details. MacDonald extends this perspective fairly broadly over the twentieth century in Culture of Critique and the end results of what you insist is Jewish non-organization on account of tactical disagreement can be seen in the pages of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century.
Please note, for purposes of evaluating Jewish behavior on this thread, that NCRAC was savvy enough - in 1955 - to create spinoff agencies that it co-ordianted but which it couldn't be publicly linked to, in order to bring about a sea change in public opinion regarding immigration. This is not an ordinary level of dissimulation. Among gentiles, it could only be seen, or expected to be seen, among intelligence agencies, spies, and psychopaths. This is part of the reason why Jewish group behavior is so hard to see for gentiles: they can't imagine themselves engaging in it, and they also don't want to imagine that the world is so sharkish it could create a race that operates that way pretty much all the time. It's just too much. However, we are now approaching an abyss, the contemplation of which is even worse than than facing the facts of Jewish behavior, and so we see at least a few gentiles becoming aware of the duplicity and belligerence that seems to characterize Jewish group strategizing (and individual behavior) for as long as there have been records. As Voltaire observed of the Jews, "I would not be surprised if they were one day to become fatal to the entire world."
Well, here we are.
It's not like Kevin MacDonald diverges much from Voltaire, Goethe, Shakespeare, Cicero, Tacitus, Doestoyevsky, Solzhenitsyn, et. al. in his opinion of how Jews operate. He's just included more footnotes, is all. We're clearly observing the same group organism employ exactly the same strategies against the exact same people.
The best book for beginners, IMO, is "When Victims Rule" over at the Jewish Tribal Review site: http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/wvr.htm.
For Free Luch, I'll add to the list of reading material Paul Findley's "They Dared to Speak Out", which records experiences on Capitol Hill which do not match up with Mencius' model of how the world is organized. He'll announce - predictably - that it's all so much swamp gas, but then that's what we might expect of an Official Spokesperson.
I agree individuals primarily act in their own self-interests.
Your mistake here, Free Lunch, is to assume that "individuals" from different Race-Cultures have similar values, strategies, temperaments, etc. That is not the case. IQ differences are the least interesting, and least significant way, in which groups differ from each other. Jewish researchers - Lewontin, Gould, etc. understand that IQ is the toe in the door for investigation of real group differences, which have to do with a much wider array of variables than just how many digits you can memorize, or whatever.
You'll note, for instance, that you now have a thread full of Jews telling you that Jews don't have any kind of group strategy or coordination. Some of them I've encountered on Steve Sailer's site, where they peddle the same cheap rags. It's all a swindle.
Anywhere gentiles are waking up, Jews are right there next to them, patrolling and supressing *any* occurance of the self/nonself divide. As for Jews you can't see, they're drafting hate crime legislation, or educating police offices about their new legal category, or spreading it through newspapers. By the time other gentiles come to the conclusions you've come to, they'll find themselves thinking "I'm a racist. I'm a hater", rather than "I have legitimate group interests."
As a further defense, some Jews have set themselves up - Auster is one - as another safety valve for awakening gentiles. He tells them everything about their current plight except for one important detail . . . which is ruthlessly excised from every discussion he presides over. I'd put Mencius in this category, though he isn't as clumsy as Auster. FWIW, I don't think he's aware of what he's doing, either. Deception of others begins with, and is enhanced by, self-deception. Mencius is pretty far up his own navel, where Jews never act as a group to advance group interests. Tell it to the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty.
AmRen is also railroaded by Jews into shushing all talk of the Tribe, even though it's supposed to be a group for gentile group interests. How do you suppose that happens? More "individuals" who happen to be of Jewish descent all deciding at more or less the same time that discussion of Jewish group behaviors isn't advisable?
Do you begin to see how many circles of Jews are watching over the population for signs of restlessness? Can you appreciate how hard they're working both to prevent awakening and also to be there for gentiles who have some awareness of how things have gone wrong just so that any understanding of the Jewish contribution to the emerging World Order?
I would also add that no level of aboveboard co-ordiantion is required for Jews to act in this manner. I think it's instinctive, though the reflex to demand "scientific" evidence for what you see with your own eyes is another check on how agile a political observer you can be. IOW, it doesn't matter to me *why* Jews behave as they do - perhaps MacDonald is right to say it in evolved group strategy - it is simply important to note that they *do*.
Jews have many steering committees and open air pow-wows, but the Jews on this thread don't need to avail themselves of any of them in order to know that any discussion of Jews as a group is a Bad Thing, and to act accordingly. And no matter where you go on the web, or anywhere else, you'll find the same set of behaviors. They'll hold to the line of "we not doing it" right up until the day they all switch over to "we'll never do it again, we promise". Jews are extremely slippery, but once you understand the few simple rules that almost all operate by, there is no simpler group in all of creation to predict the behavior of, hydrogen atoms included.
It's the initial and internal distinction that you make in your own head that is the great hurdle. The point in the game we're at now on this site is where you are being called away from making the leap. After you've leapt, a different set of strategies will come into play, both for you and for them.
What's the toll so far from the immigration invasion?
A lot less than 6 million. It's not even the initial immigrants that cause the problems (their older than the average trouble-maker and scared of getting sent back to Mexico) but the later generations.
What will the toll be when the US, Canada, NZ, and all of Europe look like Zimbabwe?
So in other words, the genocide hasn't actually happened yet?
Do you think this isn't genocide just because we don't have a Hitler icon to hang the blame on?
The Armenian and Tutsi genocides don't have a Hitler icon, but they actually happened at a point in history, unlike the genocide-to-be you are concerned about.
you might skim the posts at OA for more genocide info.
I did. No genocide.
Again, the reason I have difficulty in believing that the Sulzbergers are in bed with AIPAC is that the two are on opposite sides of the US political fence.
They're both establishment liberals. Alan Dershowitz is one too.
Anyway, it seems to me that if you want to take an anti-Jewish line, you are far better off going with the theory that the conflicts of the 20th century are best explained as intra-Semitic contests, ie, Jew-on-Jew fights between warring tribes of Heeb.
I think Steve Sailer has proposed something like that.
Dude, you're on crack. Who do you believe, a study, or your own eyes?
If they disagreed, I would choose the study, but as it happens they agree.
How much pro-Israeli activism do you see on American campuses these days?
I remember seeing the pro-Israel and pro-Palestine student groups being quite near each other on the Quad one day. The pro-Israel group was bigger, and they were offering stuff like trips to Israel as well as condoms (I don't know what that had to do with Israel, but it made them hipper than the people of the headscarf).
Of course, if we define support as "the belief that Israel should be permitted to exist,"
The question: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"
Israelis: 20.9
Palestinians: 10.7
Both: 51.3
Neither: 17.1
and we define its largeness as boolean headcount rather than aggregate quantity of activism
The former is measurable and hence we can make falsifiable statements about it. That is not the case with the latter.
I haven't read the study
Who needs evidence!
I prefer to believe my own eyes
That's a problem with you.
Notice the wording: any analysis of recent history that acknowledges group strategizing on the part of Jews is "an anti-Jewish" line.
Not group strategizing in itself, just that "they cause all the wars", as Gibson drunkenly put it.
I have never heard of this Free Lunch character. He doesn't sound that unique so I don't think he'll get much attention.
he won't read Culture of Critique
I would actually like to see Mencius review it. I don't know about the others though, they probably aren't as interesting as Kevin, who has actually studied group selection thoroughly (though I don't think there's much to it) before writing about jews.
I would like for Mencius to explain how such a major work by such a major figure is squelched with so little comment from the otherwise "free" world.
Mencius has discussed the free-pass communists get for being kindred sprits of Universalism before.
You'll see mtraven and jewish atheist and others all over the web where topics like this are discussed. Along with others in their cohort, they vociferously patrol and deconstruct the self/nonself boundary anywhere gentiles congregate.
I don't know as much about the latter since I don't read Half Sigma that much, but I think the former has more hatred for neo-classical economics than gentile congregation. Could be I'm just seeing what I'm looking for though!
Real world control over taboo parameters isn't enough; patrolling and more personal touches are also required.
Wow, you make wasting time on the internet sound like serious business.
grotesque excesses
Come on, you're secretly a liberal, aren't you?
Why can't people stage plays about Rachel Corrie?
Is that on a double-billing with the Laramie Project?
Who is preventing Mearscheimer and Walt from speaking in public places?
They don't get invited to some places, but they are free to discuss it.
Why did they have to publish first in the London Review of Books?
Oh, the horrors! That's like publishing in "Hustler", isn't it?
Were the Brahmins who control discourse in the United States ashamed of people talking about how they had fallen under open Jewish control?
England strikes me as more P.C than America. Check out this from John Derbyshire. I don't think they have anyone who can match Tancredo or Buchanan's stature in their political sphere. Enoch Powell is long dead. Publishing things in England doesn't make you immune from charges of anti-semitism. Cash's "Kings of the Deal" was pillorried when it was published. Derbyshire has a page on that here.
Those "Brahmins" turned pretty quickly on Jimmy Carter when he made the smallest observations on the subject!
The American people turned on him because of Iran and stagflation. Despite his latest book he's still part of "The Elders" with Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu.
Given that Mencius is of dual heritage
So is Steve Sailer.
Banker Jacob Schiff - ostensibly a capitalist - sends Brooklyn lad Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) with 25 million dollars (which was a lot of money back then) to accomplish the revolution.
The Wilhelmine Reich sent Lenin in an armored car to Russia to start the Revolution. I guess their control by the jews escaped even Hitler!
as though 9 out 10 of the hundreds (we now know) of Communists in the American government weren't Jewish
The ones that set the whole thing off were Alger Hiss and Whitaker Chambers, both gentiles. It was the State Department and Army (which weren't bastions of jews at the time) that Joe went after, not Hollywood, where the jewish-communist influence was more clear. Speaking of Joe McCarthy, I was surprised to find this in Wikipedia. The Polygon revealed!
You might consult the transcripts of the Nixon White House
The one Kissinger worked in? They certainly are funny, since Nixon was a paranoid loon who hated everybody.
Why did he write a play whose chief purpose was to convince gentiles that the ACCURATE idea that their government (and other institutions) were staffed by Communists was a MENTAL ILLNESS?
You don't understand, Arthur was a writer (I've been waiting to use that line for a while). He was upset by HUAC (which investigated writers), not McCarthy, who focused on government.
It certainly does not fit Mencius' model of Jews as ordinary factionalists
What the hell are you talking about? As a playwright intellectual, Arthur Miller would be expected to be anti-anti-communist in MM's worldview.
they threatened to 'jump ship' to the Democrats during a period when the Bush administration was showing insufficient resolve in the execution of their plans.
What are you referring to now? There's no way they're jumping ship, the Democrats rightly hate their guts and the Republicans have been near fully transformed into a neocon vehicle.
"neoconservative" Johah Goldberg.
As far as I know, he was never on the left. His mother, Lucianne Goldberg, did attain prominence on the right before him, but I don't know if she was ever on the left either. She did once accept the label "neoconservative" in this way "You mean the people who like to kill people and break things. That's me!". He's certainly a light-weight, but I don't know how he stands out from the rest of the people at National Review (J-Pod, son of neocon Norman Podhoretz frequently clashed with others at the Corner, and continues to do so now that he's at Commentary).
the neoconservatives tell us that we are in a 'clash of civilizations'
You dumbass, "Clash of Civilizations" is by the paleoconservative Samuel Huntington and he wrote it in reaction to the neoconservative book "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis Fukuyama.
also operate the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya
Name some. I know some neocons don't like Russia (it seems to be trying to upset our unipolar dominance and it is working with Iran), but I can't recall any making a stink about Chechnya.
You can think of Serbia as a neocon affair (in a "Democrat" administration)
Correct so far.
orchestrated for the benefit of Israel-Islamic relations.
Bzzt, Israel was pro-Serbia.
and that torture show starring Sutherland the Younger.
Right, regular Americans could never root for torturing terrorists if it weren't for jews.
Plus - have there ever been so many postive war movies put out by Hollywood - ever?
There are a lot more anti-war movies. 300 is based on a comic book written before Iraq, which is in turn based on Greek history. Name another pro-war movie.
I could go on all day.
I'm sure you could.
The idea that Jews are principled operaters who relate to objective reality in the same way gentiles do, is an illusion.
Since when do we gentiles relate to objective reality as principled operators?
When you have debated with Jews online as long as I have
I bow before your life experience, grandpa. Were you scared crouching in that fox-hole, waiting for the jews?
Yours is susceptible to reason, fairness, the rights of other. To them, none of these things exist.
Ever studied cognitive biases?
Outside of harming host populations
The United States has the largest population of jews, and I'd say they're doing better than most other populations. Zimbabwe sure is lucky to be jew-free, though, right?
The terrible truth is that most people, and especially most intellectuals, are perfectly sincere.
Unfortunately, I think he's right. Caplan (not a jew, raised a Christian, in case you're wondering) has discussed this.
This group-suicidal mode of thinking is vigorously promoted by academia and the MSM, and is intended specifically for Whites - not Jews, not Latinos, not Blacks, and not Asians.
Academia discrimates against jews to the same extent as other whites. While its rhetoric is admittedly more hostile to "whites" than "jews", the same could be said for "whites" versus "[insert white ethnics]".
Our Holocaust is in progress.
What does it consist of other than low birthrates?
Do you have any instinct at all to decry anti-Whiteism?
Looks to me like he does that all the time at UR.
Most Whites notably lack such group self-interests, and it is perhaps that half of you that makes you skeptical of vast tightly controlled conspiracies, as I am.
Ah, I see. I'm incapable of anti-semitism because I'm white! In all seriousness, I think there is some truth to that.
The volume of sheer nonsense here has dwarfed the resources of the Jewish conspiracy, so just a few select responses:
What would MacDonald predict? Depending on the size and influence of his writings, there would either be national press induced hysteria, a blackout, death threats, investigations by the SPLC , boycotts, etc. or what we have in front of us, an otherwise not busy comments section flooded with Jews trying to distract or divert FL from what he can see very clearly.
That's some theory that can predict either press hysteria or a blackout. And "flooded" with Jews? Surely you need more than one or two to make a flood.
You'll see mtraven and jewish atheist and others all over the web where topics like this are discussed. Along with others in their cohort, they vociferously patrol and deconstruct the self/nonself boundary anywhere gentiles congregate.
Whoah, dude! I haven't deconstructed any boundaries since graduate school. Isn't it the effete leftist pomo intellectuals that are supposed to talk like that, not your type?
If gentiles congregate consciously among themselves, then one or more will infiltrate by disguise - what MacDonald calls crypsis - to detour the process of coming to accurate conclusions about the architecture of political power.
You just made me want to read MacDonald even less. I thought he was just misapplying evolutionary psychology, but you make him sound like a full-blown paranoid.
I could go on all day.
Of that I'm sure.
The idea that Jews are principled operaters who relate to objective reality in the same way gentiles do, is an illusion.
We are actually 113-dimensional entities in thrall to the dread Cthulhu, and these hook-nosed swarthy bodies are merely the 4-dimensional projections visible to your puny objective mind.
Glibness is a sign of desperation, a response to argument by playing off of one's prejudices. mtravern, you retort needs work. At least tggp's had some meat to it.
tggp,
The question: "In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?"
Israelis: 20.9
Palestinians: 10.7
Both: 51.3
Neither: 17.1
Well, there's your problem right there! The orthodox Universalist answer is, of course, "both." Even Chomsky would say "both."
The people who said "Palestinians" are moonbat freaks and/or serious Third Worldists. The people who said "neither" just wanted the interviewer to get out of their face. Ergo, your real ratio is more like 65 to 20, Palestinians.
Try asking whether the conflict should be settled by leaving both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities in control of whatever territory they control now, and just ending the war.
If they agree, note that this position is farther to the right (ie, toward the Jabotinsky line) than the official position of any American political party. Unless you have accidentally convinced them that they are on crack, you will probably get no more than 20% to endorse this line - ie, the same number the study just got.
I will never understand the persistent credulity of some people when presented with "social science." It's really into "but Brawndo has electrolytes" territory for me. If you really are convinced that American universities are hotbeds of pro-Israeli activity, either my observational capacities are simply impaired in some major way, or yours are. Either way there's not much way we can convince each other.
colin,
You'll note, for instance, that you now have a thread full of Jews telling you that Jews don't have any kind of group strategy or coordination.
If you really are ready to treat denial as evidence of complicity, there's not much use in discussion!
I'm sure that if you go over to Stormfront and accuse them of being a gang of secret boy-lovers, they'll deny it as well.
BTW, I haven't read any of McDonald's books, but I've read one or two of the shorter pieces he has on his site. I have also read Germar Rudolf, Leon Degrelle, etc, etc. I would be the last to call myself an expert in the anti-Semitic (btw, is there another label that you guys would prefer? Like, something neutral?) literature, but I am not totally uneducated in this department.
My basic problem, again, is that none of it passes Occam's razor for me. I am perfectly willing to admit that there is no reason to see Hitler as particularly more evil than Stalin, or even that the Allied strategic bombing should not be compared to the crimes of both. But the Holocaust revisionist stuff has a kind of Johnnie Cochran feel to it - this sense of pursuing every detail that might seem hard to explain, with no real attempt to present a convincing narrative of a history in which the Holocaust didn't happen. And the McDonald stuff just does not seem consistent with the reality of the American power elite as I know it.
Mencius: there isn't a secret network, but it's a fact that the vast majority of Jews worldwide are secular, liberal Marxists. And because of a genetic predisposition toward high intelligence, they have an inordinate amount of clout in promoting these ideals.
Yep. I'm not disputing this point at all, especially if you weight "vast majority" by "amount of clout."
My argument is that their ideals are simply copied from the ideals of the fashionable elite. The easy way to predict Jewish opinion is to predict fashionable opinion at the time at which large numbers of Jews entered the elite.
In Austria and Prussia, the Jews often wanted to be pseudo-Junkers - hence "vons" such as Ludwig von Mises. In the US, they all wanted to be WASPs, and they copied the ideas of John Reed, John Dewey, and the like. A lot of Western European Jewish socialism and nationalism dates to the culture of 1848. And so on.
From When Victims Rule (an anti-Semitic tract which someone linked to earlier):
To European right-wing nationalists of the post-1870 period, however, antisemitism appeared to be a weapon of the weak against the strong [...]
Indeed! This is a good example of the kind of correct observation you will often find only in fringe material. However, it does not mean the overall picture drawn by the narrative is accurate. (Nor does it mean it isn't.)
In almost every fight, each side sees itself as the weaker. The Union, for example, saw itself as fighting for its life against the dread Slave Power. Whereas to the Confederacy, the whole war was a sort of abolitionist John Brown raid writ large.
The truth, in my opinion, is that the Nazis were right to see themselves as underdogs rebelling against a new global empire. But they were wrong to identify that empire as a Jewish conspiracy. I realize that this combination of opinions is, if anything, rarer than the Kevin McDonald interpretation. But I will stick to it anyway.
Tell it to the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty.
The Liberty affair is fascinating. I am inclined to accept Michael Oren's interpretation, but I'm only at 95% on this one.
Do you know of any convincing, in-depth responses to Oren?
As for a secret Jew internet, don't Yiddish and Hebrew offer some cover?
Again you betray your ignorance of the Tribe. Influential American Jews are not speakers of either Yiddish or Hebrew. Yiddish survives only as a liturgical language among sects like the Lubavitchers. Hebrew is spoken only by Israelis or people connected with Israel.
NCRAC, central policy making council of the organized American Jewish community. Its membership includes a dozen fo the most powerful and broadly representative groups on the national Jewish scene: the three main synagogue unions, Reform, Conservative, and Orothodox; the three main "defense agencies," Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, and American Jewish Congress; and the three largest Jewish women's groups, Hadassah, the National Council on Jewish Women, and Women's American ORT. Also included, along with a handful of other national bodies, are 117 locale community councils, representing the world of Jewish federated charities and their donors.
The part you're missing is: does anyone care what this NCRAC thinks? If so, how and why?
For example, why does it Google substantially below the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center?
After a little more Googling, it is revealed that what Goldberg really means is (I think) the JCRC.
Dude, this is like having a Muslim discover the World Council of Churches and decide that he's found the secret high council of the Nazarenes.
These people mean absolutely nothing. They are just a bunch of random PC liberals who happen to be Jewish. If you were to show up at one of their meetings and suggest that Jews should act collectively to further Jewish interests, they'd look at you as if you'd sacrificed a chicken on the boardroom table.
Please note, for purposes of evaluating Jewish behavior on this thread, that NCRAC was savvy enough - in 1955 - to create spinoff agencies that it co-ordinated but which it couldn't be publicly linked to, in order to bring about a sea change in public opinion regarding immigration. This is not an ordinary level of dissimulation.
Are you at all familiar with the way Washington works? My mother, father and stepfather together worked for about 80 years in the executive and legislative branches. And I'm afraid I find it an extremely unremarkable level of dissimulation.
If this NCRAC in 1955 had any influence on actual policy - please note that there were about 10,000 other activist NGOs trying to do the same thing at the same time - it's because they were, again, a bunch of typical 1950s Adlai Stevenson liberals who had worked their way into the HQ of an outfit that collected a lot of synagogue tithes. Probably in many cases from people who would never, ever have considered voting for Adlai.
This is part of the reason why Jewish group behavior is so hard to see for gentiles: they can't imagine themselves engaging in it, and they also don't want to imagine that the world is so sharkish it could create a race that operates that way pretty much all the time. It's just too much.
Have you considered another reason why this effect might be hard to see for Gentiles: that it might not exist at all?
Surely you'll admit that there are a large number of Gentiles in American elite circles. Right up there with the Jews.
If the Jewish conspiracy is conscious, if elite Jews are knowingly cooperating to serve ethnic Jewish interests, how do these people not notice that their friends are conspiring against them? Do the Jews have secret Jew meetings, a Jewish internet, do they text each other in Yiddish? How could you possibly keep a secret like this?
And if the Jewish cooperation is unconscious, in what sense is the concept of unconscious conspiracy even valid? What does it mean to cooperate unconsciously in the service of your own genetic interests? What are people who do this thinking? What is the mindset? Or is the Jewish mind simply inexplicable in English?
And if it's neither conscious nor unconscious, what the heck is it?
Again, while I have not read any of McDonald's books, I have read some of his essays. It's been a while, but my recollection is that he dances around this point - he is not willing to go down either of these roads. Perhaps because neither goes anywhere at all.
tggp writes: "The halves of the group that are "are on opposite sides of the US political fence" are that way mainly because they see different paths to advancing their collective interests. Zionists think Jews need a homeland they control absolutely, anti-Zionists think that's dangerously provocative and makes Jews everywhere vulnerable to criticism. That about sums up their differences over Israel, right?"
That's not a bad start but the difference is not a mild one. Anti-Zionist Jews come in many different forms, many of whom go to great extents to sabotage Israel's right to exist. As a recent (although extreme) example, see the group of Jews that went to visit Ahmadinejad for a photo op and to show their support. Or, if you prefer, see the example of the American Jew that Lawrence Auster wrote about at the rally in New York against Ahmadinejad, who hopes Iran nukes Israel. Many of Israel's most virulent critics are Jews (another example? see the Mohammad Al Dura trial going on in France right now - Charles Edinburg, the newsman for French channel 2 and creator of the hoax, which was one of the direct reasons for Daniel Pearl's murder, is Jewish and Israeli).
"The self-favoritism of Jews is so obvious because it contrasts starkly with the tendency for non-Jewish Whites to feel guilty and avoid any such behavior. This group-suicidal mode of thinking is vigorously promoted by academia and the MSM, and is intended specifically for Whites - not Jews, not Latinos, not Blacks, and not Asians."
Unlike blacks, Jewish identity is diffuse and it prefers to be hidden - but it does exist. And it is taboo to admit that. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if the "Jewish Mafia" that Michael Ovitz railed about after he got fired actually exists. People of common ancestry naturally band together against those that threaten them on the basis of that ancestry. I agree with you that it is only natural and fair for whites to have this as well.
After a little more Googling, it is revealed that what Goldberg really means is (I think) the JCRC.
Actually, NCRAC is now the JPCA.
There have been, in what some might call a typical fashion, a series of name changes.
Website here: http://www.jewishpublicaffairs.org/
If you were to show up at one of their meetings and suggest that Jews should act collectively to further Jewish interests, they'd look at you as if you'd sacrificed a chicken on the boardroom table.
This is just so crazy, Mencius, I can't even tell you.
But, let's let the JPCA say it:
They describe themselves (at the link above) as giving expression to a "strongly united Jewish communal voice".
I guess this was written after the chicken sacrifice. Presumably the entrails were favorable.
Or, we could consult their Wiki entry - where they are described as helping "the Jewish community address issues through a broad coordinated plan that involves work with the media, elected officials, coalition partners, and others."
We'll talk about money and reach more a little bit below, but I want to state for the record that we're not just talking about a few synagogues that have had their tithes misallocated.
The part you're missing is: does anyone care what this NCRAC thinks? If so, how and why?
I'm not the one who's missing anything. Again, from Goldberg:
"By mid-1976 . NCRAC and the American Jewish Committee ordered up internal studies on the limits of dissent. The Presidents Conference and the Synagogue Council of American held public inquiries on the topic. All the organizations reached the same conclusion: American Jews had the
right to discuss issues freely, but only within discreet forums, outside public view.
Working closely with Israeli Ambassador Simche Dinitz and his staff, the Presidents Conference and NCRAC began to draw up a set of baseline principles to govern behavior within the organized Jewish community. They boiled down to three basic tenants. One was that Israelis were the only ones entitled to decide Israeli policy, since they alone bore the risks. The second was that American Jews must stand publicly united with Israel, and air disagreements
only in private. The third was that Israel would not negotiate with Palestinian terrorists, since talking to them would grant them legitimacy.
These rules were quickly taken up by the Jewish leadership as sacred writ from Jerusalem. Jews who disagreed found themselves unwelcome in community
forums, asked to leave governing boards, shouted down at meetings. Even luminaries began to find themselves ostracized after they endorsed Middle East compromise."
These people mean absolutely nothing.
That's a lie, Mencius. It's not the first one you've told today.
Moreover, it's a lie that you told reflexively, without knowing anything at all about the organizations in question. I think that's revealing, and you should reflect on how easily untruths about a subject with which you are unfamiliar come to you. You might have waited before issuing a denial, after all, and saved face. But instead, you knew to deny, deny, deny. It's always easier to scramble for forgiveness later, eh?
Let's take one example, the ADL (take the ADL, please!) with its operating budget of 45 million dollars, is not "absolutely nothing". Just examining "hate crime" model legislation and the massive spying efforts on American citizens, even you'd have to admit that the ADL is a fairly large and fairly powerful group, composed of Jews - religious and secular - who have no problems working collectively to advance ethnic interests. They played the same role in the creation of "hate crimes" in American legislation that the Board of British Jews (look, another Jewish group) had in the creation of "Group Libel Law".
Now consider: the ADL is just a small part of JPCA, along with the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee etc. Edgar Bronfman and Mortimer Zuckerman and Abe Foxman: these people are not nobodies.
Zuckerman, just to pick a name at random, is (in addition to being editor in chief of U.S. News and World Report and publisher/owner of the New York Daily News) a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represent 51 other Jewish organizations (though only the major ones), all of whom sit on AIPAC's Executive Committee. The CoP is part of the JPCA, which drafts comprehensive policy statements, as described above.
Regarding Mearschimer and Walt's charges about AIPAC's effects on American foreign policy, Zuckerman quips, "The allegations of this disproportionate influence of the Jewish community reminds me of the 92-year-old man sued in a paternity suit. He said he was so proud, he pleaded guilty."
You know, it gets a bit tiring just typing out all the names of organizations that Jews create to advance their interests and mold public opinion, especially considering your assurances that Jews would never even think of acting collectively to further Jewish interests. You could get a bad case of cognitive dissonance from doing so.
You still haven't told me, Mencius, why I can't get my hands on an English language edition of Solzhenitsyn's most recent book. Is it all those "uncoordinated" Jews in the publishing world or the all-WASP "Brahmin" conspiracy that has decided I shouldn't be paying too much attention to Jewish activities in Russia? Or did someone's dog eat the manuscript? Come on, Mencius, between you and your folks you've got - what? - a hundred years experience with "how Washington really works"? Well, tell me all about it.
Tggp and mtraven are uncharacteristically silent on this issue, as are you.
I will note that Jewess Cathy Young in Reason magazine gave the book a bad review (guess her Russian is excellent) and that the book recieved similar terrible reviews in various places, and Solzhenitsyn was labelled an anti-Semite in most of those (to be fair, some sources only hinted). That's a lot of press for a book I can't even buy!
Solzhenitsyn's book isn't all that different from Slezkine's "Jewish Century", except that Slezkine takes a notably more celebratory attitude towards mass murder and the reign of deception. He is not subject to public opprobrium, however. An ethnic group has a right to celebrate itself, after all.
Finally, regarding the Liberty. You might be interested in the Chicago Times story from October of this year:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,66005.story?coll=chi_news_specials_util
Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.
Their anger has been stoked by the declassification of government documents and the recollections of former military personnel, including some quoted in this article for the first time, which strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency's position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots -- communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.
The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel's reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.
colin,
Okay, I have the URL now.
Did you actually bother to click on the JCPA page? It's covered with broken links and contains no information. It unexpectedly redirects you to Google searches which return no result.
If this is an organization of more than three or four people, full-time, I am Marie of Roumania.
You are basically pointing off into thin air and yelling at me that there's a giant blue dragon there.
But I did find some text:
The work of the JCPA, especially in matters relating to democratic pluralism and social justice, reflects the profound Jewish commitment to tikkun olam, the repair of the world.
In other words, whatever they may have been in 1955, at present, in 2007, they are Lernerites.
Case closed. Lernerites feel basically the same way about Israel as most of us feel about a horrible genital cancer. Basically, to oversimplify slightly, they want to heal the world by removing Israel from it, preferably along with anyone who even reminds them of an Israeli. Ideally Israel will just shrivel up, turn black and drop off, but if nothing happens we may just have to operate.
That's how they feel about Israel over at Tikkun magazine. If they could get their hands on Jabotinsky's corpse, they'd probably want to dig him up and hang him, like Oliver Cromwell.
But at the same time, both these parties are such good buddies that they feel free to conspire against the world, and neither will snitch on the other. Right.
Let's take one example, the ADL (take the ADL, please!) with its operating budget of 45 million dollars, is not "absolutely nothing". Just examining "hate crime" model legislation and the massive spying efforts on American citizens, even you'd have to admit that the ADL is a fairly large and fairly powerful group, composed of Jews - religious and secular - who have no problems working collectively to advance ethnic interests.
Okay. Let's take the ADL. $45 million a year flowing into aggressive pro-Jew activism.
Let's multiply this number by 10. Just to be on the safe side.
And then let's ask: by this standard, who is pouring more influence into Washington? The Jewish lobby, or the Green lobby?
You see, the tragedy of this whole line of thought is that if you happen to be wrong, every other thing you've figured out, on your own, about this whole broken system we live in, is completely useless and wasted.
Because if anyone simply knows you are wrong - as I promise you, many, many people do - they will automatically write off anything else you might have to say.
your retort needs work. At least tggp's had some meat to it.
tggp is willing to take nonsense seriously enough to argue with it; I'm not. Mockery is really the only suitable response. The real problem with drivel like that is that it is a mixture of facts and perfectly reasonable propositions (ie, that Jews will occasionally act in the collective interests of Jews as a group, just like any other group will) with virulent paranoia, in which Jewish self-interest is somehow perfidious, culminating in raving stupidity like "the idea that Jews are principled operaters who relate to objective reality in the same way gentiles do, is an illusion", which reads like Mein Kampf on weed. Sorting out the truth from nonsense is not worth the effort.
You (ezk) wrote Internationally, the vast majority of Jews are leftist and Marxist. They promote liberalism, secularism and democracy worldwide. This is also stupid, so if you are in fact Jewish, thank you for working against the sterotype of our superior intelligence. Marxists, if you can find any outside of captivity, do not promote liberalism. So presumably what you mean is that the "vast majority" of Jews are somewhere left-of-center. Sloppy language indicates sloppy thinking. You don't cite any data, but you got me curious. Here's some figures on Jewish population by country. The only countries with really significant Jewish populations are the US and Israel. US Jews skew about 80% Democratic, which makes them Marxists for our purposes. Israel is split more or less down the middle between its left and right wings. That leaves about 25% of the world's Jews in other countries, with some populations (France) tilting left as in the US, others (Russia) tilting far to the right, and a large proportion of mostly apolitical small businessmen scattered around the globe. Let's split it down the middle. That makes around 62% of Jews worldwide left of center, with the dividing line generously defined to include mainstream Democrats leftists. Certainly a healthy majority, but hardly "vast".
Even Chomsky would say "both."
I probably don't know as much about Chomsky as you do, but he says his position was considered Zionist when he was younger, but the times have changed, sort of like Rothbard's "Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal".
The people who said "Palestinians" are moonbat freaks and/or serious Third Worldists.
I assume a significant portion of them are Arabs/Muslims themselves.
Ergo, your real ratio is more like 65 to 20, Palestinians.
Do you have any data that would support that view? Because the claim that "Palestine is the pearl of the Blue Empire" really strikes me as laughable.
Try asking whether the conflict should be settled by leaving both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities in control of whatever territory they control now, and just ending the war.
I expect a lot of people would support that in the hypothetical that it worked out, but even the Israeli government seems to recognize that there would have to be some sort of land-for-peace swap (Scott Atran suggests both of them will have to make humiliating symbolic concessions, which irks the rationalist-utilitarian in me) in order for the Palestinians to accept it and that the demographics make the territories impossible to hold on forever. If you haven't read Bruce Bueno de Mesquita on the issue, I recommend doing so.
I will never understand the persistent credulity of some people when presented with "social science."
Actually gathering some evidence about a subject is considered more credible than spouting off from your arm-chair.
If you really are convinced that American universities are hotbeds of pro-Israeli activity
I'm not. I think LBGQTZ (who knows what all them stand for) and af-am/hispanic issues are more the biggies, but Israel is more popular than Palestine.
If you really are ready to treat denial as evidence of complicity, there's not much use in discussion!
That's an excellent line. Your gay Stormfront example is one I'd like to imagine I would come up with, but doubt I actually would.
In Austria and Prussia, the Jews often wanted to be pseudo-Junkers - hence "vons" such as Ludwig von Mises. In the US, they all wanted to be WASPs, and they copied the ideas of John Reed, John Dewey, and the like. A lot of Western European Jewish socialism and nationalism dates to the culture of 1848. And so on.
What do you think of the differences between the first wave of (largely German) jews and their Sephardic predecessors versus the eastern european ones that came later? It seems like radical politics was more associated with the latter to me.
In almost every fight, each side sees itself as the weaker.
They also see themselves as good and fair, like the claim that triggered my cognitive bias remark.
tggp writes:
No, ezk, that was tanstaafl.
the "Jewish Mafia" that Michael Ovitz railed about
No, that was the "gay mafia" in Hollywood. There were a number of jewish mobsters in the early 20th century, a lot of Russian mobsters are jews (as well as Georgians and other ethnic minorities) and they have close ties to the Israeli mafia.
why I can't get my hands on an English language edition of Solzhenitsyn's most recent book.
How much demand is there? People were interested in Solzhenitsyn when he was speaking Truth to the power of the Evil Empire, wrongly imprisoned for criticizing Stalin and railing against the stifling of free expression. When the SU collapsed and instead of a western-friendly Kasparov type figure he turned out to be a slavophile paleoconservative of sorts (even saying "there is no difference whatsoever between NATO and Hitler" after the bombing of Yugoslavia), he became much less popular. Although he finds the West especially soulless and deadened, he is also considered rather out of place in modern Russia and has been mocked in books like Moscow 2042. I agree that fears of anti-semitism played a role though.
Regarding the Liberty, why do you think it was attacked?
And then let's ask: by this standard, who is pouring more influence into Washington? The Jewish lobby, or the Green lobby?
Give me some numbers, denominated in dollars. My guess would be that the Israel lobby is more influential. I think that colin laney failed to understand the line about the 92 year old's paternity case though.
tggp is willing to take nonsense seriously enough to argue with it
I do try.
Do you have any data that would support that view?
TGGP, what do I keep telling you about drunks and lampposts?
History is not a science. Sociology is a bogus attempt to make it into one. History is the art of constructing convincing causal narratives of the past.
I just explained where I got 65 to 20. These numbers are obviously pulled out of my ass. I never pretended otherwise. They are only a way to illustrate the argument that preceded them, an argument with which you seem to agree.
I think LBGQTZ (who knows what all them stand for) and af-am/hispanic issues are more the biggies, but Israel is more popular than Palestine.
Not among the activist community, that's for sure!
And why should it matter what non-activists think? If you don't do anything about your opinion, what is it but another tree falling in the forest?
What do you think of the differences between the first wave of (largely German) jews and their Sephardic predecessors versus the eastern european ones that came later? It seems like radical politics was more associated with the latter to me.
Yup. Similarly, WASP politics became more radical over the period. Fire-breathing radicals from the '60s, like the Adams brothers, became the crotchety old conservatives of the '00s.
I expect a lot of people would support that in the hypothetical that it worked out, but even the Israeli government seems to recognize that there would have to be some sort of land-for-peace swap (Scott Atran suggests both of them will have to make humiliating symbolic concessions, which irks the rationalist-utilitarian in me) in order for the Palestinians to accept it and that the demographics make the territories impossible to hold on forever.
You, like pretty much everyone else in the world, are on crack. At least about this subject.
The potential for concessions creates the expectation of them. Not the other way around. Dangling the hope of "land for peace" in front of Palestinian irredentists, or any other irredentists for that matter, is like dangling a steak in front of a hungry crocodile.
What in the name of God can you possibly mean by the demographics make the territories impossible to hold on forever, anyway? What, are the Palestinians going to form human bridges, like army ants? How could the population of Palestine possibly matter to the outcome of the war?
As for de Mesquita, he's a blowhard and a pansy. Incentives indeed! Compare his peace plan to mine.
In mine, the Palestinians have a very simple incentive to make peace, which is that they are not decimated by massive artillery fire. In his, there is something about tourism.
This probably explains why de Mesquita holds a department chair in political science and is the recipient of fawning profiles just short of fellatio whereas I have to hang out here and argue with Nazis.
[MM:]
In mine, the Palestinians have a very simple incentive to make peace, which is that they are not decimated by massive artillery fire.
...I have to hang out here and argue with Nazis.
http://gtr5.com/commentary/Report%20
-%20ArmyWarCollege1.pdf
ABSTRACT
AUTHOR:
Colonel Peyton E. Smith
TITLE:
Assault on the USS Liberty: Deliberate Action or
Tragic Accident?
FORMAT:
Strategy Research Project
DATE:
30 March 2007
"Forty years have passed since that clear summer day on 8 June 1967 when Israel attacked the USS Liberty with aircraft and torpedo boats, killing 34 young American men and wounding 171. Was the USS Liberty attacked intentionally? Tragic accidents have happened to every military force in the history of modern warfare, however, many reasonable people have not been able to accept nor fully understand Israel's attack as such an accident. Based upon the coordinated effort involving air, sea, and command and control, one must question if this attack was nothing less than intentional. Worse, the Israeli government's version of the attack disagrees with the eyewitness recollections of survivors. Key American leaders call the attack deliberate. More important, a key eyewitness participant from the Israeli side has told survivors that Israel knew they were attacking an American ship. This paper will cite the conditions of the time and explore US and Israeli official responses along with interviews of surviving crew members. This attack was most likely deliberate for reasons far too sensitive to be disclosed by the US and Israeli government and that the truth may never be known."
"The details of the battle also lend credence to the concept of a deliberate attack. The original US flag was destroyed but replaced with a much larger flag. Several crew members described the deliberate destruction of life boats, conveying the message that there would be no survivors.
"The lifeboat incident was not included in the publicly released court of inquiry. The timing and execution of the attack was well coordinated with the Mysteres arriving immediately after the Mirages expended their ammunition. The torpedo boats followed the Mirages and heavily fired upon the already burning ship.
"The conduct of the board of inquiry was disconcerting as well. A thorough investigation of this matter would have taken at least six months to conduct; however, the Johnson administration clearly gave Admiral Kidd one week to complete the entire investigation. This suggested that the investigation didn't have a high priority, raising uncomfortable questions about its seriousness. Much was accomplished in one week, but due to the time limitations and the fact that many of the witnesses were injured and evacuated to US Naval vessels and landbased medical facilities; the court was only able to interview 14 of the 260 surviving members of the crew.
"Another 60 witness declarations from hospitalized crew members could not be included as evidence. After reviewing evidence, Admiral Kidd and Captain Boston felt the necessity to interview Israeli members involved in the incident. However, Admiral Kidd was adamantly told by Admiral McCain 'we were not to travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter'. Although both Admiral Kidd and Captain Boston were convinced the attack was deliberate, Admiral Kidd was ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to conclude that the attack was a case of 'mistaken identity'. Admiral Kidd told Captain Boston when he returned from Washington D.C., he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department and rewrite portions of the court's findings. The report was rapidly processed through official channels and classified Top Secret. Admiral Kidd was told to caution everyone involved in the incident never to speak of it again.
"Years later, when the document was declassified and released by the US government, more questions arose after Captain Boston received a copy. He distinctly remembers testimony on the intentional destruction of the lifeboats as being recorded into evidence. However, the document released to the public does not include this information. The copy Captain Boston certified in June of 1967 had many handwritten corrections and initials. The released version had none. The original had no deliberately blank pages--the released version did.
http://www.ussliberty.org/orenbook.htm
Michael Oren's Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East
Reviewed by Norman Finkelstein
"Oren's account of events attendant on the June war frequently descends to vulgar propaganda. Deeming the Israeli combined air and naval assault on the U.S.S. Liberty, in which 34 U.S. Navy men were killed and 171 wounded, an "accident" and an 'incident [of] faulty identifications,' Oren rehashes official Israeli tales and embellishes on them with his own whoppers. He avers that Israeli reconnaissance pilots flying just overhead on a cloudless morning missed noticing the Liberty's five-by-eight-foot American flag fluttering in the wind because they 'were not looking for the Liberty, but rather for Egyptian submarines'; that 'the IDF could have easily sunk the Liberty,' although with the IDF's extended air attack using missiles, cannon and napalm, followed by a torpedo attack followed by sustained fire on the crippled vessel that left 2/3 of the crew dead or wounded, the miracle is that the Liberty managed, just barely, to stay afloat; and that Israeli ships, after torpedoing the Liberty, 'ceased firing the instant the mistake was realized and offered to assist the ship,' although surviving members of the crew uniformly testify that the Israeli ships fired from close range after the torpedo explosion and after stopping near the fantail, where the Liberty's name and hull number appeared in large letters (a new oversized American flag had also been unfurled), finally firing on the life rafts in the water, and then left the area for more than an hour before returning to offer assistance."
Mtravern, you accuse me of sloppy word choice, so I recommend that you check out the book Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance by David Johnsson.
Your manipulation of Jewish demographic data shows the depth of your lack of understanding. The right in Israel, at this point in time, generally speaking are weak neoconservatives, in other words proponents of secular, liberal Jewish society through the use of sporadic force. The religious, pro-capitalist element are still in a vast minority. Tell me: Why do you think the center in Israel would be considered far-left in the United States?
The Democratic party historically has pushed for the exact things I mention: secularism at home in education and the media; increasing socialism and statism; political correctness; democracy and Western human rights abroad through the U.N; the destruction of national identity and the mass influx of immigrants. You'll note that the Republican party, recently, has also started taking up these platforms under Bush. However, to say Jews vote 80% democratic and then to ignore the implications of what democrats stand for is to miss the big picture.
You write: "Marxists, if you can find any outside of captivity, do not promote liberalism." And you accuse me of being stupid? Marxists no longer go by that name as it's been disgraced. But the belief structure is still there and widely popular. I'm sure Mencius could tell you all about it. But I'll start. Here are what Marxists believe:
* an attention to the material conditions of people's lives, and social relations among people
TODAY: The cult of personal pleasure seen throughout the Western world.
* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects these material conditions and relations
TODAY: The belief that terrorism is caused by poverty would be one example.
* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
TODAY: Cultural Marxism through Affirmative Action, soft quotas in jobs, political correctness, etc.
* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
TODAY: We see history molded right in front of our eyes through the liberal MSM. Thank God for the internet.
* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
TODAY: More reason to help bring people worldwide in poverty "up".
* a sympathy for the working class or proletariat
TODAY: Democrats: the party "of the people."
* and a belief that the ultimate interests of workers best match those of humanity in general.
TODAY: Minimum wage, social security, medicare, medicaid, (soon) universal health care, etc.
And you say Marxism is dead? You have a lot to educate yourself, buddy.
(On cultural Marxism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism#Background, on Marxism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism)
Oh, about Ovitz: yeah, my bad. I confused the Gay (Jewish, from the names he throws out) Mafia with the word Jewish mafia.
Here's some MacDonald I find particularly insightful and relevant to the discussion so far:
It’s difficult to argue with people who cannot see or at least won’t acknowledge the depths of their own ethnic commitments and continue to act in ways that compromise the ethnic interests of others. People like Horowitz (and his parents) can’t see their ethnic commitments even when they are obvious to everyone else. One could perhaps say the same of Charles Krauthammer, William Safire, William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and the legion of prominent Jews who collectively dominate the perception of Israel presented by the U.S. media. Not surprisingly, Horowitz pictures the U.S. as a set of universal principles, with no ethnic content. This idea originated with Jewish intellectuals, particularly Horace Kallen, almost a century ago at a time when there was a strong conception that the United States was a European civilization whose characteristics were racially/ethnically based.47 As we all know, this world and its intellectual infrastructure have vanished, and I have tried to show that the prime force opposing a European racial/ethnic conception of the U.S. was a set of Jewish intellectual and political movements that collectively pathologized any sense of European ethnicity or European ethnic interests.48
The preceding paragraphs about Horowitz are interesting too.
I am honest. Probably to a fault. I'm confident I'm not irrational or imagining vast improbable conspiracies. What I value most in others is honesty. What I detest most is duplicity.
When I read what Kevin MacDonald, guessedworker, colin laney, or ezk write I can sense the truth of what they say. Some of it may be factually wrong, embellished, or overblown, all in minor ways, as some of what I write could certainly be criticized for. But I sense no intent to mislead or misrepresent. In many subtle ways what they say jibes with my own life experiences and many of my own independently-reached conclusions.
colin said:
However, we are now approaching an abyss, the contemplation of which is even worse than than facing the facts of Jewish behavior, and so we see at least a few gentiles becoming aware of the duplicity and belligerence that seems to characterize Jewish group strategizing (and individual behavior) for as long as there have been records. As Voltaire observed of the Jews, "I would not be surprised if they were one day to become fatal to the entire world."
Well, here we are.
What he says is precisely right. I have been backed into a corner. The shitstorm upon us is so bad, the "official" explanations so weak, the media's mind control so blatant, that I could no longer ignore it. Wondering aloud and speaking out is the least I can do. Yet the clinging remnants of PC brainwashing inform me very strongly to not do so. And it makes me wonder, Why is that? Beyond the brainwashing comes the social stigma I know I will suffer for simply speaking the truths I see. Why is that? It's more than "because you're wrong". You can say all the ignorant, hateful, wrong things about Whites you want. As Mtraven does. Nobody jumps down his throat and calls him anti-White. Anti-White is our societal norm. Why is that? Because of crypto-calvinist WASPs and the Jews that got all their tricks from them? Come on.
I can understand that Jews might feel threatened by blunt statements of blame pointed their way. I can understand why people, even non-Jews, might show up to try and argue against those statements. I cannot understand why they would resort to denial, deflection, insult, and other dishonest tactics. Unless of course they have nothing better. Culturist is a siren, or at best an idealist. Jewish atheist and mtraven plainly dissemble. tggp just loves hairsplitting.
Mencius, you're a different breed. You argue without malice, without even getting testy. Yet you do evade. I wouldn't call it lying, as colin did, but certainly you gloss over things even as you concede other things a JA or mtraven never would. Colin's description of you, and Auster, as "safety valves for awakening gentiles" is in fact a cynical possibility I had considered. I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the type.
If you really are ready to treat denial as evidence of complicity, there's not much use in discussion!
The most frustrating denial here, and even moreso on the threads I've participated in at your site, is not flat out rejection. It is the kind that goes more like, "Sky, what sky? What do you mean it's blue? No, it's red." It's this kind of forever-mutating quasi-denial of even the obvious to exhaustion that makes me believe there's not much use in discussion. It's another one of those anti-semitic stereotypes that happens to correspond to my own personal experience. I'm not as unfamiliar with "the Tribe" as you assume, though I had not thought of them critically until recently.
To me the question isn't whether or not Jews protect their own - they do - or whether Jews in America have contributed toward the problems with liberalism we see today - they have - but
(A) whether or not Jews were the cause of it, as some of you suggest, or whether they piggybacked on it, as Mencius argues;
(B) whether or not Jews as a group, like other Democrats, are reformable through education or whether their liberalness is indicitive of genetic differences.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that Jews were the cause of the situation you see in America today, I think it's important to note that one of the basic causes is the total separation of Church and State in America. Every country has an ideology it teaches it's children, and the inability for religious America to educate it's young has led, as Mencius has written about in the past, to this secularized, adapted virus of Calvanism to fill the vacuum and get where it is today.
Finally, let me say this: it's ironic that the policies that liberals promote are brining in a virus far worse than anything seen here before - Islam. The end result of the secular multicultural democracy resulting in Balkanization through mass immigration that Jews inadvertantly promote is Islamic Sharia law, the complete, absolute antithetical to our belief system, implemented in this country. They are coming here and in Europe in vast numbers and spending trillions of Saudi oil dollars in education (especially higher education, such as Georgetown's middle eastern department) and politics (CAIR) to change public opinion far faster than anything we've seen. Some people ignore this, including many anti-semites and paleocons. Liberalism is the fuel that's allowing this to happen, but both need to be opposed.
Good conversation, very interesting. It's funny to see the oh so predictable arguments by the Jews, on every single blog that the JQ comes up. Even the "good Jews" evade, evade, evade; as a famous man once said, The Truth is not in them. Mencius and Jewish Atheist, have you read MacDonald's work yet? How about David Duke's? I suspect not -- too painful, like sunlight to vampires.
That Jews are ultimately divided is rubbish. We see them hanging together every day on all matters important to their domination of the host population. Witness the poor White who honestly and innocently questions Jewish motives or actions, for he will be set upon with a whirlwind of hate like you cannot believe. He will feel the vicious wrath of every every Jew within 100 miles. Jews are divided? Hardly.
Conservative Jews say that there is no such thing as moderate Islam; that it is impossible to tell the few good ones from the Islamofascists; that the Koran is not a book of peace, it is a book of madness and conquest. The exact same can be said of the Jews.
Just as with the Muslims, there might be a few good Jews, but they do not dare speak out. But most are such liars and obfuscators anyway that it would be impossible to tell which ones are truly White-friendly and which are not. As far as anyone can tell, all Jews support the Holyhoax and indoctrination of our children therein. The Jewish holy book is full of commands and contumely against non-Jews. Perhaps the Jews and Muslims hate one another so much is because they are so much alike. Takes one to know one.
Jews work together indefatigably in large and small groups to get their way. They have literally thousands of organizations dedicated to promoting their interests, and theirs alone. Whites have exactly zero. It's no accident that Jews control the majority of powerful positions in the US, the newspapers, academia, banking, et cetera. They network like mad, and never, never give up until they get what they want. If Whites even hint at trying to to organize in like fashion, the Jews go into hysterics and attack mode.
Jews are a tiny minority yet are in control of almost all the levers in the most powerful country in the world. And we're supposed to believe that it happened by accident in less than 40 years, that they didn't get there by strong networking together? And we're also supposed to believe that Jews have ever been persecuted the world over for no reason at all?
Gimme a break.
Jews are, without a doubt, the kings and queens of the Lie. They are the rapers and pillagers of our lands, same as they ever were. They control our money and our courts, our entertainment and our schools. They steal hundreds of billions of dollars of our wealth on Wall Street, and steal all of our traditions and all of our healthy society on Main Street.
But the cleansing will come, just as it always does. Jews can forever be counted on to overplay their hand and overstay their invitation. It's just a matter of time before the host population does a full-body flush again. I can hardly wait.
-- Robert ap Richard
mtraven wrote:
I have never, not once, insulted or said negative things about Whites as a class.
So, mtraven,
You are not hostile to Whites, just those who argue for separation, self-rule, and self-determination. How noble, how principled. You must be one of those fabled "good Jews" we've heard tell of.
If the interests of myself and my kin conflict with you and yours I'm willing to try and work it out in plain language out in the open. If you're not willing to do that then there's going to be a problem, because I'm not going to just slink off silently and die.
That is a healthy perspective that goes to the essence of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism may be defined as a recognition that:
(1) the interests of the Jewish community may conflict with those of other humans or groups of humans; and
(2) any such conflicts of interest need not be resolved in favor of the Jewish community.
Point (1) is a basic point of identity, a distinction between self and non-self. Point (2) is essentially a rejection of the Chosen People doctrine.
This is consistent with both the meaning ascribed to the term by Wilhelm Marr (who is credited with coining the term in the 1870's) and the breadth of usage of the term by today's Jewish community.
NN,
Thanks for the link to the Peyton Smith paper on the Liberty.
I certainly agree with the author's opinion that it is time for all documents on the event, Israeli or US, to be declassified.
Like Smith, I find it hard to come up with explanations for why Israel would have attacked the Liberty, and on balance I still think Occam is on the side of the "fog of war" explanation. However, as anyone who has read Begin's Jewish Revolt can testify, the Israelis of 1967 were still extremely tough characters, and they were in a very dangerous spot. The US had been heavily invested in promoting Nasserism (eg, at Suez in '56) and was hardly an uncomplicated ally. (There's a reason the Israeli Air Force in '67 was flying Mirages and Mysteres.) So it would not shock me if the critics were right.
But Smith misses some obvious explanations, as well. So what if some of the Israelis noticed a US flag and US markings? You don't think the Egyptians could buy flags and paint? There was a war on, you know.
The only thing we can be sure of is that Ehud Olmert wouldn't have attacked the Liberty. When a bee flies in the window, Olmert probably has a tough time mastering his instinct to surrender to it.
As for the rest of you, all I can do is quote Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
Because what is not at issue is that a large number of American Jews are engaged in activities which threaten your ethnic genetic interests. In fact, these actions even threaten their own EGIs - outmarriage rates of 50%, fertility rates of 1.4, massive importations of Third World helots, etc, etc, do not permanence make.
See Sailer's post on the Syrian Jews of New York. In fact, read the NYT article. This is what a community that actually is trying to work for its survival looks like.
And note that SYs consider assimilated Jews, basically, lower than dirt. If you think the assimilated Jews don't return the compliment, you're just wrong. To a tikkun olam Hillary Clinton Lernerite, the SYs are backward, scary and embarrassing, although at least they don't wear primitive tribal costumes like those appalling Lubavitchers.
For example, if you were a normal American assimilated Jew and you heard that someone's son was marrying a non-Jewish girl, and you expressed some kind of disapproval on this basis, the response would be basically as if you'd used the n-word to refer to Barack Obama. The chance that no one in the room would ever talk to you again would be quite nontrivial.
I'm afraid you'll just have to trust me on this. Or not. But again, consider Cromwell.
Because suppose you are wrong? Surely you can at least contemplate the possibility. Suppose that the system of ideas which motivates this very clear pattern of anti-white collective action on the part of Jews is not, in reality, Jewish ethnic solidarity, but (as I contend) a mutant strain of Christianity that happens to have infected a large subgroup of Jews, acquired as part of their typically human (and typically Jewish) urge to assimilate and conform?
In that case, all your anti-Semitic activism (I am still waiting for a neutral word) amounts to treating cancer with antibiotics. Your actions actively advance the interests of your enemies. They certainly don't advance yours - individually or collectively.
If you could arrive at an accurate perception of reality just by reversing the official party line, wouldn't that be a little too easy? Isn't that the first thing any bright, rebellious teenager would think of? How long do you think the party line would survive if it was that easy to escape from?
mencius said: In that case, all your anti-Semitic activism (I am still waiting for a neutral word) amounts to treating cancer with antibiotics. Your actions actively advance the interests of your enemies. They certainly don't advance yours - individually or collectively.
He's right! And I, being more-or-less on the side of Universalism, am here insulting you volke and preventing you from deconstructing the boundaries because that just entrenches you in your marginalized anti-semitic worldview and prevents you from taking effective action against the true enemy. Damn, but I'm one devious Jew (insert diabolical cackling).
ezk:
I recommend that you check out the book Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance by David Johnsson.
I did -- it looks like a sloppily written tract, published by a Christian self-publishing outfit, and thus no more authoritative than a random blog post. The subject was quite fascinating, and the author did appear to know something about it, but like the stuff here it's too much work to sort out the truth from the nonsense.
Your manipulation of Jewish demographic data shows the depth of your lack of understanding. The right in Israel, at this point in time, generally speaking are weak neoconservatives, in other words proponents of secular, liberal Jewish society through the use of sporadic force. The religious, pro-capitalist element are still in a vast minority.
You don't know what you are talking about. The religious parties in Israel are a key part of the right-wing coalition. Shas has as many seats as Likud. This is researchable in 15 seconds via Google and Wikipedia, so why don't you do that before spouting uninformed opinions? The rest of these goobers have the excuse of having inferior genes, you are supposed to be part of the superior race, man! (note for the humor impaired: that is what we call "irony").
Tell me: Why do you think the center in Israel would be considered far-left in the United States?
Because US politics is tilted much farther to the right than any other Western country (which includes Israel for the purposes of this discussion).
You write: "Marxists, if you can find any outside of captivity, do not promote liberalism." And you accuse me of being stupid? Marxists no longer go by that name as it's been disgraced. But the belief structure is still there and widely popular.
Various ideas that may have orginated in Marx or other radical movements have filtered into the mainstream, yes. So what? Does that make Hillary Clinton a Marxist? Only in the minds of the hopelessly confused.
I keep hearing appeals to Occam's Razor from the other side. Well apply Occam here dammit. You can do backflips and make improbable assumptions to explain why Whites would promote ideologies that contradict and destroy their traditions and displace and exterminate their kin, or you can see that there is a group of powerful and influential people who both wish it to be so and have the ability to make it so.
Motive and opportunity. Indeed.
My formal education is in political philosophy, moral philosophy, and the law, but I have discovered that the real key to these disciplines lies in biology. Your post and comments seem grounded in the reality that we are alive, and we (at least the healthy among us) wish to stay alive, not just "individually" but collectively as well.
You are right to surmise that the suicidal behavior of our group is not plausibly ascribed to ideologies developed by our own group. Certainly we have the opportunity. Just as certainly we lack the motive to sacrifice our self-interest for the interests of other ethnic groups. Yet that is what we do.
G.C. Williams, an eminent evolutionary biologist, provides one of my favorite quotes:
"As a general rule, a modern biologist seeing an animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is being manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish."
Occam's Razor.
Because what is not at issue is that a large number of American Jews are engaged in activities which threaten your ethnic genetic interests. In fact, these actions even threaten their own EGIs - outmarriage rates of 50%, fertility rates of 1.4, massive importations of Third World helots, etc, etc, do not permanence make.
This is fallacious. Not to put too fine a point on it but the threat to White EGI is far greater than it is to Jewish EGI. There is of course the unequal distribution of wealth that permits a greater ratio of Jews the luxury to better avoid the nasty consequences of open borders. Beyond that Jews can rely on their historic ethnic and genetic cohesiveness to see them through diaspora after diaspora. The current outmarriage rates could be seen, viewed more imaginatively than you seem willing to be, as the old 23 Skidoo writ in genetic terms.
Because suppose you are wrong? Surely you can at least contemplate the possibility. Suppose that the system of ideas which motivates this very clear pattern of anti-white collective action on the part of Jews is not, in reality, Jewish ethnic solidarity, but (as I contend) a mutant strain of Christianity that happens to have infected a large subgroup of Jews, acquired as part of their typically human (and typically Jewish) urge to assimilate and conform?
In that case, all your anti-Semitic activism (I am still waiting for a neutral word) amounts to treating cancer with antibiotics. Your actions actively advance the interests of your enemies. They certainly don't advance yours - individually or collectively.
Again fallacious. Before I didn't see Jews. That what was wrong. You admit Jews are involved now, but previously your grand sweeping explanations of Universalism left them almost completely unmentioned, even as the dupes you now say they are. I'm still waiting for an explanation how the Universalist worship of the Holy Global Economy is some mutant strain of Christianity. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple. It's one of the fundamental differences between Christians and Jews. Jews have been the driving force in contemporary finance and economics.
Anti-semitic activism? Now who's guilty of not supposing they might be wrong? I see no calls here for action to be taken against Jews. Certainly I've made none. I note their activism against Whites. If you or tggp or mtraven could get yourself just as excited about that anti-Whitism we wouldn't have much to argue about. I'd rather you accept the idea and use the word anti-White than come up with another word for anti-semitism.
Regarding the cancer of Universalism. As I mentioned in the original post, and you have yet to address, you only see half the cancer. You neglect Globalism. So your treatments are doomed.
We know empirically that White nationalism is neither impossible nor undesirable. The Anglo variety produced wonderful civilizations before they were afflicted with the Universalist cancer. If we reject the Universalist ideology there is no reason to believe we can't have wonderful civilizations again. The Jewish Question then is: can Jews abandon Universalism, regardless of how or where they got it? The White Question is: will Whites abandon Universalism once they can freely see and discuss its awful consequences?
The answer to the first question is for Jews to decide. The answer to the second I believe is yes. The internet has given Whites that freedom and they are rejecting Universalism in droves. What would happen if Jews also decided yes to their question and used their influence to dismantle the Universalist academia and media? Does that sound like using antibiotics on cancer? Or does it sound like a mutually beneficial and realistic solution?
ben, your insight is most welcome. Do you have a blog? I am indeed more familiar with the ideas of Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and Wilson than the average plebe. Right down to the ATGCs. I agree with your assessment. I had not heard of Williams. Will look him up.
I said:
I'd rather you accept the idea and use the word anti-White than come up with another word for anti-semitism.
I could have more clearly acknowledged that you did accept the idea and use the word anti-White, rather than implying you hadn't yet. Thanks.
Because what is not at issue is that a large number of American Jews are engaged in activities which threaten your ethnic genetic interests. In fact, these actions even threaten their own EGIs - outmarriage rates of 50%, fertility rates of 1.4, massive importations of Third World helots, etc, etc, do not permanence make.
Jews pursue a strategy of horizontal transmission. To the extent some Jews have attempted a strategy of vertical transmission, they have assimilated and ceased being Jews.
Lawrence Auster is an interesting case. Colin Laney's inference that Auster is an insincere convert still guarding the boundaries of acceptable opinion for the awakening has some foundation. Auster declares David Duke beyond the pale for saying things that Auster himself has said. His blog is called "View from the Right" as if he were a sentry posted among the goyim to look out for incipient pogroms. At the same time, however, his position, as stated, amounts to a call for a transition to horizontal transmission. The goyim may not exclude Jews from their midst, but Jews must not destroy their host societies. The two groups would then work symbiotically, Auster appears to be saying.
But the standard Jewish strategy is horizontal transmission, which is based on an assumption that you can destroy your host if you will have the opportunity to move on to another. Whether this is the best strategy for Jews is an open question.
I'm a bit too busy to continue the conversation. There's another link behind that link for you, Mencius.
There is of course the unequal distribution of wealth that permits a greater ratio of Jews the luxury to better avoid the nasty consequences of open borders. Beyond that Jews can rely on their historic ethnic and genetic cohesiveness to see them through diaspora after diaspora. The current outmarriage rates could be seen, viewed more imaginatively than you seem willing to be, as the old 23 Skidoo writ in genetic terms.
The question you are avoiding, tanstaafl, is: what are Jews actually thinking? Are they actually mentally conscious of these lines of reasoning you are describing?
If they are, how do they conceal it? If they aren't, how are these arguments relevant?
There is no third option.
I'm still waiting for an explanation how the Universalist worship of the Holy Global Economy is some mutant strain of Christianity. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple.
Are you kidding? Universalists, Jews or otherwise, despise money and business.
The answer is simple: it's Auster's unprincipled exception in a nutshell. An extreme case can be seen in China, the most capitalist country in the world, which sternly proclaims its own Communism.
The survival of capitalism in the West was a fortuitous failure for the socialist visionaries who created the post-1945 world. It was a (partial) political defeat that created an economic system capable of outcompeting pure Communism.
Are you kidding? Universalists, Jews or otherwise, despise money and business.
The same Universalism that you define as the faith of our ruling caste? This caste despises money and business? How does that explain why our ruling caste loudly insists on open borders for the good of the economy?
The Progressivist Universalists would have a hard time getting anything accomplished without the funding of their Globalist allies. Spare me the long list of kabuki participants that detest each other. Focus on the powerful ones, like our mainstream politicians, who synthesize both halves.
The question you are avoiding, tanstaafl, is: what are Jews actually thinking?
I am not avoiding it at all. The consideration of this question has, frankly, taken me to the very limits of my charitability for weeks. I can go no further. I've been earnest and honest in asking questions and I've gotten enough abusive and evasive answers now to move on.
I said what I think Jews think quite a ways up this page. "Good is what's good for Jews." It's a reasonable conclusion based on what they themselves admit. It pretty much sums up why Universalism came to be, why it has spread and why, unfortunately, Jews will probably not abandon it until that is also seen by them to be in their best interests.
In fact, these actions even threaten their own EGIs - outmarriage rates of 50%, fertility rates of 1.4, massive importations of Third World helots, etc, etc, do not permanence make.
My previous comment was directed at the notion that the Jewish community perceives a lack of "permanence" as harmful to its interests. No one has said it better than Jewish neocon Michael Ledeen: "Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace ... [W]e must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
Now for the intermarriage figures:
A third of the world’s Jews live in Israel, where the exogamy rate is essentially zero. In the US, home of another 40% of the world’s Jews, Medding’s figures for 1980-1989 put the rate at 14%. It is presumably somewhat higher now, but the 52% figure is grossly exaggerated.
The Jewish community has an incentive to mazimize the purported rate of exogamy (1) to convince the goyim that the Jewish community is ceasing to be a formidable competitor and (2) to convince the members of the Jewish community that the community is in danger of extinction if remedial steps are not taken.
The organ that publicized the intermarriage rate that you cite has the following mission:
http://israeloncampuscoalition.org/aboutus/members/ujc.htm
UJC represents 189 Jewish Federations and 400 independent communities across North America. We provide life-saving and life-enhancing humanitarian assistance to those in need, and translate Jewish values into social action on behalf of millions of Jews in hundreds of communities in North America, throughout Israel, and around the world.
And their figures translated into plenty of action....
From J.J. Goldberg:
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/12872/edition_id/248/format/html/displaystory.html
... The 1990 intermarriage figure utterly transformed American Judaism. It moved Jewish spiritual survival to the very top of the Jewish community agenda. It put liberals on the defensive. It inflamed communal tensions, as Jewish movements blamed each other for the looming disaster.
Now it appears there's no disaster. Whoops.
The news puts the UJC and its researchers on the spot. And they weren't just wrong. They have fought bitterly to defend their blunder. A few respected Jewish population specialists have challenged the data for years. The CJF-UJC researchers responded by vilifying the critics....
"The much cited 52 percent figure for intermarriages would be 43 percent if calculated only for Core Jewish households," writes Ira Sheskin, the Miami study's author.
"Core Jewish households" is survey-speak for homes that contain an actual Jew. Besides Jews, the 1990 survey interviewed hundreds of others who had some Jewish ancestry but never considered themselves Jewish. Inexplicably, the survey included their marriages in the intermarriage rate.
Of course, 43 percent is still high. But that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Critics have found other flaws that exaggerate intermarriage in the survey. Sheskin's comparative charts seem to strengthen some of those claims. In fact, Sheskin's charts make it clear how assimilated American Jews were made to look in the 1990 national survey.
Nearly every one of Sheskin's tables, from intermarriage to Sabbath candlelighting, shows a broad range of religiosity among Jewish communities, from old-fashioned, deep-rooted communities like Cleveland's to newer, more transient ones like Orlando's.
Somehow, the 1990 survey's results always land near Orlando.
That can't be right. Older Jewish communities in the Northeast still outnumber Sunbelt transplants by two to one. The national averages shouldn't resemble Orlando.
Critics also argue that the 1990 survey used mistaken methods that exaggerated signs of assimilation.
The most important of these was data "weighting." All surveys "weight" or overcount responses from blacks, Southerners and rural folks, to compensate for their tendency not to cooperate with pollsters.... But even that ignores a critical question. What kinds of Jews avoid pollsters? Nobody has ever checked....
The 1990 survey initially called 125,000 households and asked their religion. About 5,000 said "Jewish." After eliminating false positives -- pranksters, schizophrenics, Bible-thumpers calling themselves the children of Israel -- they were left with 2,441 interviewees.
That's how they calculated 5.5 million Jews in America, another sign of stagnation. But they never called back the other 120,000 to weed out the false negatives. How many Jews heard the religion question and simply hung up?
A hint came in 1991, when New York's Jewish federation ran a local population survey. After the polling began, the federation started receiving calls from area police.
The cops were hearing from frantic Jews who thought the PLO was out to get the Jews by pretending to be the UJA. They were wrong. It was the demographers.
Then there’s the distinction made by Medding but ignored by the UJC survey (and Goldberg and presumably Sheskin): the distinction between first (and more likely fecund) marriages and subsequent marriages. Medding et al. found that between 1980 and 1989 86% of U.S. Jews married within the Jewish community for their first marriage, compared to 70% in second and 54% in third marriages. And intermarriage is of little consequence if it follows an endogamous marriage with children.
MacDonald discusses the 1990 survey at pages 265-66 of his second book.
How does that explain why our ruling caste loudly insists on open borders for the good of the economy?
Um, in case you haven't noticed, our ruling caste is willing to make pretty much any argument that supports the result they want.
I'm reminded of the time Owen Lattimore said that what he really believed in was a strong united Chinese government, and if he thought Chiang would be successful in reinvading from Formosa, he would be all for the Kuomintang. But of course, he didn't think any such thing. So...
Republicans are the worst. Basically, your Democrat is a good Universalist and your Republican is a bad one. So the latter are willing to make a few more unprincipled exceptions. Especially when it fattens their own wallet. But...
I said what I think Jews think quite a ways up this page. "Good is what's good for Jews."
Okay. Now all you have to do is explain how they conceal this thinking from the Gentiles around them. I can't wait for the answer. Oh, wait, maybe I can.
Um, in case you haven't noticed, our ruling caste is willing to make pretty much any argument that supports the result they want.
I have noticed that you haven't explained why you think they want open borders.
Now all you have to do is explain how they conceal this thinking from the Gentiles around them.
Conceal it? They don't conceal it really. What they do is make it politically incorrect for Gentiles to question it, or to feel or behave similarly concerning themselves.
You act as if you haven't been participating in this back and forth all along. Either that or playing "fool the Gentile" is just some big game for you.
Of course, the Ledeen quote is talking about Americans, not Jews. Ledeen is a raving maniac so I have no interest in defending him, ust pointing to one of the hundreds of distortions present in this thread.
But here's a more interesting point: neither you nor Ledeen identifies the right target, the real source and benefactor of creative destruction. For that, you have to go back to that antisemitic Jew, Karl Marx:
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.
What's a very rich joke is that you nazi wannabes are reacting to the exact same forces Marx and other socialists were reacting to 150 years ago -- the advancement of global capitalism. The very next passage of the Communist Manifesto reads:
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere...The bourgeoisie has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.
When the victims of the global economy look around for someone to blame, the Jew is a convenient stand-in for the rather abstract, faceless, and inexorable processes of the market, especially for the weak minded. "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools", said August Bebel, and it hasn't become any less true now that there is little hope for socialism of any kind. Dr. Marx was a great diagnostician, but very bad at prescribing therapy. There appears to be no cure for capitalism. You could get rid of all the Jews as so many of you desire, and the great juggernaut of destruction would barely slow down.
ben, your insight is most welcome. Do you have a blog? I am indeed more familiar with the ideas of Darwin, Dawkins, Gould, and Wilson than the average plebe. Right down to the ATGCs. I agree with your assessment. I had not heard of Williams. Will look him up.
Thanks for the kind words. No, I don't have a blog.
The most valuable works of evolutionary biology for a political or moral philosopher are David Sloan Wilson's books. I highly recommend them:
http://www.amazon.com/Unto-Others-Evolution-Psychology-Unselfish/dp/0674930479/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196228088&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901343
"I said what I think Jews think quite a ways up this page. "Good is what's good for Jews." It's a reasonable conclusion based on what they themselves admit. It pretty much sums up why Universalism came to be, why it has spread and why, unfortunately, Jews will probably not abandon it until that is also seen by them to be in their best interests."
And I guess you feel "Whitey is what's good for Whitey" now? Sure glad were not taking on some moral compass for headings.
If you mean "good is what's good for Whites", yes that's exactly how I feel.
Since every other group is acting that way - and that is after all the way nature has always worked - I don't see anything wrong with it.
What would be wrong is for Whites to remain the only deracinated race. Down that path lies extinction. In the long term there won't be any deracinated races. I choose the future that includes the White race.
If you mean "good is what's good for Whites", yes that's exactly how I feel.
My bad (cut and paste - late night). YES.
Then youve raised the bar to what? A race-based society. But according to you the Jews have some kind of superior capitalist ability (Genetic uber-Jews?) - are you OK with the Jews running the world and you being part of the lesser (white) race?
Or maybe you want some white affirmative action in the new world order?
I've raised the bar to Whites surviving.
Jews don't want any part of a White nation. Or have you missed the whole point of this post, the arguments above, or their full court press for non-White immigration over the last hundred years?
[mtraven:]
When the victims of the global economy look around for someone to blame, the Jew is a convenient stand-in for the rather abstract, faceless, and inexorable processes of the market, especially for the weak minded. "Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools", said August Bebel, and it hasn't become any less true now that there is little hope for socialism of any kind. Dr. Marx was a great diagnostician, but very bad at prescribing therapy. There appears to be no cure for capitalism. You could get rid of all the Jews as so many of you desire, and the great juggernaut of destruction would barely slow down.
[NN:]
False. The "juggernaut" was arrested by National Socialism and F/fascism, in a reaction thereto, decades ago, such as was the basis of the one-time popularity of forthright Marxist Communism, aka, Jewish international socialism.
Naturally, fatuous and mendacious leftist/Liberal/Communist propaganda did and must rationalize NS and F/fascism as just another expression of "Capitalism," fronted by tyrants who are the mere puppets of the imagined Capitalists behind the scenes.
Whereas the truth is rather that the nativist alternative to international socialism/crypto-anarchism was a politically independent and moderate remedy for the metastasizing cancer that Marx so effectively characterized.
Thanks to elite Jewry, however, the lethal "cure" for Capitalism, in the form of the megacidal Bolshevist cyanide pill, won the day for Communism amidst the WWII alliance (Faustian Pact) between Capitalism and Communism, when this synthesis born of shameless prevarication and diplomatic manipulation by the puppet and prostitute of Jewry (FDR and WC, respectively) crusaded against putatively demonic fascism, worldwide -- which synthesis quickly soured thereafter according to the essential natures of the antagonists (taking the America-Firster majority as of "nature" of the America-soon-to-be Greater-Judea of the time).
So, absent "The Jews" -- as the nuclear founders, subsidizers, and ideological and military defenders of all that is on the modern political Left (and on the Kosher-con phony "Right") -- the global moderation of "Capitalism" would have been well in hand for nearly a century now, with the Third Reich and Imperial Japan occupied in controlling Asia, and -- as was their desire and in the interest of all parties non-Jewish in the first place -- continuing to be major commercial partners with the United States and its untouched Western Hemisphere.
That should have been:
"(taking the America-Firster majority as of the "nature" of the America-soon-to-be Greater-Judea of the time)
NeoNietzche, you write some of the most gnarly, twisted syntax I've ever encountered. It's very well-suited to its semantics. Your support for out-and-out Nazism is refreshing, in its way. Your willingness to associate yourself with the world standard for evil, criminality, and self-destruction guarantees that nobody but other losers will take your ideas seriously. Keep up the good work!
It's also worth noting the irony of outright support for Nazis in a blog whose title reflects (I suppose) outrage against treason. Whose side are you on? Who are the traitors?
[mtraven:]
Your support for out-and-out Nazism is refreshing, in its way. Your willingness to associate yourself with the world standard for evil, criminality, and self-destruction guarantees that nobody but other losers will take your ideas seriously. Keep up the good work!
[NN:]
The implication of your failure to respond substantively to my correction of your claim seems to be that we ought, indeed, to dispense with the Jews.
[and BTW, FYI, and FWIW, I'm a wealthy corporate CEO. I take it that you, on the other hand, are one of life's winners.]
tansaafl about Colin (whose writings I love) wrote:
"What he says is precisely right. I have been backed into a corner. The shitstorm upon us is so bad, the "official" explanations so weak, the media's mind control so blatant, that I could no longer ignore it. Wondering aloud and speaking out is the least I can do. Yet the clinging remnants of PC brainwashing inform me very strongly to not do so."
You remind me of a member of the “thought criminal” group I meet-and-eat with weekly, who left a year or so ago because “we were too harsh, too racist, too antisemitic, and he was uncomfortable.” Having lost his (GA state) job for pointing out, without even any particular racialist intent, that Hannibal (the Phoenician) was NOT black, he returned to the group to listen and learn. He came in one day and said that while he had always enjoyed Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz (the local neocon radio jerk), having been around us for a short while, he now heard the constant jewish propaganda in their words, and so he had to quit listening.
Fortunately, he said, he still enjoyed and watched the Faux News channel. After another month or so of weekly dinners with us, he complained that the jew propaganda on Fox News was unbelievably blatant, and he had to quit watching the channel. A month later, he complained that, now, “we” had even taken the Wall Street Journal editorials away from him– cause it turned out, the propaganda had become evident to him there too.
The more you look, the more you see.
Additionally, I don’t remember where Mencius Moldbug wrote the following, but I will answer it here:
"For example, the NYT actually helped cover up the Holocaust during WWII, for fear that it would make the war seem too Jewish."
And how do you explain that Churchill, in his several-volume history of the war mentions the Holyhoax NOT AT ALL?(How can this be?! Was Churchill complicit? He wasn’t perceived so then, but it’s coming, as the “crimes” of non-jews are expanded and inflated for their use against us.) The Red Cross didn’t mention it after their visits. Were they complicit? Why?
The NY Times did not have cover up the putative Holocaust because it didn’t “come into existence” until a couple years after the war. If there are mountains of evidence “proving” the Holocaust - why has it become illegal to discuss it; and where it’s not illegal -- yet -- discussing it in public leads to destruction of careers and smearing of reputations? Why are hundreds of whites in jail across Europe for asking questions? Why was the wholly peaceful Ernest Zundel “kidnapped” by American agents, taken from his American wife and shipped to Canada and then to Germany where he is jailed for the “crime” of denial? Why was Germar Rudolf taken from his wife and daughter here in America and sent to a German prison for “denial”? If the jews can prove their stories, let them do so! (And what-in-the-hell is AMERICA doing with a governmental office created to investigate antisemitism around the globe?! How did that become our business?!)
Now, the NY Times DID cover up the starvation and murders of millions of Ukranians and Russians by the (mostly jewish) Soviet apparatus. They’ve admitted it was false reporting, but refused to return the Pulitzer they won for it. Did you maybe mean that cover-up, MM?
mtraven, Jewish Atheist, et al., you really should stick around and comment. I'm "agnostic" on the jew thing, but having once been an evangelical christian I tend toward philo-semitism. Yet I'm open to the evidence, as it were.
My take so far is that Mr. Moldbug has the real target in his sights, and that those of us who have of late come to understand that we must fight for the interests of westerners of European ancestry must ally with each other to effect change.
Mr. Moldbug has the real target in his sights, and that those of us who have of late come to understand that we must fight for the interests of westerners of European ancestry must ally with each other to effect change.
MM sees only half the target. And it isn't clear he really sees them as a target or as a group he envies and might enjoy participating in.
As far as I'm concerned if you support the immigration invasion, for whatever reason, you're part of the problem, I don't care what color your skin is.
I wholeheartedly agree, but does MM support the immigration invasion?
I confess that I have come to white nationalism through Auster, and thus I tend to view things through an Austerian prism. For God's sake, I just donated some money to him a couple of weeks ago!
Steve Sailer posted a comment on MM's blog wherein he sums up the jew question rather succinctly:
"I would suggest that Jacques Barzun's concept of shared concerns rather than shared solutions is applicable here. Jewish intellectuals tend to have shared concerns, from which they often wind up at diametrically opposed proposed solutions.
For example, Berkeley historian Yuri Slezkine points out in his invaluable book "The Jewish Century" that so many Eastern European Jews became Bolsheviks because they had three main concerns for which they saw communism as the solution:
- They were discriminated against on account of nationality, so they favored Bolshevism because it promised to get rid of nations.
- They were discriminated against on account of religion, so Bolshevism would abolish religions.
- They were discriminated against by the working class and peasants because they were so good at capitalism, so Bolshevism would eliminate capitalism.
In contrast, say, libertarian Jews tend to reason (more straightforwardly) that if Jews are good at capitalism, then capitalism is good for the Jews.
Other Jews reasoned that if not having a nation-state was bad for the Jews, then starting their own nation would be good for the Jews.
And so forth ...
Same concerns (e.g., Is it good for the Jews?), but different solutions.
The point is that you can't understand the history of the last 100 years without thinking intensely about Jewish concerns."
"For example, the NYT actually helped cover up the Holocaust during WWII, for fear that it would make the war seem too Jewish."
This is perhaps an oversimplification. The whole sordid story is in a recently-published book called, I believe, Buried by the Times. The Soviets were not terribly interested in the Holocaust, either, and for much the same reasons.
The Holocaust never fit the whole Allied narrative of the war. The Allies of WWI, especially Britain, whose behavior was really despicable, had been terribly burned after the fictitious atrocity propaganda they had been printing was revealed as such.
The result was that the WWII Allied PR machine, though certainly no less unscrupulous than its ancestor, actually underplayed many of their enemies' atrocities.
The NY Times did not have cover up the putative Holocaust because it didn’t “come into existence” until a couple years after the war.
The Holocaust was revealed in '45. I suggest you read TIME's archive for that year, unless you think the Jews have edited it, or something.
But it was not really a big thing until the '60s. People in the '40s and even '50s had a little more perspective. They actually lived in the shambles the war had created. Six million dead, while it definitely struck them as a tragedy, did not seem quite so appalling as it does to us today. It is certainly not out of proportion, for example, with the number killed by Allied bombing.
And then there was a lot of guilt in influential circles, because they realized that their actions had not lived up to their own standards. It would have been incredibly, ridiculously easy for the US to save almost all the Jews of Europe, even as late as 1941.
BTW, I have actually read a reasonable amount of Holocaust revisionist literature. I have never come across any narrative that struck me as anywhere near coherent of what happened to all the Jews, if they weren't gassed. Perhaps they disappeared into underground caverns, like the children of Hamelin? Please feel free to try to enlighten me.
Do I support the immigration invasion?
Is Danny Ainge a Lakers fan? Is a bear Catholic? Does the pope - etc.
No. I do not support the immigration invasion. I support immediate, effective and permanent fortification of all sovereign borders or de-facto boundaries on Planet Earth. If effective border control requires landmines, crocodile moats, universal forehead barcodes, or even all three, then I say, "whatever it takes, man."
[MM:]
The result was that the WWII Allied PR machine, though certainly no less unscrupulous than its ancestor, actually underplayed many of their enemies' atrocities.
[NN:]
I'm obliged, first and proforma, to politely ask for examples of such.
But my real reaction is to ask for your extra-terrestrial source of information about the alleged attrocities you have in mind, since there is no uncompromised terrestrial source of information in that regard. Your implicit claim to know something of such seems ironic in view of your remarks regarding the record of Allied propaganda in the previous episode. Given the far greater ideological loading of the replay, your presumption is ill-considered.
It is only by dealing with the self-contradictory and absurd offerings of the Exterminationist enterprise itself that the truth is elicited. This I have done at some length over at "The Phora," to the extreme embarrassment and silencing of the expert Exterminationist proponents, after having had them produce the documents and arguments upon which they most heavily rely.
Moldbug wrote:
“I have actually read a reasonable amount of Holocaust revisionist literature. I have never come across any narrative that struck me as anywhere near coherent of what happened to all the Jews, if they weren't gassed. Perhaps they disappeared into underground caverns, like the children of Hamelin? Please feel free to try to enlighten me.”
I’m guessing your view of a what is a “reasonable” amount of Holyhoax revisionist literature probably differs by several orders of magnitude from mine.
Let me ask you to consider your unspoken premise, before I address your actual question. Your “what happened to all the Jews” assumes there were in fact the numbers the jews claimed existed before, during, and after the war. I can point you toward actual German concentration camp records (held by the Soviets after the war, now finally becoming available) which provide actual counts of prisoners, jews, deaths from disease, and deaths from execution. Can you show anything resembling a census of “missing” jews, save only the counts jews wail about when they have their hands out for enforced reparations?
From: The Barnes Review http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a050.htm
The origins of the great myth of the Twentieth century
In the years following the end of the Second World War, a movement has developed in the international Jewish community concerning the number of their co- religionists who perished in the brutal hecatomb of that war. In 1948, an official French bureau dealing with war crimes stated that the minimum number of Jewish dead in the Auschwitz camp was 8 million.
The Soviet Auschwitz Commission stated in the same year that the total of Jewish dead in the camp was 5.5 million and their satellite Polish communist government stated that the official death toll of Jews, again in Auschwitz camp, was now firmly fixed at 4 million.
This figure, of 4 million Jewish dead in Auschwitz, was again firmly fixed by a September 30, 1989 article in the "Jerusalem Post."
There was another modification in the American-published Aufbau, a New York Jewish newspaper, of August 3, 1990 that further reduced the number of Auschwitz Jewish victims to 900,000.
On March 3, 1991, an article appeared in the New York Times which gave a radically reduced figure, based entirely on the complete, wartime official German concentration camp records.
These records, which had been captured at the headquarters of the camp system at Oranienbaum camp outside of Berlin in April of 1945 by the Soviet Army, were subsequently microfilmed by the then-Soviet archives in Moscow. Prior to glasnost, these records were only made available, according to Russian sources, to Jewish researchers and were forbidden to anyone else for reasons that will shortly become very obvious.
These records, the completeness and authenticity of which no one disputes, state that the total of all persons who died in the German prison camp system from its inception in 1935 to its collapse in late 1944 and early 1945 were 403,712.
(The rest of the article at the URL above.)
---------------------------
If you would read some estimations of jewish numbers, try these:
http://www.zundelsite.org/english/advanced_articles/wor.005.html
How High Is The Number Of The Jewish Victims? - "Holocaust Deniers" Even Then?
Baseler Nachrichten, evening edition, Thursday, 13 June 1946,
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/revision/ausch.htm
An Auschwitz Revaluation by Fredrick Wilhelm
---------------------------
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55604&Disp=Refresh&
...
Way back in 1960 the Yad Vashem was forced to acknowledge that there were no "death camps" or "gas chambers" in all of Western Europe or all of the German Reich, since all of these camps had been open to inspection by scholars and scientists, and all of these camps were determined to have been "work camps."
...
When execution expert Fred Leuchter went to Poland -- believing in the Holocaust -- to examine the alleged "gas chambers," he found them to be scientifically impossible. In fact, they were quite ridiculous. However, to be certain, he took 20 forensic samples at all the alleged "gas chambers." An independent laboratory in Massachusetts tested these samples and confirmed his expert opinion that all the alleged "gas chambers" had never been "gas chambers."
Professional Holocausters, the ubiquitous Karsfelds, were outraged and demanded that the prestigious Krakow institute of Forensic Research in Poland repeat the same tests and prove Mr. Leuchter was wrong. The head of the institute led the team of scientists that took the samples from the same places as Leuchter and they got precisely the same results: no gas chambers! From the formerly loquacious and demanding Karsfelds: SILENCE!
...
At long last, the Polish director of the Holocaust Museum at Auschwitz has admitted something scientists and scholars had known for many years: the infamous "gas chamber" shown the tourists at Auschwitz is a complete fraud.
...
The fall of the Soviet Union was a disaster for the Holocaust business. The Russians turned over to the International Red Cross all the German "Death Registers" they had seized in 1944 when they overran Auschwitz in 1944. The Germans, with typical German efficiency, had scrupulously documented all the deaths at Auschwitz. Not four and a half million. Not even one million. It was slightly over 74,000 in total. And that included everyone -- even the German staff -- who had died at Auschwitz.
But we have "holocaust studies" classes in AMERICAN schools; we make American children (and weirdly -- Mexican and Afro-Caribbean children!) grovel and mourn for European jews who may have lived and may have died 60 years ago! (The local Georgia middle school here recently had the "history" classes spend two full days on th Holyhoax, including a field trip to hear some old jewess whine about her experiences; but the schools haven't time to teach the kids much American history!)
Our tax dollars go to fund "holocaust museums" to keep the pressure up about dead jews -- but it's taken 60 years to put up a single memorial to the American soldiers of WWII (granted, fighting on the wrong side -- but they didn't know that then -- and we don't seem to now!) -- and that was mostly paid for by donations, not tax dollars. Tell me again woh runs this country?!
Ernst Zundel was kicked out of this country (despite being married to an American) and jailed for asking questions -- should the noble jews at the Vad Yashem (the official Israeli Holocaust outfit) be jailed if they come to the U.S.? After all, THEY questioned and changed their numbers, didn't they? (Oh, that's right they didn't question the numbers; they only changed them under pressure from the truth. They were quite happy to use the "4-million dead jews at Auschwitz" lie for just as long as they could get away with it: to make sure of a steady flood of German money to Israel...
- They were discriminated against on account of nationality, so they favored Bolshevism because it promised to get rid of nations.
- They were discriminated against on account of religion, so Bolshevism would abolish religions.
- They were discriminated against by the working class and peasants because they were so good at capitalism, so Bolshevism would eliminate capitalism.
These reasons presume a rather cavalier attitude toward the nations, religions, and economic systems of the vast majority of people who aren't Jews. Have Slezkine or Sailer been attacked for anti-semitism?
Here is MacDonald's review of Slezkine's book.
Another short update to the body to note Mencius' newer post that links here.
I presume that comment was not directed at me. I don't find the discussion of the Holocaust here to be anything more than a distraction.
I'm far more interested in the whys and wherefores of today's White holocaust. The slow motion invasion of virtually every majority White nation, aided and abetted by the treason of their leaders.
Mencius Moldbug wrote:
“The problem is that you're not really interested in history.”
Interesting ad hominem.
Mencius Moldbug wrote:
What you need to do if you actually intend to convince people that you are right is to present a complete and cogent narrative of what happened, if the Holocaust didn't.
You’ve got it upside down. YOU are claiming the holocaust happened; you are saying it was the holy six million, you are saying there were gas chambers. I merely threw out some of the huge, huge amount of information that disproves your claims. It’s up to YOU to prove it did happen, not up to me and other questioners (I suppose you’d still call them “deniers”?) to prove that it didn’t. Or are you disclaiming Occam over at this blog?
In fact, are you disclaiming the entire scientific method? Your hypothesis: the Holyhoax occurred as the jews’ “standard story” would have us believe. I’ve provided a tiny bit of data that does not fit (tiny, only out of courtesy for the size of tanstaafl’s blog comments); there are multiple warehouses-full of more. You (and the jews, for lo, these 60 years!) do not and cannot provide any proof to support your hypothesis. In the scientific method you don’t claim your hypothesis is proven without testing it, and providing the data that backs up your conclusion that it is true – and you must account for the data that proves the null hypothesis. (The null hypothesis: It did not happen as the jews would have us believe – believe as in ‘take on faith’ – because they’ll throw you in jail for not believing and trying to ask questions about the tale – that’s anathema, you know!)
Then, Tanstaafl wrote:
“I presume that comment was not directed at me.”
Only in a generally educational fashion. As it is to all who read it.
“I don't find the discussion of the Holocaust here to be anything more than a distraction.”
I’d suggest that may be an error on your part. It is as a result of the lies and exaggerations of the jews about their “suffering” that young white Americans are dying in Iraq, and more death is being planned for them in Iran. It is as a result of the lies and exaggerations of the jews about their “suffering” that American schoolchildren get shorted on learning their own history to spend time learning about the jew’s alleged (and unproven) history of harassment.
It is because of the jew’s alleged suffering that the Palestinians are being genocided, it’s because of the fairy tale of the innocent jews being the recipients of unearned brutality that they were allowed to attack the Liberty and get away with it (even today, 40 years later, you may not question or clarify the israeli attack on a U.S. warship -- why is that?); and to not warn us of the Khobar Towers (do they care about the deaths of 200+ American Marines? They do not!); and it may be that they knew of the World Trade Center attacks as well. (They’ve admitted to the Odigo text messages warning of the attacks. And why were five israeli agents caught celebrating and filming the attacks just shipped silently back to israel? Etc. etc. etc.) Why are none of us white Americans allowed to disassociate our country from that “sh|tty little country”? Why is it that American companies are fined for answering a customer’s question about whether or not a product has israeli-sourced parts?
Tanstaafl wrote
“I'm far more interested in the whys and wherefores of today's White holocaust. The slow motion invasion of virtually every majority White nation, aided and abetted by the treason of their leaders.”
To whom do those leaders owe their obedience? It isn’t us – but notice that they all make haj to israel. They all go to meetings of AIPAC and tell the powers that really run things here that they will do whatever they’re told (there’s even YouTube video of them groveling!) The Bush monkey has even committed that he will send AMERICAN troops to protect israel if they need it.
All the “sanctity of the jews” is based in their alleged sufferings in what they named the Holocaust. Did you know it was originally named that because the propaganda was that the jews were being BURNED to death? They also claimed jews were being electrocuted. Then the entirely unproven, nonexistent gas chambers were chosen as the most useful ‘technique,’ but the name had already stuck.
If the jews had not convinced “our” “elite” that they suffered as they allege they did – they would not have the land they’ve stolen in the Middle East; they would not get away with bombing and invading Lebanon, bombing Palestinian civilians, running bulldozers over American aid workers. No one would pay them any mind when they wailed that they need special privileges, special tax dispensations, more reparations, money (always money!), a special office in our govt to harass other govts to protect them, a special law disallowing freedom of speech on American college campuses (American! Not in israel, not their own colleges, but in “our” country!) if the speech is declared anti-semitic.
Many, many of the things you’re objecting to, and hoping to correct, Tanstaafl, that you’re hoping to recover your country and your race from – are things the jews have done to us using the false shield of their “moral authority as victims.” {gag}{choke}. And that “moral authority as victims” is based on their fanciful tales of their special suffering in the war they declared! (Moldbug – you’re interested enough in history to have learned that “international jewry” declared war on Germany before the war began, right?)
[mm:]
If you are interested in pursuing this line of argument, though, I recommend Leuchter, Rudolf, and the Iron Blues. If you know of any cogent response to this essay, I'd appreciate hearing it.
[NN:]
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/Green.html
Some considerations about the ›Gas Chambers‹ of Auschwitz and Birkenau
You seem to be suspiciously well-acquainted with Exterminationist propaganda and pretenses, MM, and likewise ignorant of easily-located responses destructive thereof.
And, speaking again of all-that-you-know, MM, the Revisionist case has been so destructive of our current Holy Faith and Myth-structure (as we ruminate in Straussian fashion), that the Exterminationists, as said, have had to take the position of "OK - we can't prove they were killed except by implication of deportations - so you have to prove that they survived somewhere else -- otherwise, we're going to say they were killed".
But I'm a Nazi, and I try to conceal that fact from acquaintances for obvious reasons. Do you reckon that some European Jews have long had some motivation not to appear and/or to be counted as such? And that their governments, founded on and justified by the foundationless Myth, have a collateral motivation to cooperate?
[Correction:]
"But if that is indeed all you [MM] know, you have no reasonable basis (though you would never lack a stylish flair) for appearing to deduce the dismissal [as being of no implication] of work such as Leuchter's and Rudolph's, for which they have [thus, rather than "otherwise"] inexplicably been committed to penury and political imprisonment, respectively."
[MM:]
Because, while I never lived in or visited Europe in the 20th century, I have never lived in or visited Australia, either. But I have read a lot about this period. It really is a piece of reality to me.
So if I hear someone tell me that Australia doesn't exist or the Battle of Hastings never happened, however many numbers and however many references they can muster, I will do exactly what you would do - ignore them. There is simply no way to conduct such an argument.
[NN:]
The JDL version of that, when it was being conducted by the late Irv Rubin, is that the Revisionists are claiming that the Korean War never happened. Good intellectual company, MM, for someone of your pretensions.
In fact, MM, the larger picture of which you claim a grasp argues against the mass deportation and extermination of any European population of the time.
For the claim is that the Germans, after the shocking disaster at Stalingrad and Goebbel's call for Totaler Krieg, simply decided to commit suicide by wasting vast resources of all sorts, otherwise useful for the war effort, toward simply eliminating the yet-to-be-deported majority of their potential slave-labor force, while Speer and Keitel were in desperate competition for personnel as soldiers and laborers.
But sometimes it's been the little discrepancies that ultimately lead us to the realization that the world is not flat, the solar system is not geocentric, time is not absolute, and that energy is quantized, despite all appearances and assurances to the contrary. As was the case with my own sincere investigation.
It is not clear, at present, MM, whether there is, or you want, any remedy for a blockage such as you claim is your burden in this regard.
"But sometimes it's been the little discrepancies that ultimately lead us to the realization that the world is not flat, the solar system is not geocentric, time is not absolute, and that energy is quantized, despite all appearances and assurances to the contrary. As was the case with my own sincere investigation.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13882&page=8
If necessary, copy and paste:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/
showthread.php?t=13882&page=8
http://www.thephora.net/forum/
showthread.php?t=15706&page=16
(The indefatigable Jew propagandist and shameless liar, Globby the Clown, allowed several months to elapse to assure that my absence from The Phora was permanent, and has initiated the same discussion, with the same demonsrably false allegations, as if none of the embarrassing destruction of self-contradictory and mendacious Exterminationism in the previous threads had ever happened.
Presently, the linking works not at all, even with copy-and-paste.
The url has to be typed in.
Sorry -- finally remembered how this linking stuff works:
Krema II, LK I
Dutch Jews
Type in links like so:
<a href="url">text</a>
avalanche and NN,
I've read some of the Holocaust debate lately, here and elsewhere, and have two observations.
One, it's not going to be settled by arguing the details in the comments of my obscure blog. Links from here to the best references and debates you know of elsewhere are welcome however. I find the ones posted so far by both sides to be informative.
Two, all details aside I find the labeling of those who question the orthodox view as "deniers" guilty of "hate speech" to be the most compelling argument in favor of the revisionists. As with the labeling of those who criticize Israel or neocons as anti-semites I find this tactic of near-instant demonization telling. It seems to me those who use it are insecure in their facts and reason and consciously seek to silence and intimidate those with whom they disagree. I also find it unacceptable that there is an orthodox view of the events of such a chaotic time that are not to be questioned. Mencius appeals to history and the fog of a six day regional war, but then ignores the fog of a 5.5 year continent-wide conflict. That and his thorough knowledge of only one side of the Holocaust orthodox I think reveals a bias in him you're not likely to undo by arguing.
I recognize that part of the reason PC favors Jews is based on sympathy for the Holocaust. The best way to counter this is to calmly and rationally present your arguments, free of invective. Let the orthodox side be the ones who reveal that for challenges to their faith all they have in response is cries of "anti-semite". That's what swayed me away from Holocaust orthodoxy. I'm sure it's swaying others.
PS. I'm eager to read Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together. That and Slezkine's The Jewish Century. Both would seem to confirm that A) Jews are not some superficial and insignificant subcategory of Whites, they form their own powerful group independent of Whites and are well aware of it; and B) the worldview of that group is based on the collective principle that "good is what's good for Jews". The fact that it is nearly impossible to get them to admit these fairly obvious things without first serving you a flood of ridicule and insult is, again, very telling.
"I also find it unacceptable that there is an orthodox view of the events of such a chaotic time that are not to be questioned. Mencius appeals to history and the fog of a six day regional war, but then ignores the fog of a 5.5 year continent-wide conflict. That and his thorough knowledge of only one side of the Holocaust orthodox I think reveals a bias in him you're not likely to undo by arguing."
That was my reaction to his comments and is my assessment, as well.
Tanstaafl and NN, your interpretation of my comments is 180% off.
The reason I don't find Holocaust revisionism even conceivably credible, at least in its present form, is that it depends on the argument (see, eg, Germar Rudolf) that there were many fewer Jews in Central and Eastern Europe before WWII than anyone either thinks now, or thought before WWII.
It is inconceivable that the "fog of war" could have distorted the general perception in the '30s, '20s, and in fact every decade since Charlemagne was a little boy, that Central and Eastern Europe were chock-full of Jews. Ie, contained millions. Modifying Western history to this extent would demand an act of God, or at least of superhuman aliens.
I admit that it is not quite at the level of disappearing Australia. One could imagine aliens or gods which could make us believe in an imaginary population of nonexistent Jews, but not in an imaginary continent. But this level of madness is beyond even me.
Whether the number of Jews in Europe before WWI was five million or seven million, or even three or ten, is utterly irrelevant. The US Census Bureau was not exactly active in the region during this period. Nor are any statistics from any of the post-WWI nationalist governments even remotely trustworthy. Quite simply, no one knows - at least not by the standards of "scientific evidence" that Rudolf is demanding - and no one cares.
The entire issue is a red herring. Because it is not even the best way to criticize the Allied regime. Why not just say that the Allies lost all moral credibility once they collaborated with the murderers of Katyn? The historical evidence on this point is ironclad. Why would you need anything more? Isn't a serial killer basically a serial killer, regardless of how many zeroes he racks up?
Tanstaafl, two points.
One, you cannot be neutral or undecided on the subject of Holocaust revisionism. This is not fair. It just happens to be part of the tactical landscape you are operating in. If you are neutral or undecided, your views still fall in the same social category as those of NN or Avalanche. So why not be hanged for an ox? Investigate their claims, make a decision, and stick with it.
Second, there's a tactical factor you're not considering: that when you have a number of "big lies," not just one of them, it's a good idea to drop some landmines in the vicinity - a landmine being a big truth painted to resemble a big lie.
You only have to step on one landmine for any criticism of the State that you may produce to be completely vitiated and ignored. That's life in the big city.
In my humble opinion, if you actually want to fight for the white race and all, your most effective strategy is to ditch this nym and blog, and pick another one which loses the Jew stuff.
Sorry, dude, but you've been pwned - not by me, but by the State. So what? It happens. Pick yourself up, find another quarter, play again on a different machine. That's what pseudonyms are for.
[MM:]
The reason I don't find Holocaust revisionism even conceivably credible, at least in its present form, is that it depends on the argument (see, eg, Germar Rudolf) that there were many fewer Jews in Central and Eastern Europe before WWII than anyone either thinks now, or thought before WWII.
[NN:]
In fact, this is not a premise or emphasis of Revisionism as it is generally expressed. I suggest that you consult a wider range of Revisionist material. Your link to "Rudolph" again tells on you, as it is the Rudolph verdict in the Mannheim court and not a summary presentation of his own (as was linked in an earlier post directed to your attention). Rudolph's emphasis, in decisive summary, had been upon the Ball photographs that fail to show the Zyklon-induction structures, demanded by the orthodox Exterminationist account, atop the Auschwitz facility that supposedly was the most-employed homicide venue of the whole episode. If Rudolph has lately revised this perspective, his represents an eccentric, perhaps singular, emphasis uncharacteristic of the larger field still focusing on the imagined gas chambers as a vital consideration -- and the demography as a supplementary concern. Thus your incredulity is without foundation in terms of this consideration.
[MM:]
Whether the number of Jews in Europe before WWI was five million or seven million, or even three or ten, is utterly irrelevant. The US Census Bureau was not exactly active in the region during this period. Nor are any statistics from any of the post-WWI nationalist governments even remotely trustworthy. Quite simply, no one knows - at least not by the standards of "scientific evidence" that Rudolf is demanding - and no one cares.
[NN:]
Thus your claim to know of the Jewish population of Budapest in 1945, under Soviet occupation and shortly after the passage of armies engaged, is of the same character. And your incredulity correspondingly even less justified.
[MM:]
The entire issue is a red herring. Because it is not even the best way to criticize the Allied regime. Why not just say that the Allies lost all moral credibility once they collaborated with the murderers of Katyn? The historical evidence on this point is ironclad. Why would you need anything more? Isn't a serial killer basically a serial killer, regardless of how many zeroes he racks up?
[NN:]
But the question is to whom we refer when we speak of "the Allies" - who directed its policy and participation. Whose agenda was served by a war that was lost to "the Allies" in terms of its initial objectives and which served the massive further world-wide spread of Communism. Why was the entry of the USA achieved with bold lies to the American people and secret diplomatic manipulations directed toward the violation of anti-war pledges made to the same. I could go on...
Tanstaafl,
If you are neutral or undecided, your views still fall in the same social category as those of NN or Avalanche. So why not be hanged for an ox? Investigate their claims, make a decision, and stick with it.
I initially wrote, in response to your observations, this remark about Mencius, but decided against publication -- until now:
"I leave with a feeling of interruptus, however, in that I am not sure of the basis of the incapacity for the truth of one such as Mencius. He seems not a fanatic, with his smooth and stylish self-presentation, that contrasts so sharply with the contemptible and shameless behavior of a Globby the Clown. Perhaps my sense of his class as characterized by an unconcious and self-deceptive snobbish class-consciousness -- wherein the substance of a perspective gains no admittance to the party if it doesn't meet the dress code -- accounts for his dismissal of that which stands before him and must not be examined too closely lest the "cooties" find his person a more delectable host."
[MM:]
It is inconceivable that the "fog of war" could have distorted the general perception in the '30s, '20s, and in fact every decade since Charlemagne was a little boy, that Central and Eastern Europe were chock-full of Jews. Ie, contained millions. Modifying Western history to this extent would demand an act of God, or at least of superhuman aliens.
...Nor are any statistics from any of the post-WWI nationalist governments even remotely trustworthy.
[NN:]
What about from any of the post-WWII Communist governments?
BTW, MM, how do you identify Jews by survey other than by:
1) Self-identification
2) Public notoriety as such in the case of an individual or descent therefrom
3) The commonality of seemingly Jewish names in a collective enterprise.
It seems that if you rely upon a census of Jews post-WWII, you rely upon the truthfulness of persons and governments who have a vital interest in something else. This is not to say that we do not see plenty of Jews who enjoy self-promotion as martyrs of the event, UFO abductee-wise, but these cannot be but a tiny minority of the whole population of survivors (in the modest sense of the term).
So, MM, what alternative source of information have you in this regard, other than what is alleged, by known liars, to be authentic German documentation of deportation to putative homicide facilities that both lacked such and in enormous wastage of desperately-needed labor of an ethnic type that had been and continued to be in use?
[The liars' suggested response to this latter consideration is that a killing of the majority of deported Jews, after '42, was merely of useless "grannies" - which implies, without evidence, that the previous deportees were pointlessly selected for labor yet were killed in their majority. Where we would agree that the initial deportees were indeed selected for labor -- and so-used -- otherwise, the Germans wasted no effort on other than further labor deportations after '42, during the desperate struggle to win the war.]
Mencius Moldbug:
One, you cannot be neutral or undecided on the subject of Holocaust revisionism. This is not fair.
Up until recently I was, along with most other members of "polite society", on the side that recoiled in distaste and horror at the mental illness of evil anti-semite Nazi Holocaust deniers - even though I did not know any personally and had never read anything they had written. When I finally did read some I was surprised to find that virtually none of them denies that Nazi Germany killed Jews, they simply question the intent, extent, and methods of it.
I am not undecided on Holocaust revisionism. I no longer stand with those who would call people names without even knowing what's being said. I am instead entirely on the side of those who question it. You might call me a meta Holocaust denier because I look at the criminalization of "hate" springing from Holocaust orthodoxy, and how it is entwined with civil rights and non-White immigration, and I see it all turning my kin and their nations inside out and upside down. The true deniers are those who refuse to admit the wildly disproportionate participation of Jews in both fomenting this upheaval and in profiting from it.
You only have to step on one landmine for any criticism of the State that you may produce to be completely vitiated and ignored.
This line of thought is inconsistent with your skepticism of conspiracy. And mine.
In my humble opinion, if you actually want to fight for the white race and all, your most effective strategy is to ditch this nym and blog, and pick another one which loses the Jew stuff.
I'm not going to ditch this blog just because I've stepped over some imaginary line in your mind. I know very well the line you and most of "polite society" sees. The line is part of the problem. Your suggestion that those who become aware of it should abide it anyway is also part of the problem. That those who cross it are lumped into a "social category" and demonized collectively is part of the problem.
Perhaps you agree with me but think you're being subtle by criticizing "Universalists". Perhaps Auster thinks similarly when he rails against "liberals". The idea that you both are, consciously or not, crypto-Jewish safety valves for frustrated intellectual conservatives seems no more subtle. My guiding principle here is that you don't solve problems by discouraging free and open discussion of them. You and Auster both violate that principle.
If you are on my side, sorry. Perhaps you could focus on patching your Polygon worldview with some explanation of the immigration invasion. I'm curious to see how you pin it all on crypto-calvinism and how you think a neocameral sovcorp will thwart the Globalist Universalists who you don't believe exist.
Criticizing the fundamental hypocrisy of Jews is apparently a "mental illness" that afflicts not only Gentiles. See for example THINK TRIBAL, SPEAK UNIVERSAL by Gilad Atzmon.
Israel Shamir also says some interesting things.
Tanstaafl quotes Moldbug: You only have to step on one landmine for any criticism of the State that you may produce to be completely vitiated and ignored.
Tanstaafl: “This line of thought is inconsistent with your skepticism of conspiracy. And mine.”
Here, I must jump ship entirely -- alas, that Moldbug is correct. Is it a conspiracy when one after another killer bee stings someone they think is threatening the hive?
Please, however, don’t stop educating yourself and your readers. Just be careful with your identity. Recognize that the jews WILL come after you if they identify you and you’re making a big enough wave.
Tanstaafl quotes Moldbug: In my humble opinion, if you actually want to fight for the white race and all, your most effective strategy is to ditch this nym and blog, and pick another one which loses the Jew stuff.
Tanstaafl: “I'm not going to ditch this blog just because I've stepped over some imaginary line in your mind. I know very well the line you and most of "polite society" sees. The line is part of the problem. Your suggestion that those who become aware of it should abide it anyway is also part of the problem. That those who cross it are lumped into a "social category" and demonized collectively is part of the problem.”
May I tell you a situation that has bothered me for several years, as an analogy?
Are you familiar with David Icke? (Pronounced “eyeke”) He gets away with (so far -- the jews are now beginning to harass him) exposing jewish machinations and controls and legal maneuverings (and illegal maneuverings) and he is ‘followed’ by lots of liberal-lefty-new-agers, who seem to find him credible. I found him problematic -- because he is able to say, out loud, many of the things we’ve discovered about the jews, and yet, until recently has been entirely ignored by them. I concluded he must be a disinformation agent -- because just after he lays out this very reasonable, true, and horrifying set of facts and information about the control and destruction of our people (without any racialist info, sadly); he throws in his main point, which is that it’s not *jews* doing it; it’s LIZARD PEOPLE!
Hearing him bring people along with his eminently reasonable, “clear when you see it,” expose' of the jews, I think: “oooh goody! He’s spreading the word!” But once he whips out the lizard people, ALL of his material becomes suspect. (Hence, my conclusion he was a disinformation agent.) But a friend of mine sent me one of his books (which I haven’t yet read, actually) (yes, she’s a liberal-lefty-new-ager), and I watched some of Icke on YouTube: he really and truly believes what he’s saying.
Tanstaafl, your desire to address the race and immigration issues will be damaged by your willingness to even consider the heresy that is holyhoax investigation. Mencius Moldbug is right -- allowing “deniers” to hang out and post will cause “those-still-brainwashed” (you know -- American sheep?) to blow off your postings about race and immigration. (“Typical Nazi jerk.”)
Jared Taylor has tried to and generally succeeded at addressing race issues only. At huge cost in disdain from those more willing to tell the whole truth (it is not possible that he does not know the truth -- however, he would not be allowed even such small success as he has had in educating about race issues without his tacit (so far as I know) agreement to “keep the jews out of it.” (Out of the discussions -- his organization has long since been co-opted and surveilled by jews.)
And, of course, Kevin McDonald has had his career damaged and is being harassed by the jews.
(Oh, and need I mention Walt and Mearsheimer? Norm Finkelstein?) Tan, you’re already over the edge by focusing on race -- whites are not allowed to do that. To actually tip your hand that you know about the jews?! Well, that’s a red flag to a jewish bulldozer!
Hard place and a rock for you -- an anti-semite is someone the jews don’t like (read any Ed Steele yet?). By addressing race and immigration, you’re someone the jews don’t like. Is it: in for a penny, in for a pound? (Can you un-ring a bell? How do we get back into the Matrix -- and do we really want to?)
I stumbled on Icke a few months ago. As soon as I got to the lizard stuff I moved on. Is he speaking in code, or spreading disinformation? Does it matter? The effect is the same.
Revisionist Jürgen Graf reviews Guillaume Faye's book The New Jewish Question.
Very relevant. Among the many valid points Graf makes in defense of revisionists he also skewers Faye's Mencius-like "revisionism is like saying Caesar didn't invade Gaul" argument, and critcizes Faye's whitewashing of Jewish influence and involvement in immigration.
Graf's outlook on the Jewish Question is grim:
I don’t think any compromise with the Jews will ever be possible, for the following reason: effective struggle against immigration within the current framework is impossible. Therefore, in order to stop the invasion the current framework has to be overthrown either by insurrection or a coup d’état. A nationalist government resulting from an insurrection or a coup d’état would necessarily have dictatorial powers, otherwise it wouldn’t be able to take the stern measures required to bring all non-European immigration to a halt and begin the repatriation, at least in part, of non-Europeans already present on French soil. In other words, the only way to stanch the invasion would be to establish a nationalist dicatorship, an authoritarian government. Can the Jews expect to still be allowed to control the media, to spread their anti-culture and their harmful ideologies, and to use totalitarian laws to stifle all debate on “the Shoa” under such a government? The Jews, being intelligent people, know the answer is no.
The Realist at Inverted World reviews MacDonald's Culture of Critique. He expresses no disagreement with MacDonald's "overt thesis":
that a number of major 20th century intellectual and political movements—racial egalitarianism, Freudianism, Marxism, and advocacy of open borders—have been vehicles of Jewish ethnic interests. This thesis is supported by copious and convincing evidence.
but then proceeds to dismiss this thesis, and MacDonald, because he sees and disagrees with MacDonald's "covert thesis":
which is never fully avowed or openly argued for . . . that Jewish activism is the major cause of the forces that he believes is bringing down the West: multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, and the taboo against white racial identity.
He then goes on to accuse MacDonald of having such a desire to blame Jews that it makes him ignore the Gentile role in the decline of the West. This argument, as anyone who has gotten up the nerve to criticize Jews well knows, is bogus. It is just a variation of a well-worn extremification theme: you want to talk about Jewish influence, therefore you want to exterminate all Jews. It is easy to be accused of being fixated on Jews when political correctness makes criticism of them so rare. The plain fact is that outside a very small corner of the relative (short-term) safety of the internet there is precious little honest and rational discussion of the topic.
Why is that? How can intellectuals who otherwise demonstrate such intricate PC-challenging logic (eg. The Realist, Mencius Moldbug, Lawrence Auster, John Derbyshire) so thoughtlessly binarize the options on this particular subject? In their view you either believe the Jews are responsible for everything ("the Jew thing", "the Jews did it!"), or like them you believe the role of Jews is not worth mentioning. Why do these PC-challengers choose in this particular case to ignore or gloss over the pernicious effects of PC? Do they not see that neither of their binarized choices is realistic, and that it is illogical PC dogma that drives the argument to such extremes?
Why will they not discuss much less admit Jewish favor for PC, and the protected status of Jews under PC? PC anti-White bias and support for immigration is killing the West. This is not by chance. Jews helped create PC, and they help keep it going.
The comments on The Realist's article are interesting. In particular I agree with the comment left by anti-realist on 12/5/07, which includes this point:
How can you deny that Jewish subversion played an important role in the decline of the west? You allow that these modernist ideas have subverted the west. You allow that many of these ideas originate in the Jewish community, and that they were promoted by Jews who were very aware of their Jewish identity and hostile towards the gentile majority. Finally, you allow that, to some extent, their Jewish identification and hostility towards the majority influenced their intellectual attitudes (i.e., that “the ethnic factor” played some role). So their interest in and promotion of these ideas was, to some important extent, something that they did _as Jews_ acting on behalf of what they thought were Jewish interests. What are we supposed to call this phenomenon, if not “Jewish subversion”?
"He then goes on to accuse MacDonald of having such a desire to blame Jews that it makes him ignore the Gentile role in the decline of the West. This argument, as anyone who has gotten up the nerve to criticize Jews well knows, is bogus."
There is no denying Jewish influence in the mess, but non-Jewish influence should bear equal time.
http://www.vdare.com/fallon/060809_promises.htm
... Offers a summary of rhetoric spewed in 1965. The Dem-controlled Congress rubberstamped LBJ proposals in similar fashion to GWB's rep-controlled Congress. And there was a tremendous support for immigration by the non-Jews for their own particularly catholics similar to the "catholic" invasion were seeing today.
This is very similar to your argument that the neocons and leftists are in cahoots. These groups supported immigration (legal or illegal) for different reasons without collusion of any kind.
History revisionists? All I can say is history is always under revision. What would you think if I based all my opinions on Cambodia on the writings of Pol Pot? Not a whole heckuva lot I suspect.
There's another 50 million pages of records being released for public scrutiny on the holocaust. Im sure it will shed some additional light and some additional critiques.
There is no denying Jewish influence in the mess, but non-Jewish influence should bear equal time.
So why is it so hard to turn that around and say: There is no denying non-Jewish influence in the mess, but Jewish influence should bear equal time.
The contemporary state of affairs in "polite society" is that non-Jews get virtually all the blame. To suggest that Jews get any blame gets you evicted from "polite society".
To honestly criticize the structure and consequences of political and economic power in our world today you must somehow address the stark over-representation of Jews. Yet Auster, Mencius, and so many other supposedly serious critics do not. Not only that, they actually denounce anyone who does criticize Jews. To do so Auster is even willing to do what he so often complains others for doing to him: he criticizes those to his right.
The line I drew is on the basis of your reference to "Jews" and "the Jew thing" being the end all for an entire group based upon the actions and words of the powerful few and that of the clique-ish sects. You qualify your ire with the "PC-protectionism" of everything "Jewish", yet I hear no criticism of the christian leadership embroiled in the same controversy.
Catholics, Episcopals, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals all scurrying to promote immigration from their favored nations. The Catholics have been supporting immigration for 150 years with particular support historically and currently for hispanic immigration (legal and illegal). And the Catholic hierarchy have loyalty to whom?
Would you consider condemning all Catholics or all of Christendom for the actions and words of their leadership?
By all means condemn those deserving, but generalizations that diffuse the discussion into a broader arena based on racism offer little substance in addressing the issue, spreading awareness and rallying support. You have this great fear of becoming a minority, but that is exactly what white nationalists are - a minority in their own race.
There is no doubt the white race is a minority on the global level, but it's on the wrong end of the PC battle because much of the (current) global wealth is in the hands of that minority. "Suicide" is as applicable a word as "genocide" since many of the problems (ie, immigration; decreased fertility) are self-inflicted.
Hey, we did our part in preserving the race.
Plenty of other people blame it all on Christians. There is no need for me to dwell on them. I hate the churches and clergymen who support open borders just as much as I hate anyone else who does.
It is not "suicide" if someone who isn't you helps you along. At best it's assisted suicide. But that would be too charitable a description, because plenty of us don't want the White race to die, and because our destruction is too gleefully perpetrated by our "assistants". They profit from it after all. I'd say it involves malice aforethought - ie. it's murder.
Whether this is to blame on a clique-ish sect or not is something that would be interesting to discuss. But you can't, at least in "polite society", which is my point.
As for the sanctity and immunity of "entire groups" I'd like to ask why that rationale is so infrequently used in the defense of Whites or Christians. Why under PC is it acceptable to rail against them collectively? Each of those groups have less in common than Jews do.
You qualify your ire with the "PC-protectionism" of everything "Jewish", yet I hear no criticism of the christian leadership embroiled in the same controversy.
The Christian leadership's interests aren't served by immigration. They're being manipulated to benefit someone else. See that old quote from G.C. Williams. The Christian leadership are infected and infectious, but they're not the source of the problem.
"Suicide" is as applicable a word as "genocide" since many of the problems (ie, immigration; decreased fertility) are self-inflicted.
They aren't self-inflicted. The Jewish community caused the immigration invasion, and the decreased fertility is a classic case of parasitic castration.
Tanstaafl, if you haven't read David Sloan Wilson's first two books yet (Unto Others and Darwin's Cathedral), you should. Groups of people can in fact constitute organisms in their own right. In such cases, focusing on "individuals" will be ineffective. The Jewish community certainly does not look at us as individuals.
Here's a classic link:
http://www.aish.com/torahportion/kolyaakov/Cells_of_One_Organism.asp
So, how are we to understand the Midrash and the Rashi who claim that all of the generations were at Sinai and accepted the Torah?
Here we become aware of a fundamental concept of Jewish living. The Midrash does not mean that we are bound to the Torah because we personally made an oath to God at Sinai. While it may be true that our souls were there in some mystical way, our souls could not have accepted anything that would be binding. Rather, the Midrash means that our generation was at Sinai by dint of the entire original generation of Jews being at Sinai and accepting the Torah. The Jewish nation is one continuous entity that exists throughout history. Each generation may be comprised of new individual people but the continuous entity remains.
If you were to scientifically break down any living organism into individual cells, you would discover that after a period of years, there is not one cell left with which the organism was born. Yet, do we look at an older cow, with its brand new and different group of cells from when it was a calf, as a different cow than it was many years ago? Of course not. It is the same cow even though its cells have been regenerated.
The same is true of the Jewish nation. Individual generations of Jews die, just as cells of an organism do, but they are replaced with new generations. The Jewish nation, like the organism, remains intact. The Jewish nation of today's times is the same nation that existed at Sinai. Therefore, it is as if our generation was present at Sinai as well. The question of our personal acceptance of God's laws is only a question if we view ourselves as individuals. But we are not individuals. Each of us is a cell in the grand organism that is the Jewish people.
We must not relate to God as individuals. Rather, we come to God as part of Klal Yisrael, the Jewish nation. Rambam writes: (Laws of Repentance 3:11) "Whoever separates himself from the community, even though he does not commit transgressions, but merely divides himself from the congregation of Israel, does not perform the commandments with them, doesn't feel their pain, doesn't fast when they face tragedies, but lives his life in his own individual way as if he were not part of the nation, loses his portion in the World to Come."
Thanks Ben. I haven't gotten them yet but they're on my list. It's a long list, but I'm a voracious reader.
From what I already know I give credence to group selection. It seems to me that the only controversy is of the PC-violation sort.
A while back I read this Sailer article, and was especially fascinated with how evasive and downright dishonest Dawkins was in the cited interview about kin selection.
As with race itself, liberals will not admit kin selection exists or matters because it threatens their equalitarian worldview.
"The Christian leadership's interests aren't served by immigration. They're being manipulated to benefit someone else."
Aren't being served? The Catholic Church was dying without the new flood of immigrants. Historically, American Bishops (many of whom were not natural born citizens) strongly supported immigration including Irish, Italian and the greater Latino communities in central/south america, the Carribean and Spain. To suggest they were "duped" by the Jews is absurd. Today the same death knell within the Catholic church is ringing and they are relying heavily on the new waves to fill the pews. What they are not addressing is that the 1st generation legal/illegal wave is going to church but have little to give and the 2nd generation is not going to church.
"There is no need for me to dwell on them."
They are all enemies - the difference being some have stauncher PC police than others. The references of "Aha! Its the Jews" ("The Jewish community caused the immigration invasion...") is what Im aiming at. The problems dont disappear when you go in the "way-back" machine and remove the Jews (all or those responsible) from the equation.
Interesting poll I heard about yesterday - the majority of blacks, hispanics & asians feel "whites" can be trusted and treat them more fairly than the other (non-white) races. What a surprise.
This idea that anyone who criticizes Jews collective behavior thinks "Aha! Its the Jews" and blames them for everything is just another insidious part of the problem. The fact that you cannot openly discuss such things without being attacked with a bunch of flimsy and inconsistent arguments only confirms that they ARE a group and ARE treated specially. They played a major role in forming PC rules. They play a major role in propagating and perpetuating and extending PC rules. They enjoy the benefits of PC rules. And meanwhile PC rules are killing Whites.
Across the West today Jews hold disproportionate power and control in politics, education, finance, and the media. Whites suffer disproportionate loss. As the former becomes more extreme so does the latter. Why is this happening and what are we going to do about it? This is the Jewish Question. It isn't the only question, but it's an important question. The fact that it is impossible to discuss it in "polite society" leads me to believe it is the most important question.
I want answers. Not denials. Not excuses. Not debates about the Holocaust. Not "Christians are also involved". Not "Jews are White and suffer too". Not "you should shut down this blog and not talk about Jews". After all this nonsense I've learned that all I'm going to get is a combination of penalties for asking such questions, and hand-waving smoke-blowing non-answers. This is in fact an answer, it's just not a forthright or explicative answer.
In reviewing what was said above for examples of forthrightness and explication the following two statements stand out. Their value merits repetition.
colin laney:
Anywhere gentiles are waking up, Jews are right there next to them, patrolling and supressing *any* occurance of the self/nonself divide. As for Jews you can't see, they're drafting hate crime legislation, or educating police offices about their new legal category, or spreading it through newspapers. By the time other gentiles come to the conclusions you've come to, they'll find themselves thinking "I'm a racist. I'm a hater", rather than "I have legitimate group interests."
As a further defense, some Jews have set themselves up - Auster is one - as another safety valve for awakening gentiles. He tells them everything about their current plight except for one important detail . . . which is ruthlessly excised from every discussion he presides over. I'd put Mencius in this category, though he isn't as clumsy as Auster. FWIW, I don't think he's aware of what he's doing, either. Deception of others begins with, and is enhanced by, self-deception. Mencius is pretty far up his own navel, where Jews never act as a group to advance group interests. Tell it to the survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty.
AmRen is also railroaded by Jews into shushing all talk of the Tribe, even though it's supposed to be a group for gentile group interests. How do you suppose that happens? More "individuals" who happen to be of Jewish descent all deciding at more or less the same time that discussion of Jewish group behaviors isn't advisable?
Do you begin to see how many circles of Jews are watching over the population for signs of restlessness? Can you appreciate how hard they're working both to prevent awakening and also to be there for gentiles who have some awareness of how things have gone wrong just so that any understanding of the Jewish contribution to the emerging World Order?
I would also add that no level of aboveboard co-ordiantion is required for Jews to act in this manner. I think it's instinctive, though the reflex to demand "scientific" evidence for what you see with your own eyes is another check on how agile a political observer you can be. IOW, it doesn't matter to me *why* Jews behave as they do - perhaps MacDonald is right to say it in evolved group strategy - it is simply important to note that they *do*.
Jews have many steering committees and open air pow-wows, but the Jews on this thread don't need to avail themselves of any of them in order to know that any discussion of Jews as a group is a Bad Thing, and to act accordingly. And no matter where you go on the web, or anywhere else, you'll find the same set of behaviors. They'll hold to the line of "we not doing it" right up until the day they all switch over to "we'll never do it again, we promise". Jews are extremely slippery, but once you understand the few simple rules that almost all operate by, there is no simpler group in all of creation to predict the behavior of, hydrogen atoms included.
It's the initial and internal distinction that you make in your own head that is the great hurdle. The point in the game we're at now on this site is where you are being called away from making the leap. After you've leapt, a different set of strategies will come into play, both for you and for them.
ben tillman:
G.C. Williams, an eminent evolutionary biologist, provides one of my favorite quotes:
"As a general rule, a modern biologist seeing an animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is being manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish."
To suggest they were "duped" by the Jews is absurd. Today the same death knell within the Catholic church is ringing and they are relying heavily on the new waves to fill the pews.
Your statements are non-responsive. The church leadership doesn't have an interest in "filling the pews."
Church leaders have an interest in one thing: propagating their genetic structures into the future, and the issue is how they could wind up sacrificing their genetic interests in favor of others'. I say it's the influence of other organisms, particularly the Jewish community. You say it's their own genes' idea to snuff themselves out now after God-knows-how-many millions of generations of doing the precise opposite. That makes no sense.
Catholic church leaders are celibate, so they've consciously made the decision to be the end of their own personal genetic line. I think FF's point is they also seem more concerned with their faith's memetics than even their own extended genetics. In other words they don't care who their flock is, as long as they have one.
I find this irrelevant to the Jewish Question. If anything it is a separate Church Question, and the former is more important. Christian leaders may favor mass immigration, but they have not as relentlessly or uniformly lobbyied Western governments for it as Jewish organizations have.
As for the hypothetical wayback machine, it's clear to me that in my own lifetime conditions in the United States have deteriorated enormously for Whites. There is more crowding, more crime, more interracial hatred and violence, especially towards Whites. Meanwhile wages are stagnant, the dollar is worth less, private and public debt have risen to unprecedented levels, our infrastructure is crumbling under the burden of more freeloaders and less taxpayers, and almost every product - including food - is made overseas by people who will happily poison us if it makes them a little extra money.
The roots go way back, but during my lifetime and the half-century just before it a WASP elite slowly but steadily lost power and a Jewish elite just as steadily have replaced them. The accelerating social decay and the economic transition from productive industry to pyramid schemes corresponded with the transition in control. Jews are more powerful today than they have ever been. Whites are heading for oblivion.
"I find this irrelevant to the Jewish Question. If anything it is a separate Church Question, and the former is more important."
How do you choose which is more important. That is specifically my point - it is a "church question". The church (regardless of creed) supports immigration. I read a piece by David Duke linking jewish support for illegal immigration citing Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society's support for illegals, legislation legalizing II's, etc. Hello?!? Are we concentrating on the right word? Hebrew? or IMMIGRANT AID? Its what they do - like Catholic Charities, Catholic Immigration Society, Lutheran Immigration & refugee Services, United Methodist Committee on Relief, Muslim Aid - they are all in support of immigrants and immigration. Does that dictate the decision of the flock?
"The church leadership doesn't have an interest in "filling the pews."
BT - You're definitely not Catholic. (at least not from the New York Archdiocese) - Its all about filling the pews. They will keep a church open in utter bankruptcy if the pews are full. Religion and race (or genetics) are not equal - the Jewish religion is the closest it comes but even they include lily white to jet black in the temple.
Whites are already a minority - but the minority's power is waning (dilution is the solution to pollution). I agree with you, I dont want the ills created by illegal immigration, I dont want to share anything with them, but i dont buy the race war - this is about one color - green - and right now the people with the green make the decisions - jew, gentile, infidel.
"Or perhaps you can propose an evolutionary model in which our communities manage to acquire AIDS without the introduction of a pathogen? Do you reject the germ theory of disease?"
Lemee guess? The Jews caused AIDS, too?
The "way back" model is suggesting that if you removed the Jews from the equation there would be some one (or something) else to fill the void. Obviuosly, the USS Liberty et al doesnt specifically occur, but the Mid East problems arent solely related to the creation of Isreal - eventually the natives were going to get restless. Illegal immigration happens anyway if you remove Jews from the equation.
NN criticized me in this or another post citing Judeo-Christian values - (my damn upbringing) - and I agree there is some compelling link between Jews and Christians. But this "race-based" value affords what? Do you believe all whites are the same and aspire to the same values? Do you think a white will support your vision if a black man (or jew, etc) offers him something better?
The current leadership (political, corporate, et al)- white, jew, hispanic, atheist - are not offering me something I want. So the answer I perceive is to either move into leadership or work to put "like-minds" there.
You can send your contributions to my PAC:FlippityFlopittyforCongress.org
Post a Comment
<< Home