Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Overcoming Our Blooming Idiocy

Luke Ford's A Chat With Stephen Bloom, Author Of Postville, from 2003 (via Steve Sailer) is frank and revealing. You may find this Postville context useful.
Stephen: "I've spoken in a lot of public places. It's rare when I'm in a metropolitan venue and someone doesn't stand up and scream something like, 'Shame, shame, shame. For a Jew to say this about other Jews, shame on you.' I'm not going to surrender my role as a journalist based on erroneous inferences that some may draw that this is a story about Jews in general.

"I spoke in Chicago to the American Jewish Congress. I was introduced as a culinary Jew, as a lox and bagels kind of Jew. That did not sit well with me. It made me think that there is some kind of pecking order. That there are certain Jews who are less Jewish than other Jews. That if you keep kosher, you are a better Jew than others. If you go to synagogue every week, somehow you are a better Jew. It was a rating game. I didn't like being relegated to the bottom of that rating card. I think that fractures the collective nature of what it is to be a Jew."

Luke: "I know you emotionally didn't like it but didn't you intellectually realize that there was something to it, in that only the people who observe Jewish Law are going to perpetuate Judaism and the Jewish people?"

Steve: "No. If you and I were together, I'd probably be grabbing your shoulders right now and shaking you. Absolutely not. It's not in an intellectual way, it's in a visceral way that I found that offensive. My son Michael, his Hebrew name is Moishe, was just Bar Mitzvahed two weeks ago. To say that because I like lox and bagels that I'm not going to carry on the tradition of Judaism, shame on you. Shame on anyone. That's like the Orthodox saying, 'The Conservatives are the goyim.' That's like the Conservatives to the Reform, 'They don't know anything.' No, that's a bunch of bulls---. My kid is just as Jewish as any of those kids in Postville. And my kid read his parsha [Torah section] without mistake. My son wore a tallit and was able to carry a Torah around a synagogue. And to say that somehow because I don't keep kosher, I'm less committed to carrying on a Jewish tradition. No, that's the height of hypocrisy."
It appears Ford understands the nature of judaism better than Bloom does. It is not liberalism. Modern liberalism, or neo-liberalism, is anti-racialism, an ideological solvent whose core tenet, and primary effect, is to dissolve racial consciousness. That's all.

Bloom is confused. One moment he's noting how his jewish critics cry shame, then he does it to Ford. He decries the internal pecking order of jews, then he explains how he, vicariously, claims a place in it. After Bloom ticks off a list of exclusive metrics by which he separates himself as a jew from non-jews Ford fingers the core contradiction facing every liberal who simultaneously professes themselves jew:
Luke: "Do you think it is wrong of Lubavitchers to ignore non-Jews?"

Steve: "They can do what they want. The way I carry on my life, I want to include people. There are too many bountiful things in this world for me to put blinders on so I can't allow myself to say hello to somebody on a Saturday morning in the middle of Iowa because his mother isn't Jewish. No, that's what you call racism. It's based on blood. Lubavitchers don't even see the guy on the sidewalk because to acknowledge him would be the beginning of assimilation. Then his children will play with my children and that's the end of our faith. I don't think it is the end of my son's faith if he plays stickball with Hispanic kids. I want him to do that."

Luke: "How would you feel if he married a non-Jew?"

Steve: "That's his decision. Isn't it presumptuous for me to tell my son to marry somebody based on solely on who somebody's mother is?"

Luke: "I don't think so, but I affiliate Orthodox. We're talking about the clash of Orthodox Judaism with modernity."
Bloom is in denial. He denies race. He denies that he is not a good jew. He denies the one contradicts the other. Most jews resolve the contradiction by understanding liberalism as anti-racism, specifically anti-Whitism. Bloom adheres to anti-racialism. He tries lamely to hold jews to the same standard of racial disarmament he expects of Whites. And he fails. Good jews will not have it.

What interests me is not orthodoxy or modernity. It is the clash between jews and Whites. What distresses me is the deleterious effect that clash is having on my people. Whites. The problem is that anti-racialism, anti-racism, and philo-semitism have come to dominate White thought. Generally speaking our leaders deny race, dislike Whites, and love jews. Just like jews.

This is good for jews, but bad for Whites. Bloom can see it. My anti-anti-semite foil Larry Auster can see it. Most jews can see it. Or they could if they ever turned their self-obsessed thoughts about what's good for them outward and recognized that Whites might think the same way about themselves. The problem is: they won't and we don't. We cannot expect jews to change. The majority perceive that as bad for themselves. Get it? It's up to Whites to set aside the anti-racialist crack pipe. Recognize that we are White. Recognize that anti-racism is anti-Whitism. And think, as Whites: What is good for Whites?

Labels: , , , ,



Blogger John Savage said...

Great post!

This especially resonated with me after by chance, I had just read this article mentioned at VFR about Objectivism, another Jewish-led movement. It sounded like something Kevin MacDonald could have included in Culture of Critique if he had wanted to not confine himself to overtly left-wing movements. I have a hard time imagining whites naturally engaging in the kind of cult-like behavior Rothbard mentions in the Objectivism article.

I think we can say Jews are used to being part of movements with extreme loyalty to the ingroup and willingness to do any kind of harm to outgroup members. Jewish tribalism is itself a kind of movement of that type. When non-Jews join a Jewish movement, they have to learn the same behavior, or they won't last long.

5/15/2008 07:56:00 PM  
Blogger John Savage said...

For that matter, VFR is one of the most "cultish" websites on the Right. I wonder why? :lol:

5/15/2008 07:58:00 PM  
Blogger Robert said...

Another great posting.

Mr Auster welcomes any comments that agree with him. What a guy!

5/16/2008 03:29:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And it's not like Auster goes all hyper-agressive and hair-splitting when challenged.

(Though as a stepping stone still a rather useful character).

5/16/2008 06:49:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Maybe Bloom sees himself as a voluntary member of the Jewish faith and not restricted to the mandates of the jewish "race" as presented by the orthodoxy.

Isn't orthodoxy exactly what you are calling for whites to embrace? Conforming to an established doctrine "What's good for Whites?"

5/16/2008 08:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

savage: macdonald did comment on Objectivism, i think in CoC - but only briefly - its has all the classic features: universalist language, anti ethnic, but the 'inner party' was exclusively Jewish and if you go to the objectivist site, you'll find Rand's "intellectual heir' has essays defending Israel and another one urging us to 'Take the Christ out of Christmas"

5/16/2008 10:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This story's got it all. A recent article in the Des Moines Register suggest that Miss Chao's agency may have ordered the raid in order to ruin exploitation probes already underway against the owners.

"The detention, possible deportation and voluntary departure of nearly 400 potential witnesses could greatly complicate the child-labor investigations being conducted in Postville,

Also worth noting is the 2-year letter campaign organized by the town's Lutheran minsters pleading for action against this plant. The authorities brushed off the townspeople's initial requests as annoying rants from bigots.

The town's Catholic church is of course offering sanctuary and looks to be part of a co-ordinated effort to help get those witnesses to crime out of the country.

5/17/2008 06:47:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

This is just a single event in this plant's long history of breaking rules for greed.

NYT reported the plant is a "target" of environmental investigations (a grey water discharge from the plant).

5/17/2008 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, Great post on an interesting article. One thing I have been noticing is that leftist commentors who identify themselves as jewish are not confronted by jewish conservative commentors, even at sites run by them. My impression is not that they are intentional (jews who identify as conservatives) in not confronting, but that the reason is that they feel that they will lose status in the community (similar to what you describe as happening at Austers).

There is a related discussion on similar issues in the comments at:

The discussion is open at GOV and I thought you would be interested.

5/17/2008 10:59:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Thanks Flanders. I got one comment in before this:

At Fjordman's suggestion, and with great regret, I am closing this thread to further comments.

It's unfortunate that some commenters couldn't make any coherent points without resort to unpleasant invective.

Poor Baron Bodissey. He had to delete some unpleasant invective. I thought there was far more thoughtful, reasonable opinion. It was getting interesting. Perhaps that was the problem.

"Unpleasant invective" works well as an anti-anti-semitic heckler's veto. In most forums, unfortunately even those like GoV that purport to oppose PC, if you don't like the way the discussion is going just post some "unpleasant invective". Discussion over. "Nazis" get the blame. Again.

5/17/2008 09:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

flippityflopitty, you could say I am calling for Whites to embrace the orthodoxy of recognizing that they are a group whose genetic interests are every bit as valid as those of any other group. It is an instinctive and traditional value only Whites have been foolish enough to abandon en masse, and to which I wish them to return. I prefer to think of this as common sense rather than orthodoxy, though amongst Whites political correctness has pathologized such thoughts and made them uncommon.

5/17/2008 09:38:00 PM  
Blogger John Savage said...

Those were some of the weakest arguments I've seen over at GoV. I was going to comment again, but then saw today they had closed the thread.

The argument we constantly get is, "Well, Jews are involved in all kinds of movements, both on the Left and the Right." Nonetheless, often we end up with a choice between one Jewish movement (Marxism) and another (neoconservatism). These movements agree on certain things, such as the need for a diverse, "tolerant" society. It is a tiny minority of Jews who think that Islam is a greater threat to them than white Christian anti-Semitism. This belief has persisted in the face of overwhelming evidence that Muslims are a tremendous threat to Jews.

What conclusion can we draw? It seems like one of two things. Either: 1) Jews are irrational to be afraid of white Christian anti-Semitism in our day, but this irrationality has persisted despite the behavior of Muslims, and therefore it is an ingrained feature of the Jewish people. So they will continue doing everything possible to eliminate the possibility of a "Nazi" backlash, such as reducing whites to a minority in their own countries, which Fjordman opposes. Or: 2) Jews are rational to be afraid of white Christian anti-Semitism, because they have done things that once realized by the majority, will create a major backlash against the Jews for their actions.

Either way, Jews are not going to be on our side. If they oppose the jihad, it will be for their own reasons and won't necessarily accomplish what is necessary for white survival.

Fjordman is stuck with this idea that to be anti-Muslim requires being pro-Jew. He keeps citing Le Pen as an example. But Le Pen just seems to me to be an egomaniac, who will take any position helpful to his own aggrandizement. It is absurd to assume that everyone else who opposes Jews will also turn in favor of displacement by Muslims. Fjordman's snide comment to Afonso Henriques about starting a site shows that he thinks in order to be anti-Muslim, a person must oppose everything that Muslims support. He has already said that we have to be pro-Jew, and it sounds like he is saying we will soon be asked to be pro-homosexual too.

One other thing: I couldn't believe the attempt to belittle the significance of Lenin's 1/4 Jewishness. In most countries, unless you are 100% the majority ethnic group, you are treated as part of the minority group. That's true whether the minority group is privileged, as minorities are in the West, or whether minority groups are subject to persecution. As a 1/4 Jew, Lenin could have been blamed for the actions of Jews. That seems like it would have to be the salient fact in his mind.

5/18/2008 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger Flanders Fields said...

Tan, I was hoping the discussion would continue, too. There were many opinions and they were divergent, without having been thought out. Suddenly having a chance to say something on an issue when the opportunity is unexpectedly available and the opinions are pent up, leaves almost anyone without a chance to go more into the substantive depths. Surface tensions have to be relieved first.

Like John, I thought the arguments were weak. The format was too moderated to feel that heartfelt expressions were being either given proper consideration, or welcomed. I can't say that the Baron was wrong to shut it down, but there are a lot of people who want to express their opinions and who want to legitimately explore the issue. It's apparent that they want a forum to do so, and that a public airing is wanted on a range of issues. I was surprised that more people have a non-PC interest in the issue than I had suspected and are not too shy to state what they think.

5/18/2008 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Flanders, I liked your comments there too. The conversation I think got a little too sophisticated for philo-semites. Their usual tactics of "this is all just crazy hate" just weren't cutting the mustard.

5/18/2008 12:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fjordman acknowledges the importance of race. I don't think he will recant and retreat. I think he will be guided by facts and reason to forge ahead.

Unless he's Jewish.

5/18/2008 06:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you guys seen that the Agriprocessors story is even bigger and more corrupt than anyone could've imagined (believe it or not!):

Agriprocessors, you see, has two lucrative and pernicious schemes going. One scheme involves driving wages down to bare subsistence by hiring desperately poor illegal immigrants to work in its slaughterhouse—the criminal enterprise that made the news last week. The other involves fraudently claiming that the United States has run out of native-born meat-cutters and then, with the help of American Immigration Lawyers Association member Christopher Teras, securing work visas for foreigners worth $30,000 each on the street in Guangzhou.

Guangzhou as in China. Agriprocessors has ALSO been selling visas to the highest bidders in China. The Chinese who have been buying them don't work at all for Agriprocessors but just head off to some Chinatown somewhere like in SF.

Biggest immig raid ever much worse than you think


5/18/2008 06:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interestingly, Auster has not yet commented on Postville.

5/18/2008 10:37:00 PM  
Blogger John Savage said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Unless he's Jewish"

That could be the case. Though even if he's not, he seems to have too many close Jewish friends to think clearly about the Jews anyway. The Jewish Left has a lot of fellow-travelers.

Fjordman made a big deal about this:

"Those who think that Jews are "conspiring against us" and that's the reason for Multiculturalism should reflect over the fact that Jews are disproportionately represented among those defending European civilization (think Andrew Bostom, Bat Ye'or, David Littman, etc.), despite the fact that millions of Jews were killed in Europe only a few decades ago."

Is it surprising that a few Jews should see greater danger in Islam than the emasculated West? No, not at all. But Fjordman puts great stock in the fact that there are a few Jews who are prominent in the counterjihad -- while ignoring the rest.

I think Tanstaafl is right when he says that Jews tend to think that they built every civilization, which would be next to nothing without them. Fjordman obviously subscribes to something very close to this view. He makes every effort to credit the Jews for every Christian contribution to Western civilization, and suggests that Christians fail to recognize how much they owe to the Jews.

At any rate, this is the mind of an ideologue who's very attached to a certain way of thinking, and isn't going to have much of an open mind about the issue. What's worse, the Counterjihad has gone to great lengths to weed out "anti-Semites". This means they have turned a deaf ear to anything that might be said by someone with the capacity to change their perspective.

5/19/2008 08:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"conspiring against us"

Who said it was a conspiracy? The efforts of Schiff, Straus & Wise, a century ago, were neither secret nor illegal.

The effort of "Boas [who]led the opposition in academia, while Representatives Isaac Siegel, Samuel Dickstein, Adolph Sabath, and freshman Emanuel Celler were the chief adversaries in Congress [were not illegal or secret].

Striking a contemporary note, Gedalia Bublick, editor of the Jewish Daily News, complained to the House Immigration Committee that the legislation was a product of “race hatred.”25 Spiro comments that some Jewish leaders resorted to the “if you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em” strategy during the racially conscious 1920s. Jews would oppose immigration from Asia [Samuel Gompers] in the hope that “the old-stock Americans would permit them to join the Nordics in a coalition known as ‘the white race.’”26

Interesting to speculate that the foundation of white nationalism was Jewish in origin in an effort to oppose the Grantians.

5/19/2008 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

One man's common sense is another man's orthodoxy. Sounds like you just want to follow the same playbook and the Jews are crying foul when you try.

5/19/2008 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Hibernia - it goes longer and deeper than that. They have applied their version of a "business model" since taking the plant in 1987. I'm sure the "unions" were the bad guys that forced the previous owners to sell. Keep googling H1B visas, lobbyists, etc. and the picture gets bigger. Too bad its not restricted to their plant.

5/19/2008 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Hibernia Girl, that's a very informative article. Thanks. The latinos who love to preen about their vital role in replacing Americans may be chagrined to realize that the plutocrats are more than willing to import chinamen to replace them.

5/19/2008 12:46:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Under our current regime it is perfectly politically correct to make positive generalizations about jews and negative generalizations about Whites. Try to reconcile the philo-semitic view that jews have disproportionately contributed to civilization with their modern day revulsion at the popular pre-nazi ideas of Madison Grant. Smells like hypocrisy. The main difference between then and now is that today what is good for jews officially takes highest priority. Disagree with that priority, or even notice it, and according to philo-semites you're guilty of hate thoughts, if not hate crimes.

flippityflopitty, I understand your comment to be sympathetic to Whites. I do advocate we emulate the example of unapologetic jews in being aware of who we are and what our interests are. Anti-White philo-semites are however a different case. They are hypocrites. If we were really following their playbook we'd be lying about who we are and what we value. Lies are the core of their playbook. They look at unapologetic jews and see righteous people to defend. They look at unapologetic Whites and see evil boogeymen to attack.

The phenomena called anti-semitism makes perfect sense from a racialist point of view. It arises from group conflict. If the anti-White philo-semites are indeed lying, or at least in denial, then it also makes perfect sense for them to thus reject racialism as a valid view. What doesn't make sense is their simplistic explanation that throughout time and space every critic of jews is jealous, insane, or otherwise defective. That's why anti-semites keep repeating the same old canards, from ancient egyptians to contemporary koreans. If you think this idea of jews as perpetual victims flys in the face of common sense, in this case the well known scientific principle of Occam's Razor.

Fjordman at this point is a philo-semite. He doesn't question the perpetual victim dogma. But he is willing to discuss anti-semitism without setting aside his brain ala Auster. The point of Fjordman's essay was to call attention to Christian roots of anti-semitism in contrast with the usual anti-jihadist focus on islamic sources. We'll see how it goes from here. That he agreed to shut down the thread rather than continuing to discuss the subject he himself opened does not bode well.

5/19/2008 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Jewish immigrant Samuel Gompers and Madison Grant are buried in the same cemetary.

5/19/2008 03:53:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Tan - it wasnt meant to be "sympathetic". It was pointing out the evident similarity in tactics between your "common sense" approach and that of Jewish orthodoxy. Racist, racialist, whatever word you wish to choose, its simply ex/in-clusion to "members only".

I would have to do the homework, but doesnt it make sense that Jewish exclusionary behavior is a major cause of anti-semitism? Furthermore, their apparent financial and educational success has led to reduced propagation and population and confined them to a ruling minority. In order to maintain control, they follow the "common sense" approach of keeping the remaining masses off-balance and fighting amongst themselves.

Now a racially-driven, racial-wide conspiracy theory in my mind is far LESS likely than a plutocracy. The fact that there is a greater "weight" of Jewish representation within the plutocracy does not convince me that the Jewish race presents any threat to whites but instead leaves my opinion unchanged that the Jewish and White and other plutocrats (aka liars and hypocrites) do.

5/19/2008 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

The difference between racialism and racism is significant. Racialism is to acknowledge the significance of race, and attribute great weight to it in understanding human relations. Before the 1930s racialism was the norm. The idea of racism was invented in the 1930s as part of an effort to pathologize racialism, especially amongst Whites.

I do not criticize jewish exclusionary behavior. I am aware of it and cite it in contrast to how Whites think and act and are treated. I criticize those who are hypocrites - who consider normal in jews what they demonize in Whites. This hypocrisy has become the norm. Take any open discussion of jewish interests made by jewish organizations and imagine they are instead White organizations discussing White interests. You mostly have to imagine this because, since the 1930s at least, it is hardly tolerated.

Consider in this post the interview between Ford and Bloom when the subject turns to intermarriage. Jews can discuss the issue openly, and they can calmly agree or disagree. For Whites however there is only one permissible answer, and if you deviate from it the conversation gets weird very quickly. You will be called a racist for either saying the wrong thing or for allowing it to be said without immediately expressing your moral indignation and rejecting the idea.

5/19/2008 09:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racist, racialist, whatever word you wish to choose, its simply ex/in-clusion to "members only".

One fundamental difference is that Euros aren't advocating moving to Israel to "screw" the Jews. If anti-semitism is only about Jewish exclusion it's easily resolved. Move to Israel. Why, if you're an exclusionist, do you wish to live amongst your moral and intellectual lessers? Whites wish to live separately. Why don't these Hasidim? Why does Flip not take them at their word? They want to screw the gentile. How else can you explain the behaviour?

5/19/2008 11:05:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

For Fjordman, if he cares to know...

MacDonald quoting historian Albert Lindemann:

Jews actually do not want to understand their past—or at least those aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred directed at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of their complex and often contradictory identities.

5/20/2008 12:30:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Desmond - many Jews are racists. And many are not. The racists choose to exclude and are successful not without the help of the PC teflon shield they have carefully honed over the last 60 years.

Tan - the line separating racialism and racism is not thin and black; it's wide, gray and blurry. One doesn't avoid the line or tip-toe back and forth. One finds himself oblivious to the line, enveloping and embracing caricatures of both. Promoting race is a form of racism - ie, Black Church, La Raza, ModelMinority. We can argue the merits and faults, but but lets not waste time drawing lines in the sand. It has as much value as determining if the number is two million as opposed to six.

5/21/2008 08:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has as much value as determining if the number is two million as opposed to six.

It has value for some and in places where enforcement is available claiming two instead of six can get you incarcerated for a long time.

many Jews are racists. And many are not.

Sorry, the point is?

5/22/2008 11:41:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

"many Jews are racists. And many are not. - Sorry, the point is?"

Response to your:
"Whites wish to live separately. Why don't these Hasidim?"

"It has value for some and in places where enforcement is available claiming two instead of six can get you incarcerated for a long time."

And I will fight against anyone in America trying to criminalize free speech - and I'm certain the ACLU will take up that fight as well. I am not for criminalizing racialism or racism - but, I am for moving beyond these PC distinctions.

5/23/2008 09:54:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Response to your:
"Whites wish to live separately. Why don't these Hasidim?"

Ok, however, "Jews" are not "these Hasidim" who at best view the gentiles in Postville as "unclean". Why do they chose to live amongst them?

I am not for criminalizing racialism or racism - but, I am for moving beyond these PC distinctions.

We already have. Race doesn't exist. Didn't you get the memo? :]

5/23/2008 11:38:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home