Friday, May 8, 2009 37 Comments

Preston Brooks, the Palestine lobby, and the Nolan chart

I suppose I am probably notorious for not only not moderating my comments, but not even reading them. An unorthodox approach, I admit. But essential to UR's famous objectivity.

However, my brain has little ears. I have no idea what y'all are talking about, but I can guess.

So first: obviously, I am not the Preston Brooks of the Internet. When I spoke of using Will Wilkinson as a punching-bag, I meant no physical harm. (Indeed, men of letters will recognize it as an homage to Hunter S. Thompson's interview of Leon Spinks, in The Great Shark Hunt. HST references are not hard to find, here at UR.)

It was Will's soul alone that needed a punch or two - and that just to drive the Devil out. Indeed as I write, perhaps he glares grimly into the eyesockets of that awful, crested Aboriginal skull, high as an albatross on his meth-laced Iowa ditchweed, and thinks: but if I believe my own eyes, not the Computer, will they ever let me on NPR again?

Alas, Will, the Ring doesn't just slide off like that. Your talents are great! It's not too late to use them for good, rather than evil. You get to be a nine-fingered Boromir, or a ten-fingered Witch-King. (Or more precisely: Alpha.) It's your choice, dude.

And in case you're wondering what sent me into Preston Brooks mode, it was this:
The sadly common libertarian-conservative penchant for “brave” counter-PC truthiness (e.g., “Women do love the welfare state!” “Blacks really do have lower IQs!”) certainly doesn’t help.
I've bold-faced the word at which I realized the gutta-percha would have to get involved.

(Of course most Americans of 2009, I suspect, understand why Brooks did what he did about as well as they understand the difference between the Liao and Sung Dynasties. In case you are in this set and you care to fill in your knowledge of medieval China, read first this, then this.)

Moving on: to the Jews. Obviously this is a favorite subject here at UR, which is a pro-Jew blog and always has been. (Jabotinsky is my nigga.) The road to the New State is long, long, long, and we have barely started down it. But we know one thing: the New State will be a Jew State. Or at least, it will be chock-full of Jews. (And of Tamil Brahmins, for the same reason.)

As I recall, I compared the Israel lobby to a piece of dental floss, and the Palestine lobby to an arm-thick iron rope. Now, it's true that if your definition of "lobby" is "something like the Israel lobby," there is indeed no Palestine lobby at all. There is an AIPAC; there is no APPAC. Indeed, I don't know that the Palestinians have any organization at all for bribing Congressmen, though I suppose they must have something or other.

But, I mean, duh. This is exactly the point. The situation is not at all symmetric. If you have an arm-thick iron rope, do you need dental floss? Why do you think the Israel lobby needs to bribe Congressmen? Because they don't have an arm-thick iron rope.

As throughout Zionist history, Israel's enemies make a living by painting defense as aggression. "Cet animal est très méchant: quand on l'attaque, it se défend." This tactic is not exclusive to the problème juif; it is an eternal staple of the Left. See here, for instance, or here:
This much we know: Hand evil a big, sticky gob of power, and it quickly becomes a feral monster, dangerous and cruel and willing to sell its own shriveled heart and the heart of its very remorseful mother for a shot at everlasting infamy, even more power and maybe some fresh, raw kitten blood, intravenously, just for the hell of it.
Indeed, Mr. Morford. Project, much?

But what exactly is this iron rope? If the Palestine lobby is not a lobby, precisely, what is it, and how can we see it? This is exactly the optical illusion that produces dreadful phenomena like The Palestinian Conservative. If you see the dental floss and you don't see the iron rope, it's quite sensible to assume that US foreign policy is a marionette dancing to the strings of the Jew. After all, there's the string! Right there! In front of your eyes!

The question that lets you see the true state of affairs is simple. Which side of the Arab-Israeli conflict does the US support? Obviously, both are "special interests," and an easy way to tell whose pull is stronger is to see whose side USG favors.

There's a wrong way to answer this question and a right way. The wrong way is to start by asking: what should US foreign policy in the Middle East be?

Having answered this question, we can define the answer as the "center," and then compare what USG's policies are to what they should be. Ie, if USG's policies are more pro-Israeli than the center, the pole is tilted to the right, and the Israel lobby must be stronger. If USG's policies are more pro-Arab than the center, the pole is tilted to the left, etc, etc.

This procedure is not useful because, to answer the question, we must first judge the dispute. Here at UR, we are absolute sticklers for international law - and we mean classical international law, not the 20th-century forgery that has stolen its identity. Despite this giant mountain of lies, the law of nations is immutable. It lies sleeping, like Barbarossa. One day it will return.

And for those of us crazed enough to care what it says, Vattel (or should I say - Vatteljewsky) explains the problem of judgment perfectly:
As a consequence of that liberty and independence, it exclusively belongs to each nation to form her own judgment of what her conscience prescribes to her, - of what she can or cannot do, - of what it is proper or improper for her to do: and of course it rests solely with her to examine and determine whether she can perform any office for another without neglecting the duty which she owes to herself. In all cases, therefore, in which a nation has the right of judging what her duty requires, no other nation can compel her to act in such or such particular manner: for any attempt at such compulsion would be an infringement on the liberty of nations.
Indeed. And in case it needs to be any clearer:
War cannot be just on both sides. One party claims a right; the other disputes it: - the one complains of an injury; the other denies having done it. They may be considered as two individuals disputing on the truth of a proposition; and it is impossible that two contrary sentiments should be true at the same time.

It may however happen that both the contending parties are candid and sincere in their intentions; and, in a doubtful cause, it is still uncertain which side is in the right. Wherefore, since nations are equal and independent, and cannot claim a right of judgment over each other, it follows, that in every case susceptible of doubt, the arms of the two parties are to be accounted equally lawful, at least as to external effects, and until the decision of the cause.
Of course, we are still entitled to argue the case. But this judgment is not relevant to the problem at hand, namely, ascertaining objectively which lobby is stronger.

So the right way is to start with an objective question: if USG's involvement in the conflict were to cease, which side would benefit? If the answer is "the Palestinians," USG's involvement must logically favor Israel, and thus the Israel lobby is stronger. If the answer is "the Israelis," vice versa. This procedure produces an answer without the need for any sort of judgment.

Once we ask this question, the answer is obvious. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a case of asymmetric warfare; we can agree that the Israeli military is stronger than its Arab enemies. This is an objective assessment, and a clear one.

Despite this, USG's preferred outcome in the conflict is that Israel lose territory it now holds militarily, and Palestine gain territory it now holds militarily. But if USG (and its European satellites, of course) agreed to close its eyes for a year, at the end of that year, Israel could easily be occupying the entire Muslim world from Karachi to Mauritania. Strictly as a matter of military power, of course.

Thus the question is answered. In reality, there is no such thing as "asymmetric warfare." Or if there is, the stronger party just wins and the weaker just loses. Typically the latter will just surrender beforehand, to avoid the mess. The game will certainly not drag on for 60+ years.

Whenever you see a situation that looks like "asymmetric warfare," check your math. There is probably an iron rope you're not seeing. That the Arabs expect to gain ground and the Israelis expect to lose it, relative to the current state of affairs, is a pretty solid indication that the Arabs are indeed the stronger side. But their advantage is not military - so what is it? The iron rope. And on its other end: USG.

This analysis tells us that, relative to the "normal" view of the conflict, or at least that view shared by the (Jew-controlled) New York Times, (Jewlatto) Steve Sailer, and Taki ("trust a snake before a Jew, and a Jew before a Greek") Theodoracopoulos, we are missing a variable. The iron rope. But what is the iron rope, exactly?

The answer is that the Palestinian movement is just another "nationalist" puppet force in the clientela of the world's true, secret overlords. I refer, of course, to the international Protestant conspiracy - or, of course, our old friend Universalism. Ie, radicalism, revolutionism, progressivism, and leftism in general. (Even Al Qaeda is not "Islamofascist," but Islamocommunist - firmly on the left. Looking for Islamofascists? Try Saudi Arabia.)

Our iron rope is that very same string that pulled Byron to Missolonghi and sparked the guns of Navarino, that made the British Navy run interference for Garibaldi, that drove Poles to their doom in 1830 and Germans in 1848, and that incites the Tibetans, Chiapans, and Tamils to this day. Arguably, it was also the cause of the fatal Anglo-American interventions in the Continental wars of the 20th century, and thus of pretty much all the 20th century's death and destruction.

Arab nationalism is an American product, pure and simple. Specifically, it is a product of the great wave of missionary Protestantism that swept across the world in the late 19th century and early 20th. Michael Oren (or should I say - Bornstein) has an excellent summary in this book.

The seeds of the iron rope are institutions such as the American University of Beirut, the American University of Cairo, Robert College, and the like. Like little metastases, these spread progressive Protestant nationalism and democratism across the Middle East, which has by no means finished harvesting the missionaries' grapefruit-sized tumors of wrath.

There was once an actual indigenous culture in the area, of course, no trace of which now exists. It is generally known as the "Ottoman Empire." It bore about as much resemblance to the PLO as the Han Dynasty to the State of Oregon.

Whereas in contrast, the ideology of Palestinian nationalism is indistinguishable from that of Indonesian nationalism, or Ghanan nationalism, or Chinese nationalism. Hence Bandung. What did all these regimes have in common? Good friends at another Protestant institution: Harvard. (Or patrons there, rather. The relationship is not exactly symmetric.)

And there's your iron rope. The Palestinians don't need to bribe Congressmen, because they have Harvard. The Israelis don't have Harvard, so they need to bribe Congressmen. Capiche?

Finally, I want to deal briefly with the general fallacy of the left-libertarian, which is summarized succinctly in the Nolan chart: the idea that the political spectrum is not one-dimensional (left and right), but two-dimensional (up and down), where "up-wing" means smaller government and "down-wing" means larger government.

Since Will Wilkinson's face needs some time to heal, perhaps this deeply sincere error is best expressed here (hat tip: ATN), at what seems to be to seasteading as Whole Foods is to Paypal. Again, Michael Strong is basically righteous in his attitude toward the present - he has just been slightly misled about the past. He writes:
The fact is that liberals desperately need to re-think their ideas. They need to return to liberalism, an intellectual tradition that has almost disappeared from contemporary academic life (and, consequently, from the agendas of many mainstream foundations who consider themselves “liberal”).

The Left has, for more than a hundred years, encouraged the belief that if one is not Left-wing, then one is Right-wing. But liberal, properly understood, is neither Left nor Right; it is Up-wing.
[...]
There is no sense whatsoever in which it is accurate to call me “conservative.” I am a liberal through and through.

Liberals should regard the contemporary Leftist bias of universities and mainstream philanthropic foundations to be among the gravest threats to human well-being. Had liberalism dominated our universities, instead of the Left, many millions of people might still be alive today, and billions of people around the world would be healthier and happier.

We liberals should sharply distinguish “liberal” from “Leftist.” The latter characterized by anger, hatred, bullying, intransigence, and intellectual dishonesty. These spiritual diseases, legacies of the French Revolution and its Terror, began to infect liberalism in the early 20th century.
[...]
In the eighteenth century, liberal authors sketched out a vision of society based on education, enlightened values, the rule of law, constitutional republics, minimal government, free markets, and an ethos of personal responsibility and initiative. This classical liberal framework allowed for the greatest proportional increase in the standard of living of the common people that the world has ever seen. The Liberal Revolution is the greatest miracle in human history.

John Stuart Mill, in some ways the last great classical liberal, provided the core statement of intellectual freedom in his essay “On Liberty.” Mill makes the case that we can only discover the truth, or our best current understanding of what might be true, if we are free to explore all ideas openly, regardless of how offensive or reprehensible those ideas might at first appear.
Und so weiter. But strangely, at the bottom of the page, we read:
In Alcoholics Anonymous, after one has become sober, one faces an obligation to seek out those individuals whom one has harmed. Indeed, facing up to one’s failures is a key to spiritual growth in most religious and spiritual traditions. This principle of human psychology rings true even for this secular humanist.

Robert Heilbroner, a lifelong socialist, is a model of such integrity. Towards the end of his life, he acknowledged:

“Capitalism has been as unmistakable a success as socialism has been a failure. Here is the part that's hard to swallow. It has been the Friedmans, Hayeks, and von Miseses who have maintained that capitalism would flourish and that socialism would develop incurable ailments. All three have regarded capitalism as the 'natural' system of free men; all have maintained that left to its own devices capitalism would achieve material growth more successfully than any other system. From [my samplings] I draw the following discomforting generalization: The farther to the right one looks, the more prescient has been the historical foresight; the farther to the left, the less so.”
I had always seen this quote cut off after the first sentence, and I'm quite grateful for Strong to bringing "Heilbroner's law" to my attention. Of course I had noticed the same effect myself, but Heilbroner noticed it first.

But wait - which is it, dude? Does Heilbroner's law only apply to the 20th century? The story according to Strong: in the 18th and 19th centuries, Left is right and Right is wrong; in the 20th, Right is right and Left is wrong. If nothing else, this anomaly calls for some explanation. What changed, and why did it change?

Your mileage may vary, of course. But from the UR perspective, there are two simple answers.

The first is just that Strong's history is right in the 20th century and wrong before it. That is, in the 20th he sees the reality, whereas from the 19th he remembers the fantasy. Thus, for example, Strong presumably takes the Left side in the case of Governor Eyre, with Mill, Darwin, Bright and Spencer; he rejects the Right side, with Carlyle, Dickens, Ruskin, and Tennyson.

If he reads this, he is encouraged to look into the facts of the matter. Start with Froude. It is extremely easy to judge the Right in the 18th and 19th centuries, when you have never read a single work of the Right from those centuries. It's like being at a trial in which only the prosecution speaks.

Well, surprise, gentlemen: the defense has a case as well. If Froude tweaked your interest and you want an overview, start here. You'll find that there's a rather remarkable resemblance between 19th-century leftists and 20th-century leftists.

While the continuity between John Stuart Mill and Barack Obama may not be obvious - considering as their preferred policies are almost opposite - it is there. They are part of the same great movement, which it is perfectly fair to describe as "liberal," a word which both gentlemen would have used to describe themselves.

The policies changed. But the movement is one. 19th-century Radicalism and 20th-century progressivism are unified by a single force: the collective quest for power.

19th-century Radicals favored libertarian policies because they faced an ancien regime which still, to some extent, existed. This was the old regime of Throne and Altar, of mercantilism, Anglicanism and Anglo-Catholicism, imperialism and colonialism - in a word, Toryism.

When Toryism was a reality rather than a bugaboo, liberals could only seek power by destroying it. Thus they sought to cut off its air supply, destroying its sources of profit: protectionism, venal offices, chartered companies, and so forth. They favored rigorous economies of government, and other such ideals quite foreign to the modern liberal.

As they gained power through these aggressive measures, the liberals entered government itself. Thus their interests naturally shifted, toward enlarging and empowering the State. A State that had become "us," rather than "them." And thus, the Left went from libertarian to statist.

Thus when we look at policies, which as good democrats we should, we see a discontinuity. But when we look at power structures, which as good reactionaries we must, we see a continuity.

The key is to remember that the Left, at all times, is an adaptive phenomenon. If it were a conspiracy (organized by - the Jews) it would not be Left, but Right. Right is organized; Left is distributed.

The Left is the alliance of all those who seek power through the mind - intellectuals, basically. The Right is the factious and impotent collection of all those who seek to resist the Left, by any means - corruption, or violence, or propaganda, or (seldom, very seldom) the truth and nothing but the truth.

Thus, there was no one in 1900 who said "okay, guys, enough with the libertarianism, our work there is done. Now let's bring on the statism." At all times, the Darwinian dynamic of the Left has favored those ideas which brought their thinkers power.

In the 19th century (and before), that power was the power to destroy the ancien regime. Victory in this task naturally brought authority to the destroyers, who established a regime of their own. The ideas of power then became expansive ones, and liberalism pulled its 180.

But if you read Roylance Kent, you'll see that the type of people it attracts hasn't changed a bit. They were shills, stooges and climbers then, and they are shills, stooges and climbers now. It just so happens that in the 19th century they were usually right and in the 20th they were usually wrong, but this is a mere accident of history. As Hunter S. Thompson put it, even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then. Capiche?

37 Comments:

Anonymous MlR said...

Or simply consider that just about the only place the "dental floss" has any pull whatsoever is the United States. Everywhere else the iron holds.

Now, the Israeli-Arab (and now, Israeli-Muslim) conflict has all of the complexities of any other decades-long long blood feud. Nevertheless, the fact the most socially, economically, and politically advanced country in the entire Middle East, flawed and brutal as it may be - often due to its neighborhood I may add - is hated more than all of the rest of the states of that entire crappy region combined, most of whom were them themselves built and continue to exist based on the oppression of ethnic and religious minorities, should tell you all you need to know about their respective P.R. organs.

Comparatively speaking, Israel is a pearl amongst swine, and its hated in spite of, and often because of it.

May 8, 2009 at 11:25 PM  
Blogger Daniel A. Nagy said...

You're all welcome to take this article apart over at Thiblo.com

May 9, 2009 at 1:30 AM  
Anonymous Smug Flapdoodle said...

The Left is the alliance of all those who seek power through the mind - intellectuals, basically.Well I guess if power is an end in itself, I'm no leftist. I don't want to President or Mayor of anything. If seeking power through the mind for another purpose (say freedom domination by Islamism, socialism, diversicracy, etc.) is leftism, than I'm a leftist.

May 9, 2009 at 1:30 AM  
Anonymous Nobody said...

I'm sorry, when you say that Jabotinsky is your "nigga," does that mean you like him or you don't like him?

May 9, 2009 at 2:28 AM  
Anonymous Zdeno said...

So 19th century liberals embraced libertarian ideals for the purpose of chipping away at the existing power structures, then embraced statism to consolidate and expand their powers. Interesting hypothesis.

But doesn't it imply that modern Tories should be able to employ similar tactics to bring down the contemporary, non-ancien regime? If not, why?

May 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zdeno,

You're right. They did. What you're referring to, in a nutshell, is the Reagan/Thatcher idea. Modern Tories lost out on social issues and economic issues to liberals, who were initially liberal economically and socially. Then they dropped the economic liberalism to consolidate democratic socialism for the middle classes.

Then the Tories came back with economic liberalism combined with social conservatism--as typified by Reagan and Thatcher. It could've been cute, but in reality it was nothing but a powergrab jointly performed by religious nuts and big business.

May 9, 2009 at 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mencius,

The British, I presume, are also part of the international Protestant conspiracy. Do you know what they did in Palestine when they took it over in 1917?

They did Zionism. They established a national homeland for the Jewish people, who actually constituted a minority of Palestine when the British took over. Only in the brains of American Zionists could this constitute comprehensive and unequivocal support for Palestinian nationalism.

It was the British who armed and supported the Zionist colonialists from day one. It was the British who set up the terms of the mandate specifically to bring about a Jewish state in a predominantly non-Jewish land. In 1936, it was the British and the Zionist forces that fought together against the Palestinians, murdering thousands and effectively ending the Palestinian national movement for 30 years. Zionism, from the Balfour Declaration onwards was a British obsession far more than a Jewish movement—until the 1940’s and the Holocaust. But for someone obviously reared on Exodus, the NYTimes and other Zionist bullshit, this never enters into your view of the conflict, where Israel must always remain pristinely divine.

Now, let's apply your same objective question to this situation: if the international Protestant conspiracy had left Palestine alone, could Zionism have possibly emerged in its current demented murderous form? Of course not.

There is no way that Israel could've emerged without British support. It was the criminally incompetent and incompetently criminal British intervention which pitted an advanced European army against primitive British client armies (Glubb Pasha, anyone?) that secured Israeli military superiority. This was then taken to absurd levels through decades of American military, economic and diplomatic support. There is no way Israel could establish the sort of military dominance over its neighbors if it wasn’t for America supporting it, and supporting the Arab puppet regimes whose job it is to protect it.

But hey, don't let that stop you from continuing your Dershowtiz-esque fetish for Israel. Speaking of Dershowitz, did you know he taught in that bastion of Palestinian nationalism--Harvard? Norman Finkelstein, on the other hand, who demonstrated to all and sundry Dershowitz's plagiarism, is unemployed.

Some iron rope. Some dental floss.

May 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Several questions:

1) Are Jewish people overrepresented in the ranks of the true ruling class? The true ruling class is, as is amply shown by Mencius, college professors (especially those at prestige institutions), journalists at influential publications, high levels of the public / private bureaucracy, etc.

This one is obvious. Yes, Jewish people are overrepresented in this class. If you accept this point, the ADL condemns you for anti-Sematism, but let's press on anyway.

2) Since us clear-headed thinkers accept evolution and understand that it applies to humans, does the difference in mental traits, specifically IQ explain this over-representation?

3) Do Jewish people coordinate outside of pure progressivism and promote policies that don't serve progressive ends but do serve the ethnic interests of Jewish people?

3a) To answer question 3, we have to figure out what are the ethnic interests of Jewish people? One easy response is to say that the preservation of the single Jewish ethnic state is one interest of the Jewish people.

This may or may not be a good test case. Consider the immigration debate as an analogy: Bush, as wholly WASP as you can imagine, pushed, as far as he had influence, for a policy of demographic replacement of people of his own ethnic stock. McCain, Scotts-Irish does the same. The point of the analogy isn't whether or not Jewish people are found on the restrictionist side of the debate but how people view their co-ethnics. More specifically, who they view as their co-ethnics. Elite WASPs don't view NASCAR watching plain-landers (to use the UR term) as co-ethnics. Jewish people may view rightist Israelis in the same manner.

4) Does it even matter? Progressivism has as its enemies both order and those who benefit from order; those who Mencius referred to as the Vaisha caste. If Jewish people use their influence to damage the Vaisha does it matter if they do it because they are progressive or because they are acting in ethnic self-interest?

If there were a world where the current Cthulu-like multi-tentacled monster we call a state were replaced by a hereditary monarchy would Jewish people be overrepresented in all intellectual endeavors? Barring outright discrimination, yes. What does that say about what the problem today is? Is it the Jewish people or is the structure of our government?

-Steve Johnson

May 9, 2009 at 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it the Jewish people or is the structure of our government?

If the Jews didn't exist would America be much less progressive?

It's not like there aren't plenty of leftwing, non-Jewish professors and journalists available to take the place of Jewish leftists should the Heebs suddenly be moved to a Mars colony.

May 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Cassandra Goldman said...

Insightful as usual. However:

The Left is the alliance of all those who seek power through the mind - intellectuals, basically.No. The Left is the alliance of second-raters, people of inferior morals, creativity, and intellect. It is their way of attempting to drag their betters down to their own level. And rob them while they're at it.

May 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM  
Blogger Dan Kurt said...

re: "Do you know what they did in Palestine when they took it over in 1917?

They did Zionism."

Not exactly. The Brits actually had lost WWI ( They did in reality as WWII was just an extended Act of dying from a blow delivered in 1914 through 1916 ) when at the point of British exhaustion the Jewish Bankers offered them the support of the USA to continue on with the farce. The price was the establishment of millions of Jews in the Mideast and probably the USSR as well.

Dan Kurt

May 9, 2009 at 9:19 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Mencius, thanks for the enjoyable post. Great metaphors. Although you dealt with the Arab-Israeli-USG dynamic, I was hoping I might be able to convince you to revisit the current situation in Pakistan in a future post, since it seems like another opportunity to examine the dynamic of the USG and its frenemies. On one hand, it seems like the relationship between the Taliban and "Official Pakistan" is rather like that which existed between parties during the major wars of the last 150 years (the evil, weaker party foolishly attacking the good guys, inviting their complete destruction; we even have H. Clinton warning us that Pakistan is facing an "existential threat" and therefore unmitigated force is clearly an acceptable option). According to the "march of universalism" narrative, this is I suppose what is expected, as long as the Taliban is just another "enemy to the right". However, since Pakistan has only just "freed itself" from Musharraf's (far more effective) non-democratic legacy (which is, again, presumably another "enemy to the right"), it seems that matters must be a little more complicated. What was the Harvard set thinking? Surely they anticipated that democratic reforms would bring about a failed state that would embolden the Taliban. Are we to believe that they killed off Musharraf's regime with awareness that this would make the rise of the Taliban more likely. Obviously, this seems to be playing out the way they would like -- Pakistan seems like it will now require our tender mercies to deal with their insurgency problem.

May 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris,

Yes. They really and truly believed they could build a functioning state in Iraq. The irony that there isn't a functioning state in America totally escaped them.

May 9, 2009 at 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon with questions- the Jews work for, but are not actually represented in, the ruling class. It is widely believed, and by no one more than the Jews themselves, that the Jews run things. In reality the Episcopalians (to state it simply) things, and let everyone else, including the Jews, think the Jews run things.

May 10, 2009 at 2:17 AM  
Blogger Neutrino Cannon said...

If seeking power through the mind for another purpose (say freedom domination by Islamism, socialism, diversicracy, etc.) is leftism, than I'm a leftist.To a Jacobite, of course it does!

May 10, 2009 at 2:22 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

I just looked at the link to the Nolan Chart.

It equates the extreme left with extreme personal freedom. Utter bullshite. In reality, the Left with its ThinkCrimes and PC, stands for the most total enslavement of man.

A better graphic representation of political philosophies would have a Universalist-Particularist axis and a Statist-Localist axis.

May 10, 2009 at 5:19 AM  
Anonymous MlR said...

"Chris,

Yes. They really and truly believed they could build a functioning state in Iraq. The irony that there isn't a functioning state in America totally escaped them."
To some of the more nationalist on the right, foreign projects help them forget that fact. International activism on the right is in part an esape mechanism from their utter defeat at home.

May 10, 2009 at 11:03 AM  
Anonymous quoththeraven said...

Mencius, this is unrelated to this post but related to some of your earlier writings.

You've compartmentalized the USG into several different sections. And you've identified the military as the single non-leftist part of the USG. I think this is a fairly accurate depiction of the USG, and I think most readers of UR would agree on this point, even those who have difficulty with your larger theories of power, Anglo-American history, etc.

Do you expect this to continue? That is, do you expect the military branch of the USG to remain a non-leftist group? I ask this because there are signs that this could change rather dramatically in a generation or two. For one thing, currently there are efforts to fill the ranks of the military with immigrants, illegal or otherwise, foreigners, etc. This isn't remarkable in and of itself, it seems to be evident in virtually all empires. But judging from current immigration patterns and the politics associated with it, it's clear that it will certainly not make the military more conservative. Most likely less.

Another indication is from the increasing mechanization of the war machine through robots and technology. PW Singer's latest book "Wired for War" argues that in a generation or so the US military could be dramatically altered to be composed largely of robot forces. It's easy to imagine then, the military being increasingly turned into just like the other leftist branches of government. Robot soldiers and war machines controlled and managed by technocrats and bureaucrats. The pool of traditionally conservative, Southern, white, Christians, from which the military has had to draw upon becomes increasingly less relevant.

This, I think we can all agree, would be a nightmare scenario.

What do you think, Mencius? Is this a foregone conclusion? Are there any other dynamics at work that might reverse or alter this trend?

May 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM  
Anonymous duffy said...

Hasn't anyone seen the movie "Waterworld", I believe the only movie to deal with seasteading?

Seasteading would suck, big time.

May 10, 2009 at 2:27 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Thrasymachus - I'm a cradle Episcopalian. When do I get my secret decoder ring, learn the secret handshake, and start to pull wires?

Your summary reminds me rather of G. William Domhoff, who some years ago wrote a book called "Who Rules America?" In it he tried to identify members of the ruling class by several characteristics, including whether they held corporate directorships, belonged to certain private clubs, held membership in certain lineage-based societies, or were alumni of various boarding schools and private universities. I recall when I read this book, ticking off the various qualifications listed by Domhoff that I met, I was surprised to discover that I fell into his 'ruling class.' Yet at best I suppose my actual position in society is roughly equivalent to, and certainly no grander than, that of 'county gentry' in colonial British North America.

All such formulaic approaches fail because political influence is not obtained by family descent, religion, or even by money, unless you have a really huge fortune. Mere millionaires don't count at all, even dekamillionaires. I speak from experience. I have known all my life perhaps one family that fell into the billionaire class. The grandson of the fortune's founder was a man of my father's age, and a friend of my dad's. We used to go fishing in Canada with him. His one foray into politics was an unsuccessful run for state senate. I now sit with his daughter on a couple of boards, and if she has any political sentiments at all, let alone influence, these things are very well camouflaged from my perspective.

On the subject of Israel, I am far from expert and have not devoted it much study - but it seems to me that Israel began as a left-wing project. It was in practice a socialist state for many years. A kibbutz is just another name for a collective farm, after all. As long as Israel maintained this character it was a favored cause of the American left.

Things changed with the influx of Jews from the Soviet Union, who knew socialism from a different (and unfavorable) perspective, and oriental Jews who had fled from Muslim lands. These people supported the Likud party rather than the Labour party. At the same time the Soviet Union was cultivating the Arabs (like Nasser) in hopes of causing problems for the West.

The U.S. left (including lots of American Jews) as a consequence fell out of love with Israel, because its loyalty is not to any particular country, but to left-wing ideology. To the extent that the present government of Israel is not basking in the favor of the international left - and only to that extent - is it a 'right wing' country.

I do not think there is anything like an Israeli Russell Kirk or Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn - or even an Israeli W.F. Buckley. Israeli 'rightism' consists of no more than taking a hard line with the Arabs, which its exponents consider a better survival strategy for their country than that of making constant concessions to them. Ideology as such has nothing to do with this policy. That's why it agrees so well with the so-called neoconservative faction in the U.S., which is equally motivated by tactical objectives rather than by bedrock principles.

May 10, 2009 at 2:33 PM  
Anonymous MlR said...

"Do you expect this to continue? That is, do you expect the military branch of the USG to remain a non-leftist group? I ask this because there are signs that this could change rather dramatically in a generation or two. For one thing, currently there are efforts to fill the ranks of the military with immigrants, illegal or otherwise, foreigners, etc. This isn't remarkable in and of itself, it seems to be evident in virtually all empires. But judging from current immigration patterns and the politics associated with it, it's clear that it will certainly not make the military more conservative. Most likely less."Isn't just the entrants, the entire culture's being changed to resemble the rest of society, particularly as military officers are educated in the general university system. They're also increasingly invested in D.C. policies and social thought, being the prime ones carrying it out abroad.

Witness the Admiral in charge of combatting Somali piracy who commented that he hoped people didn't get the idea that the solution to the problem was killing the pirates - as opposed to real solution of solving Somalia. And the gradual adoption of ways of war that resemble social policy straight from the universities, rather than traditional uses of force. Then there's the infestation of military lawyers, slowly constricting what is considered permissible activity. The Naval War College teaches it's students that it is illegal for the U.S. to go to war without the blessing of the UN Security Council.

D.C. think and speech have taken the longest to infect the military, but it's happening.

May 10, 2009 at 2:36 PM  
Anonymous a non-american said...

The Naval War College teaches it's students that it is illegal for the U.S. to go to war without the blessing of the UN Security Council. That's because it is, since you signed - in fact, created - the UN Charter. Now you've got to live with it, withdraw from the UN, or be hypocrites.

Easy choice, I know...

May 10, 2009 at 5:03 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

To follow up on the previous dispute over whether emancipation improved the lot of slaves, here's a letter from a former slave to his former master who had been asking that he come back to work for him.

not even reading them. An unorthodox approach, I admit. But essential to UR's famous objectivity.You used to participate in comment threads. I'm not sure what it would mean for you to be "less objective", and I can't imagine how the blog was less so back then.

obviously, I am not the Preston Brooks of the InternetSo obvious that nobody actually claimed you were. Perhaps you read the comments, noticed that nobody was making such a mistake, and then wrote this to prove that you don't read your comments! Also, it would go against the effete grain of the blog (not that my own is any less so).

Your talents are great!I haven't seen any evidence of that. Maybe that's just due to my view of philosophy.

But we know one thing: the New State will be a Jew State. Or at least, it will be chock-full of Jews. (And of Tamil Brahmins, for the same reason.)That's a distinct question from what current policy toward Israel is and/or ought to be. Just because in our ideal state we'll have plenty of Brahmins (including Tamils), that does not mean that U.S policy currently favors the majority Sinhalese government (though perhaps it does) or that it ought to favor the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam.

Now, it's true that if your definition of "lobby" is "something like the Israel lobby," there is indeed no Palestine lobby at all.The causation is more the other way, with AIPAC being called the head of the Israel lobby because it resembles other lobbies in many ways. However, it is not actually a "Political Action Committee" and does not hand out money.

But, I mean, duh. This is exactly the point.So because there is no Sealand lobby, there must actually be a Sealand lobby? That's just stupid. Powerful groups (even government employees) have lobbies.

See here, for instanceI don't see how that one was relevant. Anything Morford writes is guffaw-inducing (he is the one who wrote about his "spiritually advanced friends", right).

This is exactly the optical illusion that produces dreadful phenomena like The Palestinian ConservativeAs I noted elsewhere, Lawrence Auster is like the mirror-image of Kevin McDonald. When Sailer analogized the conflict to that of baseball teams outside his city, Auster pronounced him "devoid of soul". Because he thinks even the Israeli government (which is indeed a liberal democracy, making its recent ban of Arab parties an aberration) is more racially/ethnically liberal than that of the U.S and thus bent on its own destruction. So if Olmert is anti-Israel, then only occasionally publishing pro-Israel writing is sufficient to make the magazine defined by support for the Palestinians. Though even accepting that characterization, relative to the Weekly Standard & National Review it's hard to see Buchanan & co. as the "rope thick iron".

Which side of the Arab-Israeli conflict does the US support?Which side does Congress declare it's support for? Who receives more money & munitions? Who receives promises of protection? This isn't even as muddy as determining who we favored in the Iran-Iraq war.

we can define the answer as the "center,"Complete neutrality seems the most natural means of assigning the center, as it prevents civilizations on planets orbiting Betelgeuse from being on either side. But I do happen to agree with everything The Neutralist said in the linked post (which is why I qualify my pro-Zionism with "mildly").

pole is tilted to the leftWhy "right" and "left"? Jeet Heer is rather annoying in his explanation, but he's right that conservatives of old (including your ex-commie idols, James Burnham & Freda Utley) didn't see things that way.

and we mean classical international law, not the 20th-century forgery that has stolen its identity.I've mentioned it before, but Stephan Kinsella thinks libertarians should favor international law because it has changed the least from the past.

They may be considered as two individuals disputing on the truth of a proposition; and it is impossible that two contrary sentiments should be true at the same time.The anarcho-capitalist response to such a situation is arbitration rather than the adversarial systems created by states, which is probably easier with monarchs than demotist governments.

if USG's involvement in the conflict were to cease, which side would benefit?Here I think you make assumptions about the outcome quite different from not only the American but Israeli conventional wisdom.

agreed to close its eyes for a year, at the end of that year, Israel could easily be occupying the entire Muslim world from Karachi to MauritaniaThe U.S has closed its eyes for Suharto in East Timor, and the Phalangists in Sabra & Shatila. It is not the U.S that is the determinant factor but the difference between the Israelis and Suharto/Phalangists.

That the Arabs expect to gain ground and the Israelis expect to lose itThen they've both had a bad track record of prediction.

TakiHey, unlike you, I never took him seriously. But I don't see an iron rope behind him, just his own dickishness.

Even Al Qaeda is not "Islamofascist," but Islamocommunist - firmly on the left. Looking for Islamofascists? Try Saudi Arabia.What the fuck are you talking about? One of bin Laden's objections to the Saudi regime is that it's INSUFFICIENTLY ANTICOMMUNIST. Saudi Arabian royals are, of course, some of the biggest funders of jihadists. The Iranian revolutionaries fit better into the French & Russian tradition, but they still put the liberal & leftist factions that helped bring them to power first up against the wall and refused to support any anti-Americans that were linked to the Soviets (the U.S actually supported the Soviet client in the Iran-Iraq war).

has an excellent summary in this bookIn the Amazon summary it says "the Protestant missionaries whose interests drove U.S. policyin the 19th century and who championed a Jewish state in Palestine long before the Zionist movement took up that cause". My guess is that today American Protestants are more likely to agree with Hagee than Catholics or Orthodox Christians. My Protestant chauvinism would say that's due to the Papist & Caesaro-Papist sympathy with a backward religion, and indeed Kagan's review notes that my attitude toward Islam is portrayed as the dominant one in American history.

There was once an actual indigenous culture in the area, of course, no trace of which now exists.I think there are still Bedouins around.

The Palestinians don't need to bribe Congressmen, because they have Harvard.I already told you that polls show the opposite story, and then you tried to explain away the results by saying that the answers didn't REALLY mean what they literally said. But if you were concerned with evidence your B.S might be falsifiable!

the general fallacy of the left-libertarianTake it up with Kevin Carson.

The farther to the right one looks, the more prescient has been the historical foresight; the farther to the left, the less so.Though it would make me feel better, I cannot rely on Heilbroner's anecdotal impression. Philip Tetlock actually recorded the predictions of varying experts and tested how accurate they were over decades. There was no relationship between political ideology and prescience. The only factors that predicted accuracy were "fox" vs "hedgehog" cognitive styles.

Mill, Darwin, Bright and Spencer; he rejects the Right side, with Carlyle, Dickens, Ruskin, and TennysonIgnoring the specific issue you'd mention, I'd say the former tended to have much more accurate views than the latter. Though any lineup with Darwin would crush that of literati.

The policies changed.Then it makes perfect sense for the "liberals" before the change to be right and the "liberals" afterward to be wrong.

19th-century Radicals favored libertarian policies because they faced an ancien regime which still, to some extent, existed.Sounds like the John Henry paper I found at the late blog of Matthew Mueller.

of mercantilismI don't believe you've discussed the merits of that before. Do you think it was a good idea? Perhaps for Douglass North style "natural state" reasons? I don't know about you, but there's no way in hell I'd want to return return to a natural state.

If it were a conspiracyAs the "international communist conspiracy" indeed was, directed by the KGB from Moscow. I guess they must have been rightists!

The Left is the alliance of all those who seek power through the mind - intellectuals, basically.Wouldn't that include Eyre's supporters you just listed?

The Right is the factiousThe left is notoriously more factious. "The Judean People's Front" was based on Trotskyist splitting. You yourself noted that the monarch serves as a Schelling point there can be wide agreement on. Who should replace the monarch and what should they do then invites a host of questions that divide.


MlR:
Or simply consider that just about the only place the "dental floss" has any pull whatsoever is the United States. Everywhere else the iron holds.The Pew Global Attitudes Project has some survey data here. I'll copy the relevant bits, with first percentage indicating sympathy for Israel and the second for Palestinians (I'm excluding both, neither & don't know responses):
Israel Palestinians
United States 48 13
Germany 37 18
Great Britain 24 29
France 38 38
Spain 9 32
Russia 21 16
China 7 23
Japan 25 23
India 20 22
Nigeria 29 35
Indonesia 4 72
Egypt 2 97
Jordan 1 97
Turkey 5 63
Pakistan 6 59

Mencius has listed Russia & China as the two "independent" nations, so their responses will be the most relevant. I excepted more sympathy for Israel in India, which has had similar problems with muslim terrorism. I was also surprised that France (stereotyped as a leftist dissenter from the Anglosphere and promoter of Eurabia) was more pro-Israel than Great Britain.


Nobody:
I'm sorry, when you say that Jabotinsky is your "nigga," does that mean you like him or you don't like him?It means he's a willing participant in our cultural degradation :)


Zdeno:
But doesn't it imply that modern Tories should be able to employ similar tactics to bring down the contemporary, non-ancien regime?He earlier stated that the Polygon had developed defenses to prevent such a thing from happening. I think back then he was encouraging opponents of it to evade its histamines by exuding hipness, which he has dropped now.


Anonymous May 9, 2009 12:31 PM:
Get a handle.
Do you know what they did in Palestine when they took it over in 1917?Fought with Irgun & Lehi.


Steve Johnson:
Thanks for signing your comment.
If you accept this point, the ADL condemns you for anti-Sematism, but let's press on anyway.No, plenty of Jews acknowledge this and don't get pilloried.

One easy response is to say that the preservation of the single Jewish ethnic state is one interest of the Jewish people.Why? They managed without one for millienia and do pretty well throughout the first world.


Anonymous May 9, 2009 3:56 PM:
If the Jews didn't exist would America be much less progressive?Why not just look at countries with fewer jews? Due to Hitler there are a lot less of them in continental Europe and more in the U.S. Is the U.S to the left of continental europe?


Cassandra Goldman:
The Left is the alliance of second-raters, people of inferior morals, creativity, and intellect. It is their way of attempting to drag their betters down to their own level. And rob them while they're at it.Then you should be able to find evidence of that in the General Social Survey. Unless you're just echoing the common "hooray for our side" mantra.


Dan Kurt:
The Brits actually had lost WWII guess I've been reading awful history texts, because they all say the central powers had to sign surrender treaties in which they gave concessions and apologies.


Chris:
as long as the Taliban is just another "enemy to the right".I could see an argument for considering it that, but MM is considering islamists to be on the left here.


Michael S.:
G. William DomhoffI've got a post on him here.

Your account gels a lot with Jeet Heer's, linked above.


a non-american:
There are still some partisans of the Bricker amendment around.

May 10, 2009 at 8:17 PM  
Anonymous MlR said...

The UN Charter exists, and always has existed, in a make-believe world, not fit for serious consideration. Taken literally, every member is, and will always be, a violator of the UN Charter. The number of people that treat it as a serious document, worthy of consideration in real-world affairs, is a good marker of the extent we've collectively left them.

Beyond that, Congress isn't legally vested with the power to pass the responsibilities invested in it, such as the power to declare war, onto other bodies. That they do so doesn't make it any more legal, as defined by honest lawyers.

...Which isn't to say I am stupid enough to mistake law with morality, but I can recognize the results of decades of legal sophistry and willful suspension of disbelief. Like most educated stupidity, the results by and large aren't pretty.

May 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM  
Blogger Aaron Davies said...

TGGP:
Dan Kurt: The Brits actually had lost WWI
I guess I've been reading awful history texts, because they all say the central powers had to sign surrender treaties in which they gave concessions and apologies.

As usual, in your rush to fisk, you miss at least one point completely. (Also as usual, I have nothing to contribute to the conversation but to correct you.) Dan was alleging that the American entry to WWI was the only thing that saved Britain from losing the war. (Whether there's any truth to this, I couldn't say.)

May 11, 2009 at 5:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@quoththeraven:

"You've compartmentalized the USG into several different sections. And you've identified the military as the single non-leftist part of the USG."

My reaction to this is that a good portion of the enlisted ranks are "leftist", the low and middle ranking officers (perhaps through Colonel) are not leftists, and the flag officers are leftists. This is for the obvious reason that the (leftist) political leadership in the Cathedral chooses who will be promoted to general officer, and naturally the Cathedral will choose those who obey the Cathedral line. I don't see any significant "rightist" opposition to the Cathedral from within the military - a lot of them vote Republican, but one should not confuse this with opposition to the Cathedral.

May 11, 2009 at 6:56 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Jews migrated to areas where the left occupied the highest rungs on the social ladder. I wonder if things would have been different if Jews had migrated to the unreconstructed south. Could the influence of Jews have helped the Universalists win the war of ideas. I know MM says that this is a 300 year old problem, but the addition of the smartest people in the world couldn't have hurt.

May 11, 2009 at 8:17 AM  
Anonymous n/a said...

"I suppose I am probably notorious for not only not moderating my comments, but not even reading them."

Translation: PLEEEASE email me, Patri. I'd *love* to add Milton Friedman's grandson to the list of people I namedrop IRL, but I'm pretending I don't read my comments -- pay attention, dumbass.

May 11, 2009 at 11:30 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Anon - a slight correction on the political involvement in selection of the officer corps.

All commissioned officers receive their initial commission (as second lieutenants in the Army, Air Force, and Marines, or as ensigns in the Navy and Coast Guard) by act of Congress. These acts name the newly commissioned en masse and there is nothing particularly political about them. The usual qualification is graduation from a ROTC program, with a smaller number who graduate from the service academies.

Promotions follow routinely from these subaltern levels, on the basis of internal performance reviews, through the ranks of lieutenant colonel (Army, Air Force, Marines) or commander (Navy, Coast Guard). Ordinarily an officer will receive up to three performance reviews, one at each opportunity for promotion. On the first two promotion may or may not be granted; at the third, it is either up or out. Basic competence in the duties assigned at present rank and having avoided giving offense to one's superiors ordinarily are sufficient to afford promotion to the next rank.

Political selection actually then begins at one step below flag rank. Promotion to full colonel (Army, Air Force, Marines) or to captain (Navy, Coast Guard) requires action by the sub-cabinet level Secretary to which the service in question is subject. There are Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) under the Secretary of Defense. I believe Coast Guard appointments fall under Treasury. Thus, at this level there is already an element of "Cathedral" involvement.

Congress individually confirms promotions to flag rank, but the real hurdle is promotion to colonel or captain. This is why there are so many retired lieutenant colonels and commanders - it is the normal point of retirement for those who do not make the first political cut.

There are a couple of interesting exceptions to the usual political up-or-out at LTC or CDR ranks.

One applies to prisoners of war. Ranking officers who were prisoners in enemy hands during the Vietnam war were automatically granted promotions. This is how Jeremiah Denton (later senator from Alabama) became a captain, and indirectly why he became a flag officer after being released, which for a naval aviator would not have been his normal career path.

The other applies to the higher ranks in the National Guard. Normally National Guard officers are reserve officers in their respective services; appointments to National Guard flag ranks are in the patronage of the governors of the states they serve, rather than Washington. Thus they are politically determined - sometimes very much so! - but not necessarily by the prevailing orthodoxy at the federal level. I am aware of at least one case in which an Adjutant General of a state national guard jumped several ranks from his U.S. Army Reserve rank, to get his stars by favor of the state's governor.

May 11, 2009 at 3:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Michael S.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I think promotion to full colonel is pretty routine (non-political) in the vast majority of cases, keeping in mind that there aren't a lot of O-6 slots to begin with. I have known plenty of colonels who I considered "rightists", but above that, not so much.

May 11, 2009 at 6:57 PM  
Anonymous Cassandra Goldman said...

Me: The Left is the alliance of second-raters, people of inferior morals, creativity, and intellect. It is their way of attempting to drag their betters down to their own level. And rob them while they're at it.TGGP: Then you should be able to find evidence of that in the General Social Survey.You may be interested to know that there are many sources of information besides the GSS. Most people use them.

Still, I was curious to see if you were correct, so I went to their website and read their questionnaire. I could not discern any way in which any of the questions would indicate the attitude I have observed in progressives. The respondents were never asked, "Do you know yourself to be morally and mentally inferior to most other people? Does your envy of your betters motivate you to try to degrade them so that they will no longer be your superiors?"

Of course, it would have been surprising if such blatant questions had been asked. Still, I could imagine less direct questions that might have indicated my observations. People were questioned about whether they believe in preferential hiring of women and related matters, but the general attitude of progressives on such matters is well known, and having them confirm their stances does not tell us about their motivations.

However, had they been asked such questions as, "Should less able people be given jobs over more qualified candidates so as not to discriminate against the less talented?" or "Do many people behave morally because they are stuck up and showing off?" their answers could have demonstrated what I am talking about.

If you can think of any way in which the questions in the survey could have confirmed or disputed my observations, I would be very interested to hear it. But after reading the questionnaire, I have concluded that you are wrong. There is no way to find evidence of my thesis in the GSS.

Still, thank you for drawing that information source to my attention. It is useless in the matter I was discussing, but I can see many applications for other subjects that interest me.

May 11, 2009 at 8:37 PM  
Anonymous nomblu said...

Mencius, if it is the case that the liberal elite does not unequivocally support Israel and the Jews, then it would appear that this is one of those rare occasions in which the liberal elite's position coincides with that of the majority of the population of the United States.

The majority of the population of the US DOES NOT unequivocally support Israel.

Contrast this with basically every other issue where the liberal elite and the majority of the US do not come anywhere close to having the same opinion.

May 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mencius Moldbug is an example of "Semitism gone wild" a la Henry Morgenthau.

http://www.williambowles.info/guests/vachon.html

May 11, 2009 at 10:10 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

MlR:
honest lawyersAre any of them also sober Irishmen?


Aaron Davies:
Dan was alleging that the American entry to WWI was the only thing that saved Britain from losing the war. (Whether there's any truth to this, I couldn't say.)I have no problem granting that German's defeat is owed to U.S intervention. That's a different claim from the one that Britain had "lost", which wasn't even a counterfactual about them having been losing but for the U.S saving their hide. Among the Triple Entente, they fared the best. Their territory stayed out of the conflict, they had lower casualties, and their strength was always in the Royal Navy which remained supreme and was slowly starving Germany. If the war of attrition had continued without America tilting the scales decidedly against Germany would that have meant an even shorter "Act of dying"? England had survived expensive wars before. Kurt's narrative is a kind of conspiracy theory for which there isn't evidence as clear as Brest-Litovsk because, zoiks it's a conspiracy! Kurt's Jewish Bankers were without a contract or means to enforce any (states tend to have such a time inconsistency problem), and so the British went ahead and placed restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine (which had already had two aliyah's before the Great War), and as a result they fought Etzel & Lehi. Kurt also suggests that the J.Bs bribed Britain into accepting the establishment of the USSR. The orders for Lenin to be sent to Russia came from Germany (which is also where the World Zionist Organization was headquartered), whereas England wanted to keep a co-belligerent regime in Russia in power and so intervened on the side of the White forces in the civil war. If he is arguing (like Mencius Moldbug) that the allied intervention was sabotaged by political leaders, that would have required a second negotiation in a smoke-filled room with the dread Jew Banker in addition to the one that brought the Yanks over there. Again and again the conspiracy theorist asks that we reject Occam's Razor with little more evidence (covered up, dontcha know) than their own assertion.


Anonymous May 11, 2009 6:56 AM:
Enlisted men are much closer to the general population, meaning that they have no ideology at all though to the ideological right they would seem leftist. The officer corps is more to the right. Data backing up my assertions can be found from here.

a lot of them vote Republican, but one should not confuse this with opposition to the Cathedral.Stephen Miller discusses something like that in "Conservatives and Liberals on Economics: Expected Differences, Surprising Similarities", which starts on page 41 of the copy of Critical Review Vol. 19 Issue 1 that I provide here.


josh:
Before the civil war there were actually a lot of Sephardic Jews in the south, many of whom served the confederacy. They looked down on the German Ashkenazim who came later, who in turn looked down on the eastern european jewry that came after them. Your take does remind me of what Steve Sailer said of the political leanings of asian-americans: they're to the right of their neighbors, but they tend to live in urban neighborhoods with solidly blue surroundings so they're still Dems.


n/a:
Usually you're reliable for a good factual debunking of MM's bloviations particularly on your hobbyhorse of da Joos. You can do better than petty insults, even if you want to limit your output here to a link to one of your own posts. Here's to more and better pissing contests.


Inspired by Michael S, I decided to list some "phony soldiers" in Limbaugh terms to see if we find more Cathedral influence as we go up the ladder:
Scott Ritter, who MM has discussed before, reached major in the marines.
John Kerry was a lieutenant in the navy.
Andrew Bacevich (one of whose books MM has linked to derisively) was a colonel in the army.
Markos Moulitsas served a three year enlistment in the army as a Multiple Launch Rocket System Fire Direction Specialist, and I just learned claims to have been a Republican when he enlisted.
John Mearsheimer (with less lefty links by affiliation, but what the hell) served one year as an enlisted man in the army, then went to West Point and afterward served five as an officer in the air force. I haven't been able to narrow down his rank.
"Matthew Arnold" is the pseudonymous author of "How to Break a Terrorist", about the interrogations that led to the killing of Zarqawi, was a special forces officer who served in the air force (I wasn't sure they had special forces) for 14 years, reaching major.
Karen Kwiatkowski (according to David Horowitz a LaRouchie, often publishes at Lew Rockwell) was a lieutenant colonel in the air force.
Wesley Clark (supposedly apolitical like Eisenhower before campaigning for president, and I wasn't sure he opposed the iraq war before I double-checked) was a general in the army and supreme allied commander europe for nato during the kosovo war

In my entirely unscientific sample, air force seems overrepresented. I don't notice a correlation between rank and leftiness, but there were only two with rank colonel or above. I encourage others to toss out more.



Cassandra Goldman:
When in doubt, use WORDSUM. It's a decent proxy for IQ, though it's only ten questions. The Inductivist has done a lot of examinations of morality by ideology in the GSS. The GSS has many treasures if you are willing to dig around. You can then put the results on your blog and link to them whenever you want to prove a point. I'm not sure how to measure creativity though. There are personality tests that have "openness to experience", but that might just indicate that a person would like to think of themselves as creative.

Do you know yourself to be morally and mentally inferior to most other peopleThe Audacious Epigone has a post on how different political orientations view the intelligences of different racial/ethnic groups, linking to a previous one where the ethnicities ranked ethnicities. Epigone refers to an Inductivist post on the National Longitudinal Study of Adoloescent Health regarding self-perceived intelligence here. That may also have questions on political ideology, but I don't know since it doesn't appear to be open access. In the GSS OFWORTH asks whetehr people believe they are of at least equal worth with others. Various PROUD variables measure how much pride they feel in different things. FAIR asks whether most people are fair or would take advantage of others if they got the chance (BEFAIR is similar, and probably for a different year). FAIREARN asks how fair a person's own earnings on the job are, relative to what they (think they) deserve.

"Should less able people be given jobs over more qualified candidates so as not to discriminate against the less talented?"The OPOUTCOME variable measures whether they think America should promote equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. The ERAWHY variables (1 through 3) give reasons why people favor or oppose the equal rights amendment. The FAIR variables indicate whether they think different racial/ethnic groups are committed to a fair and equal treatment of all groups in society.

There is no way to find evidence of my thesis in the GSS.There's a difference between weak evidence and no evidence. Any correlation (positive or negative) you expect counts as Bayesian evidence. Once you find some weak evidence, you have cause to look for stronger evidence to confirm it.


nomblue:
The majority of the U.S does not unequivocally support Israel, but we do support them. I posted poll data above and you can find it replicated elsewhere. I think it's quite plausible that on most issues American liberal elites are more like other Americans than other liberal elites.

May 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Cassandra Goldman said...

TGGP,

Again, I have to thank you for the valuable new tool. I found the GSS after your first comment to me via Google, but the site Google gave me was difficult and counterintuitive to navigate. I was planning on devoting some time later this week to figuring out how to use it.

The Audacious Epigone posts you linked, however, had a link to this application which makes deriving data from the GSS much simpler.

Exploring this data promises to be most intriguing.

May 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Always happy to spread the teachings of the GSS, Cassandra, I've needed a helpful boost myself to get what I wanted out of it myself.

May 12, 2009 at 5:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure, blame Protestant Christianity for many of the problems of the Western world.

However, you are clearly not learned enough to realize the major and disproportionate role in which Jews played in the Protestant Reformation and in M. Luther's life. Look it up.

May 25, 2009 at 1:41 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home