Monday, July 26, 2010 133 Comments

Race: a modest proposal

I'd like to think one of the pleasures of reading UR is learning about reality before the rest of the world catches up. Alas, there's a downside: it is catching up. (And the Old Ones, twitching, slumber yet.)

Consider, courtesy of Arnold Kling (through whom the dark realities are now available in two clicks from both Yglesias - bully me, young Jedi! - and Instapundit), Angelo Codevilla. In a UR-sized piece widely gasped at throughout the conservative blogosphere, unused to even flashes of the actual sun, Professor Codevilla somehow gets away with this jaw-dropper:
In this clash, the ruling class holds most of the cards: because it has established itself as the fount of authority, its primacy is based on habits of deference. Breaking them, establishing other founts of authority, other ways of doing things, would involve far more than electoral politics.
(My italics.) And Lee Harris, on Herbert Hoover's soapbox, seems to have read his James Burnham:
It is rather the revolt of common sense against privileged opinion makers, and, by its very nature, it can only be carried out by men and women who are not constrained by the standards of intellectual respectability current in polite company. [...] What is needed is the revitalization of a very old attitude — the attitude shared by all people who have been able to maintain their liberty and independence against those who would take it away from them: “We do not need an elite to govern us. We can govern ourselves.”

A strong argument can be made that this attitude is based on a delusion. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot perish from the earth, because none has ever existed on the earth. Orwell’s Animal Farm famously tells us that some animals (humans included) will always be more equal than others, which means that every society that has claimed to be a democracy has in fact been managed by an elite, or juggled among a competing group of elites. Sometimes the elite has governed openly, sometimes covertly. Even in ancient Greece, critics argued that the veneer of popular democracy was merely a mask for the cynical manipulation of plutocrats. Twentieth century thinkers such as Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels have argued that every functioning society will inevitably be governed by a ruling class, just as every business enterprise will be governed by its executives — it is what Michels has dubbed “the iron law of oligarchy."
(My italics.) Holy crap! I can't see anything. There's some kind of nuclear explosion on the other side of that door. Better slam it fast, and get back in Plato's Cave - or we'll all go blind. Professor Codevilla:
The grandparents of today's Americans (132 million in 1940) had opportunities to serve on 117,000 school boards. To exercise responsibilities comparable to their grandparents', today's 310 million Americans would have radically to decentralize the mere 15,000 districts into which public school children are now concentrated. They would have to take responsibility for curriculum and administration away from credentialed experts, and they would have to explain why they know better. This would involve a level of political articulation of the body politic far beyond voting in elections every two years.
School boards! And Lee Harris, even more precious:
All this may be perfectly true. Elite rule may be unavoidable. But this conclusion does not mean that the delusion of pure democracy should be tossed into the trash bin of history. On the contrary, the iron law of oligarchy is itself the best reason for keeping the democratic delusion alive and well. The American philosophy of pragmatism has long recognized that an idea can be an illusion and yet still play a vital and wholly positive role by motivating people to act on it.
Mr. Harris, I have a Mr. Carlyle on the line. "No, at all costs, it is to be prayed by all men that Shams may cease." Not my italics. And it will not be done by "pragmatism," or school boards.

But to the point. Along with all this, we've learned that America's race problem is - is it possible? - not quite solved. UR readers, slightly more Machiavellian, may be reminded of the real meaning of diversity. But why babble on about the problem? Old news it fast becomes. The likes of Harris and Codevilla are excellent, for the most part, on the problem.

No - it's solutions we want. And here at UR, we remain a step ahead. Here is my modest proposal for healing the open sore of race in American society. This solution, though some may find it shocking, has two key advantages. First, it's a Pareto optimization - it makes life better for everyone, or at least everyone honest. Second, it is reactionary to the bone, freezing your soul with its deep Sith chill. You may feel it's wrong. But can you say why?

The solution comes in two simple steps, each of which could be taken tomorrow.

Step A is formalization. It's a reality of modern American life that race confers privilege. As a reactionary, how can I possibly object? A society without hereditary privilege is like a cheeseburger without cheese. There is no difference between a privilege and a right. Is your right to American (or other First World) citizenship a right? Or a privilege? No person is illegal!

But there is a significant legal problem with the modern American system of race rights: it is informal. It relies on self-reporting and eyeball consensus. Frankly, this just doesn't scale, and it opens the door to the growing issue of race fraud. How prevalent is race fraud? We just don't know. This alone should worry anyone concerned with the rule of law.

We can guess, however, because we know what the incentives are. For instance, Professor Espenshade, of Princeton, has performed an invaluable service in quantifying the race rights of college applicants. America's bright young people get squat for being Asian, 150 SAT points for being white, 300 for being "Hispanic", and 450 for being black. That's, um, a lot. College admission is by no means the end of race rights in America today, but let's just focus on it.

For instance, a young lady of my acquaintance, with perfect grades and SATs, just ended up at UCLA. An accomplished young woman - but alas, a full-blood Chink. In retrospect, could Eileen have passed as black? Possible. But difficult. Any white person, however, can pass as Hispanic, providing a substantial if not overwhelming career advantage. Surely quite a few do. This is race fraud. It's revolting. It has to be stopped.

Therefore, so that all Americans (except Chinks - who form, so to speak, the baseline) can claim their race rights, the rule of law demands a formal registration process. Are you a proud black man? Are you not afraid to stand up and say, I am of pure white blood, and no damned coolie?

If you participated in the 2010 Census, you already have. The forms are on file. We need merely forward them to the new Department of Race, and make the declaration legally binding - with an amnesty period for repentant phonies. A drop of spit snares all remaining snakes. And the new race registry (a true New-World Almanach de Gotha) is public, open to Harvard and everyone else. Presto: no more race fraud. Whew!

Race, of course, is hereditary by definition. With a formal definition of race, we can define the race of any child by the race of the parents. Our informal rule today, as with the "one-drop" principle for blacks, is that children inherit the race rights of the most privileged parent. By historical standards, perhaps a little lax - but it's a permissive society, after all.

So that's step A: formalizing "affirmative action." No serious person could possibly object. Technically it's not quite a Pareto optimization, but only if you're committing race fraud.

We move on to step B, which will warm the cockles of Hayek's dead heart and bring happiness to liberaltarians everywhere. Advancing from status to contract, we take our newly-securitized race rights, and make them transferable. Let a sweet wind of capitalism blow!

Consider all the African-Americans who will never even apply to Harvard. They have a privilege of almost incalculable value: 450 extra points on their SATs. They may be too old to go to college, but their children aren't. And their children's children, ad infinitum. Of course, not even their children's children may want to go to Harvard - or there may be other goods they prefer. Goods that could be provided, just as ad infinitum, by a prudently-invested nest egg.

Now look at Eileen - and her mother, who escaped penniless from the American-made chaos of China's century of revolution, and has saved and slaved to bring her daughter the best Meiguo can offer. Alas, through no fault of hers or her daughter's, that best does not include Harvard.

Here, surely, is a natural economic exchange. Why shouldn't Eileen's mother take out a second mortgage to assure her daughter, and heirs indefinite, all the privileges of being technically black? Why shouldn't a poor African-American youth, with no particular use for race rights, give them up in exchange for a substantial trust fund which can free him to pursue his dreams? Being officially Chinese is no skin off his ghetto ass. And here are some real reparations - color, green. By definition, voluntary trade benefits both parties. Ie, it's a Pareto optimization.

In the long run, of course, transferable titles of hereditary nobility will end up in the hands of those most capable of capturing them. Even if they initially do not correspond to actual nobility of the blood - a reality confirmed again and again by 21st-century science - this in the end will be the result. And the natural order of civilized society, ulcered so long, heals at long last.

Thus, harming no one (except the fraudsters), America transitions seamlessly from phony, embarrassing "affirmative action" to authentic and lasting reaction. What's not to like? Embrace the change.

133 Comments:

Anonymous Leonard said...

You may feel it's wrong. But can you say why?

Sure.

One reason is, these race privileges stand on a very shaky ground, of "democracy". But people (including the powerful) support them for particular reasons, few of which would continue if you made them transferable titles.

In particular, the title can be transferred from a Democrat to a Republican. As such, it destroys the client/patron relationship that NAMs have to white progressives. Thus, elite support for it will be non-existent. And they'll quickly abolish it, and restore the titles as non-transferable. Everyone will know that, and the prices of titles will be very low. Perhaps you'll get one crop of Asians into Harvard, but one is all you'll get.

Thus, your seeming pareto-optimization is not. It would only be optimal in a state which could and would actually credibly promise to honor and enforce the race titles as any other property.

But let us assume that you mean to do this as part of a reboot to neocameralism, and the state is going to honor its race-titles.

A second reason is that at least some of the content of race privilege is poisonous stuff, which we do not want used. To make race-privilege a salable title is to radically change the set of people who benefit, and invariably, to increase their use. In the case of college admissions, this is not particularly pernicious, because college admissions themselves are not that important. "Eileen" may miss out on an opportunity to be the next Matt Yglesius, but she'll do fine I am sure.

But now consider, say, the right to non-offense in all private corporations, under pain of monetary damages. Currently, I would guess that people figure out who the most prickly and touchy blacks are, and avoid them as much as possible. If they are forced to interact, whites will be on their best behavior. This is not unduly taxing, because of course prickly lawsuit-happy blacks are a small minority of a small minority. And especially if they can be shunted into an "office of diversity" makework ghetto, most people don't have to interact with them much.

With transfer allowed, you open the racket of diversity to everyone. So you can expect titles to go to people who are most willing and capable of exploiting them for money. Thus, suddenly every "black" in your corporation is now a really smart Jewish lawyer, with highly acute hearing. His titular job he may well do better than the African-American he replaced. But his real job, the money-job, is finding offense and suing over it. It is possible, I think, to run a diverse corporation where, perhaps, 1% of the workforce produce small negative value for the corporation. But not if, say, 5% of the workforce are producing large negative value.

July 26, 2010 at 7:36 AM  
Anonymous B said...

Here's the obvious liberal answer: since underpriviliged minorities are constantly being discriminated against in various ways due to their color, unless you could somehow transfer that to the buyer, the transaction is wrong-you're selling the benefits of being black (450 SAT points!) without the drawbacks (being supposedly likely to get shot by cops for NO REASON AT ALL.) I don't think even forehead tattoos would overcome this objection.

July 26, 2010 at 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why this "modest proposal" may resolve the issue of affirmative action here in the U.S., it does nothing to address the issue of race as a whole.

I'd be interested in reading a more comprehensive plan on the matter.

July 26, 2010 at 9:53 AM  
Blogger xlbrl said...

Eh.

July 26, 2010 at 10:08 AM  
Blogger DR said...

Well to be really formalist it's not just the race members that should receive title. There is an entire industry of individuals and organizations that benefit from affirmative action: thousands of HR employees, the executives of tons of non-profits like the NAACP, diversity "experts" and bureaucrats, discrimination lawyers, a lot of the media that report these "outrages", social science researchers of all stripes, etc.

My guess is that these groups exert just as much political power if not more in keeping affirmative action alive than your average minority on the street if not more. Everyone in this group should be guaranteed a lifetime pension to make up for the loss of prestige and income associated with affirmative action disappearing.

July 26, 2010 at 10:35 AM  
Blogger DR said...

@Leonard if freedom of contract was really opened up than any employer could require the employee to waive the right to discrimination suits if hired. Since the employer would not be able to disriminate based on hiring this would take the form of a pay increase to race title holders.

E.g. if an employer required discrimination waiving and payed less of a race bonus than the market than they would not have enough minorities and be subjected to hiring discrimination suits. If they payed too much they'd have too many minorities and would be paying needlessly. The result is that there would be a standard pay bonus based on racial title, and almost all companies would require waiving the high uncertainty of discrimination suits.

July 26, 2010 at 10:40 AM  
Blogger newt0311 said...

What's wrong is quite simple: this scheme defeats the purpose of race guarantees.

The elites support race guarantees for two (real) reasons:

1. Race guarantees can be justified in nice sound bites.

2. Race guarantees can be revoked.

The first is important to maintain the facade of democracy. The second is important to ensure that the race guarantees have power. Ie. if the people with race guarantees stop voting for democrats, the guarantees disappear. This is what makes them usable as a coordination mechanism.

Under MMs proposal, the people without race guarantees would first off feel shortchanged for obvious reasons. Thus to maintain these guarantees, constitutional protection would have to be offered. Secondly, people would no longer (in time) feel any loyalty to the democratic party because they no longer depend on progressive policies.

Of course, this I take it was the point of MMs proposal.

July 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM  
Blogger baduin said...

Pareto optimization is pure idiocy. Most important things in society, are, not surprisingly, societal "constructs" - and that means they are relational. At certain point wealth as such is meaningless: you want respect, power, or at least good marriage.

Perhaps (certainly!) the society would be better if you could buy an adequate wife on a free market. But you cannot.

If I am First in Rome and you improve somebody else to be above me, not diminishing my wealth in any way, it is not the same to me - in fact, you could as well kill me and be done with it.

July 26, 2010 at 10:59 AM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

This proposal, perhaps deliberately, avoids touching on the real raison d'etre for affirmative action.

Surely it is not, and was never, intended to aid "the poor" about whom politicians are always vaporing. Getting a preferential 450 SAT points toward Harvard admission because he is black will make no difference at all to a functionally illiterate high school dropout. Still less will preferential admissions to postgraduate studies or professional schools.

These preferences were designed for the purpose of assuring that NAMs of middle-class or higher status remained beholden to the establishment left even though their economic interests might no longer be well served by its policies of wealth redistribution.

The establishment left has something for each of its clientele: the dole, food stamps, AFDC, and so forth for the denizens of the welfare slums; set-asides and other preferential treatment for minority-owned small businesses; and affirmative action admissions to first-tier universities for the children of affluent NAMs.

Making these privileges transferable by sale would, of course, eliminate the bloc loyalty that they were intended to create, and would be stoutly resisted by the beneficiaries of that loyalty. Furthermore, as the history of salable lordships of manors, advowsons, etc., demonstrates, the tendency over time is that as these rights, originally attached to real property, become incorporeal hereditaments, the tendency is for them to be stripped gradually of real value. Being lord of a manor or the holder of an advowson is now essentially an empty dignity. These are the reasons why MM has proposed what he has, and that is why it won't happen.

July 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The establishment left has something for each of its clientele: the dole, food stamps, AFDC, and so forth for the denizens of the welfare slums; set-asides and other preferential treatment for minority-owned small businesses; and affirmative action admissions to first-tier universities for the children of affluent NAMs.

Don't forget the govt jobs:
(...)
Most black Americans like a big, paternalistic government. There are several reasons for this, a major one being that black Americans are mostly Radio Derb fans. They have thoroughly absorbed my message that one's main purpose in life should be to Get a Government Job.

The government is anxious to accommodate them. We learned that three years ago, when the U.S. Office of Personnel Management put out a report showing massive over-representation of African Americans in the federal workforce. All federal departments have hiring targets for minorities based on numbers in the workforce at large. That 2007 report showed that in the previous year, quote, "all 23 independent federal agencies exceeded their racial quotas for hiring blacks by dozens or even hundreds of percent," end quote. The record for any department was Court Services and Offender Services, who employed 808 percent more blacks than their affirmative action target. NASA came in last, but even they exceeded their black hiring quota by 49 percent.
(...)

July 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Reading mm has become a giant waste of time. Not only does he never get to the point, but when he eventually does, its irrelevant masturbation.

July 26, 2010 at 3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From that Lee Harris piece:

"Eminent conservatives, such as David Frum and David Brooks, have made this point by their serial put-downs of the Tea Party movement, largely on the grounds that it lacks intellectual respectability."

ROFLMAO! Frum and Brooks are conservatives??? Maybe by the standards of the NYT op ed page they are. Anyone else who describes them as such is instantly discredited.

July 26, 2010 at 6:44 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

I was simply going to post some roflcopters this morning and assume everyone else would chortle along.

Seems like only newt and Michael got the joke though.

July 26, 2010 at 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous quoted from that Lee Harris piece:

"Eminent conservatives, such as David Frum and David Brooks, have made this point by their serial put-downs of the Tea Party movement, largely on the grounds that it lacks intellectual respectability."

ROFLMAO! Frum and Brooks are criticizing the Tea Party movement for lack of intellectual respectibility!

July 26, 2010 at 9:50 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I approve this proposal. In-kind transfers are the best, and making benefits transferable is almost as good. Abolishing the lot may be optimum, but let's not shun silver because it isn't gold.


jkr:
This post was actually shorter and more to the point than his standard fare. I admit that the first few paragraphs could have been omitted (and used for a different post). I'm also surprised you didn't say anything about jewish overrepresentation in academia (even adjusting for IQ). It may be an illusion resulting from an undercount of their population, but who knows?

Domhoff (sort of) agrees with Michael S' interpretation of affirmative action. Robin Hanson here. His more recent post on race is boring/sensible enough I won't bother linking.

July 26, 2010 at 10:44 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

According to the jewish NYTimes, only leftist jews such as David Frum and David Brooks can be respectable "conservatives." For fks sake, they can't even find two American jews to play the part as conservatives, only canadian liberal jews make the cut.

And so it goes, all the way to Aus'tarded and Moldy pseudo Right wing... The only respectable representatives of the American Right are not even Americans.

But it's all a WASP thing, this leftism in America.

July 27, 2010 at 12:16 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Good article by Pat Hanagan on the Oliver Stone remarks...

http://m4monologue.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/controlling-the-debate/

July 27, 2010 at 12:18 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

tggp,

i think the over-representation, adjusted for IQ, is something like 7 times. so they'd have to be 21% of the pop. to square that circle. of course, that doesn't imply anything sinister; it simply means that factors other than intelligence explain the over-representation; in general, factors which do not correlate with iq, such as test scores and academic achievements, wealth, etc.

i.e., their intense ethnic networking and ethnocentrism, along with substantial control over admissions policy, etc... keeping out 'traditional americans,' working class whites, ethnic catholics, poor southerners, etc. and flooding the top institutions with their fellows.

there's no reason to deny it. among themselves honest hebrews celebrate it, and are rightfully proud of it. bu sure as shit, a platoon of jewish 'conservatives' will flood the blogosphere denying it, hemming and hawing, denying and gesticulating, flinging counter accusations and charges of antisemitism, and in general lying, as is their wont.

July 27, 2010 at 12:26 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

indeed, america, and the west has been "blessed" with the jews. its merely a question of how we define "blessed." well, it seems we're stuck with each other, for good or for ill, until death do us part.

the truly sad part is, these two equally unique, equally gifted peoples, each with so much promise and potential, have gone to each other's throats in the 20th century, driven by circumstance, and neither will benefit one iota from the outcome of this massive conflict.

the west is being strangled and poisoned from various directions; the massive energy unleashed by jewish intellect, jewish wealth, jewish political clout, is directed against the west (as an ethnic entity, as a civilization, as an idea, as a power). and yet once the west drowns the jews are again homeless and will not find hospitable quarter elsewhere.

at the same time, historical opposition to jewish power has only succeeded in increasing the hostility and widening the gulf between the two peoples... usually clumsy, bloody affairs, further estranging the two parties and preventing reconciliation.

that's why folks like kevin macdonald have, at this point, after the defeat of all attempts at Reaction to the 1960s & the "culture of critique," thrown up their hands and stated honestly: there needs to be a reconciliation; the jews have struggled and fought and have gained the power to shape the culture and destiny of the west to a great degree, we won't begrudge them the position they've earned, we coundn't if we wanted to... power speaks for itself, and the jews have it. all we want is for the policies of race-replacement to stop.

the jews are are core of the left, intellectually, financially, politically. every european-majority state on earth is being flooded with third world immigration... the media throughout the western world is largely a jewish affair. the balance of power is in jewish hands.

so it's either a) the jewish community voluntarily shifts the balance of its weight against the continued dispossession of europeans in their states, or b) the counter-movement must be anti-jewish.

that's what will be decided by the jewish people themselves as the west goes under during the following decades, and the counter-movement undergoes formation: will the jews be with it or against it? for our sake and theirs, i hope they choose to stand with it, despite all the historically-ingrained impulses than impel them to be against it.

July 27, 2010 at 12:57 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

indeed, america, and the west has been "blessed" with the jews. its merely a question of how we define "blessed." well, it seems we're stuck with each other, for good or for ill, until death do us part.

the truly sad part is, these two equally unique, equally gifted peoples, each with so much promise and potential, have gone to each other's throats in the 20th century, driven by circumstance, and neither will benefit one iota from the outcome of this massive conflict.

the west is being strangled and poisoned from various directions; the massive energy unleashed by jewish intellect, jewish wealth, jewish political clout, is directed against the west (as an ethnic entity, as a civilization, as an idea, as a power). and yet once the west drowns the jews are again homeless and will not find hospitable quarter elsewhere.

at the same time, historical opposition to jewish power has only succeeded in increasing the hostility and widening the gulf between the two peoples... usually clumsy, bloody affairs, further estranging the two parties and preventing reconciliation.

that's why folks like kevin macdonald have, at this point, after the defeat of all attempts at Reaction to the 1960s & the "culture of critique," thrown up their hands and stated honestly: there needs to be a reconciliation; the jews have struggled and fought and have gained the power to shape the culture and destiny of the west to a great degree, we won't begrudge them the position they've earned, we coundn't if we wanted to... power speaks for itself, and the jews have it. all we want is for the policies of race-replacement to stop.

the jews are are core of the left, intellectually, financially, politically. every european-majority state on earth is being flooded with third world immigration... the media throughout the western world is largely a jewish affair. the balance of power is in jewish hands.

so it's either a) the jewish community voluntarily shifts the balance of its weight against the continued dispossession of europeans in their states, or b) the counter-movement must be anti-jewish.

that's what will be decided by the jewish people themselves as the west goes under during the following decades, and the counter-movement undergoes formation: will the jews be with it or against it? for our sake and theirs, i hope they choose to stand with it, despite all the historically-ingrained impulses than impel them to be against it.

July 27, 2010 at 12:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Lord, a Jew-hating idiot is here to warn us of the insidious power of The Eternal Jew.

July 27, 2010 at 4:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anything with "a modest proposal" in it's title is --as swifts essay-- not meant to be taken as an entirely serious recommendation. The proposal is merely a novel way to make obvious the similarity between NAM privileges and the (former) rights of aristocrats. I love this blog, don't stop.

July 27, 2010 at 8:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

not only the similarities, I should probably add, it also exposes the ineffectiveness of the democratic client/patron relationship from the patrons point of wiev

July 27, 2010 at 8:38 AM  
Blogger DR said...

@jkr

If jews have such unrelenting support for leftism and white replacement (by your account until at least Western civilization collapses), why is it that the most leftist, least white president in American history only has a 42% approval rating from them?

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/04/american-jewish-support-for-obama-tanks/

Also why are you mentioning Europe as evidence of Jewish policies? That makes no sense, you do realize that most European nations have very tiny Jewish populations. Because of this little thing called the holocaust, or do you also think that that's made up?

Considering that among the Western nations that America is the least liberal, but the most Jewish, I think that runs pretty counter to your narrative that Judaism is synonymous with leftism.

July 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

Moldbug hedged his bets with this ridiculous -- if taken literally -- proposal by alluding to Swift's satire.

July 27, 2010 at 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering that among the Western nations that America is the least liberal, but the most Jewish, I think that runs pretty counter to your narrative that Judaism is synonymous with leftism.

Jews aside, Mencius has stated repeatedly that Europe has been a US colony since 1945. For complicated reasons the US still retains a hapless and confused anti-leftist remnant.

For example:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/secret-of-anti-americanism.html

July 27, 2010 at 9:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Moldbug,

This is off topic but have you thought of putting reading lists up on the right side of your blog? For instance, I want very much to see the kinds of history books you think one should read to understand the cold war.

July 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

DR...

to answer your first question, it's obviously insufficient support for israel. perhaps also not enough visible jewish appointments. an israeli cheif of staff, a jewish karl rove (axelrod), and now kagan are apparently insufficient.

even bush was slammed by philip weiss for having inadequate dominance of his admin by jewish department heads, despite the neocon infestation of his foriegn policy staff.

after bill clinton, with like 60% of his appointments jews, boh supreme court justices, and nearly all of his pardons... even his bimbo, the jews got spoiled.

it's not obama's leftism they dissapprove of, it's that he's not gung ho enough on carthage-izing the palestinians and/or iran, as his predecessor was. they're perfectly content with his whitey-hating. it's just that jewish power has been so open and apparent in the previous two admins that they've become spoiled, espec. re israel. all the hyped up propaganda over the obama-israel rift has likely effected the jewish community's perception.

as for europe, a little thing called WW2 happened, you know... that giant vice squeezing her from east and west by the US and USSR. read general patton's description of the conditions prevailing in europe with the DP's running wild taking vengeance on the population. this was only surpassed by the installation of hostile jewish elites throughout the soviet-occupied area. but no, that didn't happen right? not in hungary... not in poland?

July 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

DR,

secondly, regarding europe...

its obvious that since the rise of television and the exporting of american culture and cinema, that the whole western world functions as a colony of american culture, american academia, american political influence, and so on. your point about there being less jewish influence in some european states in correct... that's why some of them successfully resisted any descent into bolshevism or leftism during the 1930s. for example, spain, despite all the best efforts of american and soviet jews to help the republican side, including fielding volunteers from ny to fight for the reds. likewise italy, was able to successfully resist such descent with minimal antisemitic friction. likewise england.

because of its substantial jewish pop., germany had a harder time avoiding russia's fate, and we all know how awfully that situation ended for all parties involved. russia also obviously didn't fare so well, as anyone with basic knowledge of the jewish role in that story knows.

DR, you should hit the books. this stuff isn't a secret, except on The History Channel, where despite 50 years of the cold war, the average American has no real knowledge of the nature and extent of conditions and realities in the Soviet Union, the Gulag, and the marked ethnic character of the bolshevik system of terror and genocide. the whole historical episode is more or less foriegn to most americans, who can therefore never understand ww2, or the 20th century, and what was being battled out in europe.

July 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM  
Blogger alexi de sadesky said...

Anon 9:56am:

Here is a mini reading list Moldbug compiled:

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/03/ur-will-return-on-thursday-april-17.html

This is an archive of his work with all his citations plucked out, so it's pretty easy to see who he is reading:

http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/

July 27, 2010 at 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous Coward said...

This UR post is weak. That is all.

July 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

moldbug, if your keeping up with the ip adresses going through your blog, you might already know that you have braziian readers. mostly due to this guy here http://soaressilva.apostos.com/ , i think.

July 27, 2010 at 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*you're

July 27, 2010 at 12:20 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

This is impractical. If we eat the babies it will be jut as bad as famine! I mean, hello! Earth to Mencius! Wake up and smell the coffee! Anybody home?! Bueller? Bueller? Where's the beef? That's a spicy meatball. What's the deal with those peanuts on the airplane? No grapes no nuts. I get no respect! Show me the money! Peace, I'm out.

July 27, 2010 at 4:37 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

B,

The proposal is not removing the benefits of being black vis a vis affirmative action, but is instead creating the means of an exchange of goods so that were I a black man in that situation, I could obtain a good which I find usable in exchange for a good I have which is unusable (+450 SAT points equivalent.)

The concept of the value of the Black title is being undervalued here: a nest egg is not 1000 bucks.

The whole thing is, in any case, absurd, but a great mental exercise. You can argue like Leonard that it won't work, but you can't figure out why its wrong. Like the modest proposal of Swift, if you accept the premises of those receiving the proposal, the absurdity should not be wrong at all, even though you will feel it is wrong. Think of it as mental Listerine. You feel that an alcohol solution hurts your mouth, but why? Only because you never clean it.

It is wrong for the obvious reason: The premise of race as understood is not scientific or in any case precise and the notion of granting significant rights to individuals of a grand faloon is also kind of wrong as well. As it stands we assume that being born black is a disadvantage even though it may not be.

Therefore in this scheme, a talented, well cultured young black guy could get waaay ahead of everyone else with not only his good upbringing, talent and ambition, but additionally his Black title could be sold for a fair chunk of capital. It could result in a hereditary super-elite - a plutocracy of black, talented people who would have advantages far beyond even those of a white person who bought a black title. They would maintain at least one black titled ancestor (mother or father) and therefore ensure that all of their children would be 'black'.

In short, it would realize all of the dreams of affirmative action. And it would be in the eyes of those who follow that reasoning, monstrous.

July 27, 2010 at 7:10 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

If the majority of American journalists are white gentiles, doesn't that indicate the media is gentile controlled and Jew controlled? "Overrepresented" is not synonymous with the word "control".

And even if I grant for the sake of argument that American media is Jew controlled why are over 400 million Western Europeans completely unable to defend themselves without the permission of 5 million American Jews?

If the Europeans are the most advanced race, they shouldn't be completely defenseless against Steven Spielberg.

July 27, 2010 at 7:53 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

doesn't that indicate the media is gentile controlled and Jew controlled?

should be

and not Jew controlled?

July 27, 2010 at 7:54 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

i think the over-representation, adjusted for IQ, is something like 7 times. so they'd have to be 21% of the pop. to square that circle.

Jews are 7 times overrepresented only if you count Jews the way the US Census does. According to the Census. American Jews are 2.5% of whites.

But the anti-Semites don't use the Census to Count Jews. The anti-Semites count Jews using the Nuremberg Race Laws where anyone with Jewish ancestry is counted as Jewish in order to gin up conspiracy theories and online donations from NeoNazis.

If we use the Nuremberg Race Laws (as well we should), 6-7% of white Americans are Jewish according to the anti-Semites.

The anti-Semites are fond of counting Americans who have only partial Jewish ancestry as fully Jewish. For instance, the anti-Semites often point out how Jews are overrepresented in the Ivy League but they don't mention that as of 2001 fully 45% of all college students who identified as Jewish had one white gentile parent and by 2010 we can safely assume that a majority of Jews attending Ivy League universities have one white gentile parent.

July 27, 2010 at 8:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps all negroes could be branded. That way, everyone will know who they are!

July 27, 2010 at 8:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

-The anti-Semites are fond of counting Americans who have only partial Jewish ancestry as fully Jewish.-

Your mom had better be a yid if you wanna be a yid.

July 27, 2010 at 8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jkr,
The problem is that lots of yids are big time libs and commies. But plenty of ex-extians are too. Plenty of stuff the yids do is screwing themselves, just like when Catholic liberals fuck themselves over. Or their own nation... Look at what the yids did to themselves regarding that boat full of muzzie loons headed for Gaza. They equipped their team with paintball guns. Shit, if I was in charge, I would have torpedoed that ship and used 20/30mm and HMG to waste any fuckers treading water. Then I would have put the video on youtube. That's not the only fuck-up. Look at that IDF disaster fighting Hezbollah. For the love of napalm, I would have turned those bastards into frizzled pig skins...

July 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM  
Anonymous John said...

The Undiscovered Jew says:
And even if I grant for the sake of argument that American media is Jew controlled why are over 400 million Western Europeans completely unable to defend themselves without the permission of 5 million American Jews?

If the Europeans are the most advanced race, they shouldn't be completely defenseless against Steven Spielberg.


From The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins. Chapter 12, "Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes":

“This chapter will develop two further ideas. One is that phenotypes that extend outside the body do not have to be inanimate artefacts: they can themselves be built of living tissue. The other idea is that whenever there are ‘shared’ genetic influences on an extended phenotype, the shared influences may be in conflict with each other rather than cooperative. The relationships we shall be concerned with are those of parasites and their hosts. I shall show that it is logically sensible to regard parasite genes as having phenotypic expression in host bodies and behavior.”

“But we have not yet reached the end of our continuum of proximity. Not all parasites live physically inside their hosts. They may even seldom come into contact with their hosts. A cuckoo is a parasite in very much the same way as a fluke. Both are whole-organism parasites rather than tissue parasites or cell parasites. If fluke genes can be said to have phenotypic expression in a snail’s body, there is no sensible reason why cuckoo genes should not be said to have phenotypic expression in a reed warbler’s body. The difference is a practical one, and a rather smaller one than the difference between, say, a cellular parasite and a tissue parasite. The practical difference is that the cuckoo does not live inside the reed warbler’s body, so has less opportunity for manipulating the host’s internal biochemistry. It has to rely on other media for its manipulation, for instance sound waves and light waves. As discussed in Chapter 4, it uses a supernormally bright gape to inject its control into the reed warbler’s nervous system via the eyes. It uses an especially loud begging cry to control the reed warbler’s nervous system via the ears. Cuckoo genes, in exerting their developmental power over host phenotypes, have to rely on action at a distance.”

cont.

July 27, 2010 at 8:39 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

anon... you're right. we should aim for nothing less than full-out Ugandan style... slaughter our enemies, drink their blood, desecrate and devour their lifeless corpses. anything less is clearly liberalism run amok.

Now, whether the the Israelis are coddling the palestinians or not is hardly of interest to me. I'm concerned with the role the jews play vis-a-vi western nations. But thanks for your cogent analysis.

July 27, 2010 at 8:40 PM  
Anonymous John said...

cont.

The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins
Chapter 4, "Arms Races and Manipulation":

Several species of ant have no workers of their own. The queens invade nests of other species, dispose of the host queen, and use the host workers to bring up their own reproductive young. The method of disposing of the queen varies. In some species, such as the descriptively named Bothriomyrmex regicidus and B. decapitans, the parasite queen rides about on the back of the host queen and then, in Wilson’s (1971) delightful description, ‘begins the one act for which she is uniquely specialized: slowly cutting off the head of her victim’ (p. 363).”

“Monomorium santschii achieves the same result by more subtle means. The host workers have weapons wielded by strong muscles, and nerves attached to the muscles; why should the parasite queen exert her own jaws if she can subvert the nervous systems controlling the numerous jaws of the host workers? It does not seem to be known how she achieves it, but she does: the host workers kill their own mother and adopt the usurper. A chemical secreted by the parasite queen seems the likely weapon, in which case it might be labeled a pheromone, but it is probably more illuminating to think of it as a formidably powerful drug. In line with this interpretation, Wilson (1971, p 413) writes of symphylic substances as being ‘more than just elementary nutritive substances or even analogues of the natural host pheromones. Several authors have spoken of a narcotizing effect of symphylic substances.’ Wilson also uses the word ‘intoxicant’ and quotes a case in which worker ants under the influence of such a substance become temporarily disoriented and less sure of their footing.”

Those who have never been brainwashed or addicted to a drug find it hard to understand their fellow men who are driven by such compulsions. In the same naive way we cannot understand a host bird’s being compelled to feed an absurdly oversized cuckoo, or worker ants wantonly murdering the only being in the whole world that is vital to their genetic success. But such subjective feelings are misleading, even where the relatively crude achievements of human pharmacology are concerned. With natural selection working on the problem, who would be so presumptuous as to guess what feats of mind control might not be achieved?”

July 27, 2010 at 8:44 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

John,

interesting material.

July 27, 2010 at 8:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"anon... you're right. we should aim for nothing less than full-out Ugandan style... slaughter our enemies, drink their blood, desecrate and devour their lifeless corpses. anything less is clearly liberalism run amok."

Pretty much. In case you didn't know, the US military did waste Japs swimming in some big war decades ago...But as for eating Africans, no thanks, I don't like dark meat. Too much of a chance with AIDS if you've got black blood around too.

"Now, whether the the Israelis are coddling the palestinians or not is hardly of interest to me. I'm concerned with the role the jews play vis-a-vi western nations. But thanks for your cogent analysis."

You ought to take a look and see what Jews do to themselves. Too complex I guess...

July 27, 2010 at 9:01 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

"But as for eating Africans, no thanks"

liberal pussy.

what, for example, do the j's do to themselves? ban menorahs in telaviv? that would be something comparable to what they do in america.

July 27, 2010 at 9:14 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Oh Jesus fuck, really?

Apart from "joo joo joo" what point to you dipshits have?

MM's point here is one he's had for a while--the reality or unreality of race is going to stir up a bunch of shit in the very near future--especially as more revelations like 450 extra points on the SAT are brought to light.

July 27, 2010 at 9:48 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

GM, why are you constitutionally incapable of discussing the Jewish question without going into paroxysms of idiocy. That's what I'd like to know. The subject hasn't brought up for months, as far as I can remember. Whenever it is you spazz out, as if you can't handle it. You'd rather making utterly uninteresting comments on a steady, predictable drip. You enjoy your own utter boringness, it seems.

Besides, it's the one and only issue on which MM becomes a liberal and loses all pretension of honest analysis, which makes it an interesting subject to discuss on his blog.

July 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Because 1:

It attracts inane boot-stompers.

2:

What's the point of it? There's no secret cabal of Jews running around.

The "Jewish Question" as you term it has two simple answers. I leave it up to your comfort with faith to decide which one you prefer.

One--until Christ came the Jews were God's chosen people--and as such were protected. While such protection has been extended to all humanity (rending of the veil, discussion in Ephesians, etc) the previous four thousand years of favoritism were pretty hard to rub out--ergo Jews got the goods.

Two--for at least four thousand years now Jews have not only been reading and writing but have been valuing the ability (in men) to read, write, and debate to an unparalleled degree--surpassing even the educational and rhetorical expectations of aristocratic Athenians and Romans. Ergo, Jews have bred for one or two hundred generations (depending on how you count them) for intelligence. That sort of obsession with improvement is both hard to eliminate and an excellent explanation for why Jewish folk gots all the smart jobs.

Any other dithering is either veiled anti-semitism, sour grapes, or both.

July 27, 2010 at 11:39 PM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

jkr, the "Jew Question" last came up here when you brought it up in early May. So, 3 months ago.

Be that as it may, what us pro-Semites don't understand about people like you is why you don't use Occam's razor. You are not ignorant of the facts of HBD: Jews have a much higher average verbal IQ than whites do. One standard deviation higher; that is huge. Thus we would expect to see them "overrepresented" in elite occupations that involve verbal dexterity. We do. And Jews (as measured by genes, not religion) are reasonably numerous, perhaps 7% of the white population. This, and their IQ, is plenty enough IMO to get them the representation levels we see in so many cognitively demanding fields.

As for their social and political destructiveness, the question is what is the source of it? That they are Jews, or that they are progressives? Here at UR, the official answer is the latter. I agree with MM on this:
Reform Judaism is pretty much Protestantism in all but name, as is of course "scientific" Marxist socialism.

Whereas the Brahmins had no reason at all to adopt Jewish ways of thought. Nor do I see any way in which they did. The assimilation was entirely in the other direction. The daughters of the Mayflower did not learn Yiddish.

There is certainly no denying that the injection of smart Jews into the Brahmin caste made it all the more successful, which presumably has contributed to the incredible arrogance with which it bestrides the world today. But I simply do not see the Jewish asabiya, which is why I will continue to lay the whole trip on the [progressives].


My personal experience supports that. Living near DC as I have, I have known many Jews. (Reform, of course; I've never met a religious Jew in my life.) And although they are fanatical progressives, they are deeply unfanatical Jews.

For example I have been to a seder, where Miriam was featured as a feminist avant la lettre, and among the plagues that attendees were invited to mention, were war, pollution, depletion of water. These people are Jewish only slightly more than I am Christian, which is to say, culturally only and not a lot of that. Meanwhile, their oldest child was, at the age of 15, already a member of an NGO panel "advising" the local government on "green issues", and organizing environmentalist agitation. Moreover, she somehow got to attending local "Young Friends" events (i.e. sub-adult Quakers), and loved it. These are, to steal MM's terminology, Protestant Jews. The ancient Christian dream of converting the Jews is accomplished! You just had to jettison all the theology to get them to join you.

It will be an uphill battle for you in any case, I admit, since I have no desire at all to hate on Jews. I was raised progressive, after all, or at least without any real religion (and thus got progressivism osmotically via my education and from our culture.) But that said: if you want to convince open-minded anti-progressives, who are at least willing to bandy a few paragraphs about before mocking you with "joo! joo!", you'll have to find some significant ideological tenet of modern progressivism where Jewish ideas, and not Christian ideas, have come to dominate. That is, some aspect of progressivism not descended from Christianity. I can't think of any such.

As things are, I read your posts with some amusement using the simple replacement of "progressive" for "jew", and I find I mostly agree given that substitution. This suggests that we are not that far apart, it is just that where I see an ethnically diverse group with many Protestant-Jewish leaders, you see a conspiracy of Jews puppeting the others.

July 28, 2010 at 7:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

G.M.
1) As far as using this "chosen people" and protected by God stuff to explain why Jews have a lot of money, it doesn't work as a serious argument because after they killed Christ, they became the accursed people, the Synagogue of Satan, as you will and are no longer favored. That would "rub out" any favoritism that they were shown by God in previous times.

2) I never met the people who run the world, have you? What if there is a secret cabal of Jews running the world? Would it be "antisemitic" to point this out?

July 28, 2010 at 7:53 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Anon:

As to the first case, you are entirely incorrect.

For proof see Ephesians 2:11-18.

Certainly the opinion you parrot is one expressed by the Church but when has the Church ever understood Christianity?

As to the second: I know the people who know the people--and as MM says they are operating blind--it's just that one ideology links up better than the other.

Were the cabal crap true it wouldn't be antisemitic--but since it's not it's antisemitic to keep prattling on about it.

July 28, 2010 at 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

America's bright young people get squat for being Asian, 150 SAT points for being white, 300 for being "Hispanic", and 450 for being black. That's, um, a lot.

So, boys and girls, why do whites get a 150 SAT point handicap?

The 150 SAT point handicap for whites reflects the way admissions officers manage to get legacy and celebrity offspring into the Ivy Leagues. Obviously an overwhelming major of legacy applicants are white.

White privilege vis-a-vis Asians? In a way, yes. However, it is not a privilege extended to whites generally but, rather, is narrowly confined to the ruling class. The privilege is not extended to white peasants.

July 28, 2010 at 9:10 AM  
Blogger DR said...

Also if there is a giant jewish conspiracy please explain two things. First why the least assimilated jews (Orthodox) are the most conservative and the most assimilated (those that never go to temple) are the most liberal.

Second I'm going to assume that you follow Kevin MacDonald's narrative and think that the leftism of judaism if a group evolutionary strategy. Let's forget for a second that most evolutionists post-1970 reject group evolutionary strategy. Let's say that group evolution is a valid means of evolution. One thing is clear that if a group is going to pursue a group evolutionary strategy the punishment for defectors must be very high.

If it's cheap for jews to defect from the leftist line (i.e. there's not much personal cost) then this leftist Jewish strategy will fall apart. That's because individuals are going to spend their personal resources (money, time, missed opportunities) on a group good, instead they'll free ride.

Therefore if MacDonald's narrative holds then we should expect conservative Jews to be few, isolated and highly ostracized by other Jews. Instead a very sizable proportion of Jews are ultra-conservative/libertarian. Just go talk to a cross-section of investment bankers. Or count up the number of prominent Libertarians that were Jewish (Rand, Rothbard, von Mises, Nozick, and Friedman).

Nor are they isolated. Go visits the wealthy suburbs of New Jersey or Long Island. You will find that over 75% of Jewish families there voted for McCain and probably over 50% accept HBD (I doubt the number's that high anywhere else outside of the deep South).

Nor are they ostracized. Certainly not in corporate america or finance where there are thousands of very conservative Jewish hedge fund managers, executed and investment bankers. Certainly not in small business. Even in academia and the media it doesn't seem like conservative Jews are any more discriminated against than gentile Jews. Just compare the careers of Milton Friedman against FA Hayek.


Therefore MacDonald's narrative reduces, not increases explanatory power over the much simpler Occamian explanation: Jews have very high IQs, being a left-wing activist/academic/figure has been a lucrative path to success for the intelligent in the 20th century, ergo we see a lot of Jews in left-wing movements. QED.

July 28, 2010 at 9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WRT to the 450 SAT point handicap for blacks: Are you trying to shut down the athletic programs at American universities?

Education is not the exclusive purpose of American universities; it is arguably not even the primary purpose.

Education here means acquisition of knowledge, development of the powers of reasoning and judgment, and preparation of oneself intellectually for mature life; i.e. the layman's understanding of education.

The ruling class understands that education means indoctrination in political correctness, which requires the impartation of false knowledge and retardation of of the powers of reasoning and judgment. For those not destined for the ruling class, education in this context also means infantilization of students with respect to the State and other authority (aka "socialization"). Pretty much the exact opposite of what most folks think of when they hear the word "education".

Among the purposes of the American university, in no particular order:

1) Education
2) Indoctrination into a politically correct attitude and world view
3) "Hard" research to advance the frontiers of knowledge
4) "Soft" research to influence coercive public policy
5) Athletics
6) Building monuments to donors

SAT scores are directly relevant to #1.

July 28, 2010 at 9:54 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Leonard,

Have you read the Culture of Critique?

It seems like most of those who don't understand MacDonald's work simply haven't read it.

I'm not sure how you define "Progressivism," and I've never thought of things in those terms. Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, wasn't he? I don't know where this terminology has been injected into the present discourse; Glenn Beck?

You have to somehow fit into your theory of Progressivism the parallel experience of Europe in battling a particularly viscious Culture of Critique of its own... in Weimar Germany, nearly all the embryonic forms of moderm American cultural marxism were being developed and applied to German culture and institutions. Eastern Europe was being subjugated by its own viscious "progressives" who I don't think were Protestants. Maybe because I have a much less purely American historical focus, I don't fall into the trap of extrapolating early American forms of egalitarianism to modern day leftist/PC/cultural marxism. Our cultural marxists immigrated to America in the wake of the Nazi rise to power and purging German institutions of them...
I don't know how the European experience dealing with Bolshevism and Marxism fit into the Yankee Progressivism theory. Nor do I see how the domination of media and popular culture by Jews with a clearly destructive agenda can be explained by the protestant Progressive theory. Nor do I see how the standard media and popular culture narrative of Israel vs Arabs is consistent with a genuine progressivism, nor traditional US policy toward Israel. The popular narrative has always been highly pro-Israel and harshly anti-Arab, which doesn't seem to be the Progressive position. Are these Jews progressives or ethno-nationalists? Or are they both -- strongly pro-Jewish and equally strongly anti-European/Christian/American, just like they've been for centuries - highly ethnocentric, highly hostile to and critical of their neighbors? Their hostility to traditional European and American culture is no less virulent than their new-found hatred of their old friends the Islamic world, since 1948. Now the Muslims are dirt, when for centuries they escaped persecution from the West in the Muslim empires. I think as much as they despise Muslims today, they have a deeper hatred for traditional Europe and traditional European America.

July 28, 2010 at 10:27 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Israel Shahak is a genuine Jewish progressive, and is therefore highly critical of Judaism and Israel. Chomsky might qualify as well. This is the rare exception. The vast bulk of Jews on the left have never been critical of Judaism; they've been hostile to the Christian West, to traditional European and American culture. If all the Jews in power in America were Shahaks, Israel would have gone the way of South Africa. Obviously this is not the case. Instead, WASP, Catholic and European history/culture and been subjected to ruthless critique and denigration; mass immigration from outside Europe has been promoted and enforced despite popular opposition, and any opposition to this agenda is declared hate speech by the Jewish lobby, which guards Israel's racialism with its other hand.

Info on Shahak: http://radioislam.org/historia/shahak/english.htm

July 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM  
Anonymous Mel Gibson and Hugo Chavez said...

I dunno if this was MM's best or worst post (I think it's "worst" only to people who didn't get it, the way newt, Michael, and Palmer did), but the comments always degenerate into the same crap.

Ahh, the insidious Joo. Interestingly, Oliver Stone and jkr are in complete agreement though with completely different perspectives on how the insidious jews are manipulating things. Not completely different: they agree on Israel. Completely.

On everything else, though they agree that the insidious Jew is manipulating everything, they completely disagree upon how. Stone thinks they're preventing the advance of progressive socialism &tc, while jkr and the like think they're creating it.

They can't both be right, or can they? A conspiracy so vast it works towards opposite ends...devilish. Truly diabolical!

July 28, 2010 at 11:02 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Hi Mel, glad to see you could take some time out of your busy schedule.

However, Oliver Stone's comments only mentioned Israel, US foreign policy, Jewish media prominence, and the distorted historical narrative created by the tremendous focus on the Holocaust to the exclusion of all other human tragedies in the 20th century. None of these things is really contestable, by anyone sane. Nothing he said indicated he believed there was a conspiracy by Jews against the advance of his progressive worldview. Carefully remove you head from you ass, and you would see that the O. Stone story is unremarkable in every way, and merely highlights the amount of attention that will be focused around anyone who's comments regarding Jews aren't worshipful and submissive. That's to be expected. As Sobran put it, “You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”

July 28, 2010 at 11:12 AM  
Blogger DR said...

@jkr,

You are wrong about liberal jews unanimously supporting Israel.

"If you want numbers, various polls document the disenchantment. Shmuel Rosner, an astute Israeli journalist who blogs for the Jerusalem Post and writes for Slate pays a lot of attention to the partisan gap in support for Israel. It has jumped dramatically of late, with 80 percent of Republicans expressing favorable view of Israel, according to Gallup, as compared with only 53 percent of Democrats. One recent study found that only 54 percent of Jews under 35 who aren't Orthodox are "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state" (as compared to more than 80 percent of those over 65). Among younger Jews, only 20 percent rated as "highly attached" to Israel in another poll. If you want examples of the shift in sentiment, read just about any Jewish columnist for a major newspaper. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times spent last week arguing that Biden under-reacted to Israel's announcement about the new housing units in East Jerusalem, comparing Israel's policies to drunken driving. Richard Cohen of the Washington Post is writing a book arguing that the founding of Israel was a well-intentioned mistake."

http://www.slate.com/id/2248416

It's conservative Jews, both religious/Orthodox jews as well as non-religious Republican Jews that are the strongest supporters of Israel. The type that work at the New York Times or are leftist academia are generally very anti-Israel (Chomsky is typical not the exception). I think it's clear that you have not met many Jewish people, and that you hold a lot of misperceptions.

By far evangelical Christians and Mormons are the strongest supporters of Israel in this country. America's support for Israel has nothing to do with an insidious "Jewish lobby" but rather the fact that 40% of Americans believe that Jesus will return to Earth in the next 50 years. In order for that to happen, the Bible says that the Jews must be back in their homeland. Literally at least 2 out of every 5 Americans believe that support for Israel is required for their spiritual salvation.

July 28, 2010 at 11:45 AM  
Anonymous Hawk said...

There is no Jewish "conspiracy," just as there is no black "conspiracy" to commit street crimes. In both cases you have genetic predispositions and tendencies for certain behaviors and activities. Rather than some top-down conspiracy, it's better to think of it as a kind of distributed genetic algorithm.

July 28, 2010 at 11:52 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

"@jkr,

You are wrong about liberal jews unanimously supporting Israel."

I never said it was unanimous. But the democratic party, as a proxy for the left in america, is unanimously pro-israel. Without jews, the democrats would have less than half their financing. As far as actual concrete effects go, the effect of jewish influence on the left as well as the right is unanimous political support for israel. this doesn't mean every jewish schmuck has to be an active lobbyist, or that some jews in polite conversation, polls, surveys, or articles for liberal gentile consumption, make a show of having reservations toward some of israel's policies. however, if they were sincere in their progressivism, they'd have the same views as israel shahak. i think it's just posturing and some self-deception. the actual, concrete effects are apparent in the unanimous support israel recieves at actual political level, in both parties, and by all mainstream jewsih organizations.

quoting a slate article about recent opinion surveys is not going to refute a decades-old historical reality. maybe it will change in the future. i doubt it.

if the average christian zionist dolt is enamored with israel, it's because he's a consumer of american popular culture, news, entertainment, and is therefore ready to swallow whatever politically motivated garbage his crooked pastor serves up. it's more than just theology at work. suddenly all these christian denominations are also apostles of equality and third world immigration. it's just going with the times...

July 28, 2010 at 12:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By far evangelical Christians and Mormons are the strongest supporters of Israel in this country. America's support for Israel has nothing to do with an insidious "Jewish lobby" but rather the fact that 40% of Americans believe that Jesus will return to Earth in the next 50 years. In order for that to happen, the Bible says that the Jews must be back in their homeland. Literally at least 2 out of every 5 Americans believe that support for Israel is required for their spiritual salvation.

So AIPAC, all the other major Jewish orgs, all the Jews in Congress, etc. are marching to the tune of backwoods MS rednecks and the like ?

July 28, 2010 at 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

jkr, I have not read "Culture of Critique". I am not sure why you think it is important here.

I am using "progressivism" here as Moldbug does, as the name for the faith of the left. I see you are rather new around here, and perhaps you might enjoy reading back into the Moldbug archives. Be aware that he has used multiple names for progressivism and only settled on that particular moniker after trying and discarding "progressive idealism", "ultracalvinism", "cryptocalvinism", and "universalism". But all of these are the same thing, the belief system that has evolved out of Christianity under the tremendous evolutionary pressure of democracy. Progressives are the people that Rush Limbaugh or Larry Auster would call "liberals". People who can sing "Kumbaya" unironically. Culturally, whiterpeople. Politically, Democrats and points left. Economically, the white people manning the Cathedral: the permanent civil service, the public sector generally, the press, NGOs, education, etc.

The progressive movement in America is very old, arguably starting in 1620. The City on a Hill is long building. Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was part of it, in its early 20th century phase. That was when it was still flagrantly Protestant, and also, Republican. But it has evolved a lot since then!

The orthodox Moldbug interpretation of European and world progressivism is that it came from the Anglosphere. I think that is basically correct. You may read Moldbug's thought about it in his posts Vampire of the World part 1 and part 2. Or, in one of his comments on another post discussing progressivism:
Are we really to believe that Marx, on his own, invented the idea that all men are brothers, despite living in a society dominated by a religion whose creed taught exactly that?
Just so. Yes, the Bosheviks were Protestants, or at least the intellectual descendants of Protestants.

July 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Yes, Leonard, I've been reading Moldbug for like 2 years. I know what he believes. He's just incorrect. CofC is basic territory to cover before pronouncing judgment on 20th century intellectual movements. I like Moldbug, he has a lot of valuable things to say. He's just wrong about the genesis of modern leftism.

July 28, 2010 at 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Mel Gibson and Hugo Chavez said...

jkr: "Carefully remove you head from you ass"

Ah, the resort to the gutter ad hominem, the sure sign that you has lost the argument on the merits, however much smoke you may pop to the contrary.

Weak, really really weak counter-argument. Thus the need to behave in such a gutter way.

July 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Fascinating article bearing on the current discussion...

Glenn Beck, the Weather Underground, and SDS

http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2010/07/glenn-beck-weather-underground-and-sds.html

The following excerpts are taken from Mark Rudd's Why were there so many Jews in SDS? (or, The Ordeal of Civility).

The author Paul Berman, himself a Jewish veteran of Columbia SDS, in his excellent book, “A Tale of Two Utopias,” gives the following data from reliable sources: two-thirds of the white Freedom Riders who traveled to Mississippi were Jewish; a majority of the steering committee of the 1964 Berkeley Free Speech Movement were Jewish; the SDS chapters at Columbia and the University of Michigan were more than half Jewish; at Kent State in Ohio, where only 5 percent of the student body was Jewish, Jews constituted 19 percent of the chapter. I might add a strange statistic which I became aware of in the course of two trips to Kent State to commemorate the events of May, 1970: three of the four students shot by the National Guard at Kent State were Jewish. This, of course, defies all odds.

Indeed. The "tiny minority" excuse doesn't fly when that minority is vastly overrepresented where it matters.

I invoke [writer Philip] Roth to let you in on the insularity of the world I grew up in. My family carried the Jewish ghettos of Newark and Elizabeth with them to the suburbs. We may have lived in integrated neighborhoods, that is integrated with goyim (there were only a few blacks in the town) and we may have gone to integrated schools, (of course there were no blacks in my elementary school) but we were far from assimilated, if that means replacing a Jewish identity with an American one. At about the age of nine or ten I remember eating lunch at the house of a non-Jewish friend and reporting back that the hamburgers had onion and parsley in them. “Oh, that’s goyish hamburger,” my mother said. I lived a Philip Roth existence in which the distinction between Jews and gentiles was present in all things: having dogs and cats was goyish, for example, as was a church-sponsored hay-ride which I was invited to by the cute red-haired girl who sat in front of me in my seventh grade home-room. My parents didn’t allow me to go, and, since repression breeds resistance, that was probably a signal event in my career of fascination with shiksas and things goyish, a career which paralleled that of young Alexander Portnoy in “Portnoy’s Complaint.”

Steve Sailer sheds some light on Roth's significance to jews:

In other words, in the classic example of Jewish guilt, Portnoy's Complaint, Jewish guilt is the opposite of white guilt: Portnoy's feelings of Jewish guilt stem not from his ancestors being too ethnocentric (as in "white guilt") but from himself not being ethnocentric enough to please his ancestors. His parents make him feel guilty because he's individualistically ignoring his racial duty to settle down and propagate the Jewish race.

Back to Rudd:

As a teenager, Congregation Beth El seemed to me just another aspect of the suburban scene: materialist and hypocritical. This was the time of the civil rights movement, but the lily-white suburbs existed in order to escape the “schvartzes.” Jews in my parents’ and grandparents’ milieu used this derogatory term in exactly the same way southerners used “nigger.” “The schvartze is coming to clean the house.” “The schvartzes robbed my hardware store in Newark.” “I had to sell the apartments on Clinton Avenue because schvartzes moved next door.” There was no phony liberalism about the race war in Newark and Maplewood, at least not that I could see.

July 28, 2010 at 8:58 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

cont.

Rudd:
I got to Columbia University as a freshman, age 18, in September, 1965, a few months after the United States attacked Vietnam with main force troops. There I found a small but vibrant anti-war movement. In my first semester I was recruited by David Gilbert, a senior who had written a pamphlet on imperialism for national SDS, Students for a Democratic Society. David was one of the founders of the Columbia SDS chapter, along with John Fuerst, the chapter Chairman. Both were Jewish, of course, as were my mentors and friends, Michael Josefowicz, Harvey Blume, Michael Neumann, and John Jacobs. Ted Kaptchuk and Ted Gold were Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Columbia SDS the year before I was elected Chairman, along with my Vice-Chairman, Nick Freudenberg. All of us were Jewish. It’s hard to remember the names of non-Jewish Columbia SDS’ers; it was as much a Jewish fraternity as Sammie. There were probably a greater proportion of gentile women than guys in SDS, and of course I got to know them.

Here "gentile women" means useful idiot revolutionary shiksas.

Identifying with the oppressed seemed to me at Columbia and since a natural Jewish value, though one we never spoke of as being Jewish.

Stay home and identify with the oppressed schvartzes in Newark? LOL!

But World War II and the holocaust were our fixed reference points. This was only twenty years after the end of the war. We often talked about the moral imperative to not be Good Germans. Many of my older comrades had mobilized for the civil rights movement; we were all anti-racists. We saw American racism as akin to German racism toward the Jews. As we learned more about the war, we discovered that killing Vietnamese en masse was of no moral consequence to American war planners. So we started describing the war as racist genocide, reflecting the genocide of the holocaust. American imperialist goals around the world were to us little different from the Nazi goal of global conquest. If you really didn’t like somebody—and we loathed President Lyndon B. Johnson—you might call him a fascist.

I'm sure it's "fascist" to note that this rationale, which starts from the premise, "what's good for jews?", is the driving force behind genocidal immigration and "people of color" supremacism. The Tea Party should disband and Arizona should surrender because anything else is a violation of the jewish moral imperative to "not be Good Germans".

Certainly I reveled in my role of head barbarian within the gates.

A shameless crypto-warrior for his race.

More than twenty years ago I read a book called, “The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish Struggle With Modernity.” The author, an Irish-American sociologist named John Murray Cuddihy, advances a fascinating theory on the origins of Marxism and Freudianism. Jews were newly emancipated, that is, given legal and political rights, in Western Europe in the mid to late nineteenth century. But even bourgeois Jews were still excluded from civil society by customs and especially by manners. As Jewish (or formerly Jewish) outsiders ostensibly allowed in, but not really, Marx and Freud brought critical eyes to European bourgeois society. Marx said, in effect, “You think you’ve got yourself a fine little democracy here, well let me tell you about the class exploitation and misery that’s underlying it.” Similarly, Freud exposed the seamy, sexuality-driven motives, the up-raised penises controlling the unconscious minds of civilized, well-mannered bourgeois society.

We Jews at Columbia—and I would guess at colleges throughout the country—brought the same outsider view to the campuses we had been allowed into.

July 28, 2010 at 9:02 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

cont.

Rudd:
Only a few of us came to Columbia from red-diaper backgrounds, children of communists. We were good Jewish kids, the cream of the crop, who had accepted the myths of America—democracy, opportunity for all, good intentions toward the world—and of the university—free and open inquiry toward the truth. We were betrayed by our country and the university when we learned, in a relative instant, that the reality wasn’t even close to these myths. We third generation American Jews suddenly woke up and realized this country may have been a blessing for us, but not for so many others who couldn’t pass for white.

...

Dr. Israel Shahak, recently deceased, was a Hebrew University Chemistry Professor, President of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights, and a holocaust survivor. For many years he occupied a place in Israeli politics roughly the same as Noam Chomsky in this country. In a book entitled, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” he argues that as a reaction to being the victims of racism throughout the centuries, we developed a religion which itself enshrined racism toward the other. This is especially true of the rabbinical commentaries developed in Eastern Europe over the almost one thousand years in which we occupied a middle position between the landlords, whom we served, and the peasants who despised us and whom we in turn despised. How could it have been otherwise? In my family, if you wanted to say somebody was stupid you said they had a “goyishe kup,” a goyish head.

I am so obviously Jewish that no matter how much carne adovada or fry bread I eat, I’m instantly recognizable as a Jew. I proudly acknowledge the drive for education in Jewish culture which made me want to read about the world and to understand it and to become a teacher. I also recognize that in my social activism I am one of thousands working in the grand tradition of Jewish leftists, the Trotskys and the Emma Goldmans and the Goodmans and Schwerners of the twentieth century. I honor this lineage. As Jews our advantage in the past, though, was that we were outsiders critically looking in; today Jews sit at the right hand of the goy in the White House advising him whom to bomb next in order to advance the Empire.

To be outsiders in a nation or an empire is not such a terrible thing. Keeping critical and alert has allowed the Jewish people to survive all sorts of imperial disasters over the millennia—the Greeks, the Romans, Islam in Spain (which went from Golden Age to Inquisition in a few centuries), the Crusades, Reformation Europe, the Russian Czars, Nazism. This particular empire is neither the first nor the last to attempt to seduce us to join up. But we’d better not: it’s our job to be critical outsiders, both for our own survival and for that of the planet.
...

I am heartbroken over the moral and spiritual costs of the Jewish State to the Jewish People. I challenge anyone who thinks of me as a traitor to my people or a self-hating Jew, both of which I’ve been called, to visit Palestinians in the West Bank or East Jerusalem for as little as one-half day. Every Jew needs to see the misery and humiliation which our Jewish nationalism and racism have wrought. These are not Jewish values, or at least my Jewish values.

Nor does the Jewish state guarantee Jewish safety and survival. My father was a military man and as such was always pessimistic about the long-term survival of Israel. He easily perceived Israel’s strategic weaknesses in both geography and demographics. The only way Israel has survived so far has been to ally with the sole remaining imperial power in the world. But all empires fall, as Jewish history so clearly tells us. Maybe they should have allied with China....

July 28, 2010 at 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But as for eating Africans, no thanks"

liberal pussy.
----
Eat all the spoiled meat you want. But don't say I didn't tell ya! Had me some "asian dishes" though. You guessed it, I was hungry not too much later...Next time I see you at the range, I'll show you the Mozambique Pattern. A Yid taught me that.

July 28, 2010 at 10:01 PM  
Anonymous Himmler said...

It's interesting how the comments began well but then turned to shit after jkr hijacked it.

Hey, j, those AIPAC rumors about you, Richard Spencer, and Kevin MacDonald going on junkets in Thailand to face paint 14 year old boys aren't true, are they? I don't think so 'cause Abe Foxman sez his niggers, Mac and Spencer, prefer blonds.

July 28, 2010 at 11:47 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

Can we get back to discussing Affirmative Reaction?

July 29, 2010 at 4:11 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"the democratic party, as a proxy for the left in america, is unanimously pro-israel."

Are you sure about this? Matt Yglesias commenters are pretty much in agreement that Israel is a fascist regime.

July 29, 2010 at 6:11 AM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

jkr, you say that "CofC is basic territory to cover before pronouncing judgment on 20th century intellectual movements." Sorry, have not read it and have no intention to. I suppose this is your way to tell me that you have no intention of taking my views seriously. Very well. Nonetheless, I have read the wiki page on CoC. Based on that, there's nothing in CoC that contradicts the Moldbuggian view: progressives assimilated the Jews without being significantly affected by the ideological content of Judaism.

If CoC does in fact contradict that thesis, then there must be something it says in opposition to it. Not just that Jews were outsiders given to criticism. That Judaism influenced progressivism in some significant way. That you cannot seem to give any such evidence, to me, reveals the weakness of your position. You've figured out that most Jews are progressives. Good for you! You have not shown any way in which Jews had any impact on progressivism.

As for your long quotes from Tanstaaf's blog: really that's excessive. Just give the link (like this) and people can read it. If you feel it is absolutely necessary to duplicate his post here, just give us the bits you think are most interesting. Use italics to set off quotes, and attribute them clearly. As it is, you have mashed together the words of many different people.

If I may point out a few things: Rudd's recollections are those of a man who lived in New York City. It was, and still is, the heart of American Judaism. What percentage of that city's population in 1960 were Jews? I don't know, but even today 12% of the city is religiously Jewish, which suggests that perhaps 20% now are racially Jewish. And I'd bet that percentage was considerably higher in 1960. A city that is, say, 30% Ashkenzim-descended should expect very high Jewish representation in anything that is IQ-gated, as for example, being at Columbia is. Evidently, SDS membership was also IQ-gated.

Next, Rudd in several places clearly states that Judaism is racist. He rails against the anti-black racism of his upbringing. And "we developed a religion which itself enshrined racism toward the other." Yet he is against racism. Where did such a value come from? Not from Judaism.

Let me also point out another spot where Rudd's tale contradicts the idea that he is programmed as a ethnocentric kill-bot. He clearly identifies with the Palestinians over Israelis. And he says, of Israelis oppressing Palestinians, "These are not Jewish values, or at least my Jewish values." So he has an inkling, at least, that his values are not Jewish values. What are they? Christian values, is what.

In short, Rudd is pwned, just as Dawkins is. He may think he is pushing Judaism, and he is -- Protestant Judaism. (Dawkins is pushing Protestant Atheism.) Rudd does not represent the perfidy of the Jew, or at least not the Jewish Jew.

July 29, 2010 at 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you know that race as a formal, legal identity is already practiced in Singapore? It is printed on the front of each and every so-called National Registration Identity Card.

The ironic thing is, some minority groups want to do away with this, even though the system was explicitly implemented for their benefit! Wonders never cease.

Moldbug, please write your next post on Singapore. It must surely be your most favorite place in the world.

July 29, 2010 at 10:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Omg! in singapore race is printed right on people's identity cards! omg! that's the solution to all our problems! omg! mencius please comment on this faschinating factoid. omg! why didn't we think of this during the 1960s when cities were burning or being destroyed by court dictated integration! all we had to do was issue race name tags to everyone...

July 29, 2010 at 5:34 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

"Are you sure about this? Matt Yglesias commenters are pretty much in agreement that Israel is a fascist regime."

And surely the commenters at Gayfuck's blog are a representative sample of a) voters, b) opinion-makers, c) money-men and power-brokers in the lefto-sphere. Oh wait, they're just jerkoffs commenting on a jerkoff blog. Nevamind.

July 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM  
Anonymous Professor said...

a) If political correctness is an impenetrable forcefield, which it is...

b) and, If said PC forcefield is upheld by the echo chamber and black-out machine of the mass media

c) upheld by violent sanctions against offenders of said PC forcefield

d) involving personal, financial, career, and potential legal consequences

e) then, therefore, it is not possible to strip current race-preferences -- AA -- of its aura of mythic virtue of goodness, and reduce it to a formal economic contract. to attempt to do so would render one outside of the PC forcefield and on the fringe of ideological rectitude. and thus beyond the pale of ideological settlement, where bureaucratic structures spring up and surround themselves with self-interested propagaters of said ideology.

I have not here defined what is meant by PC forcefield, assuming we all have a close enough idea of what is meant.

Therefore, any musings about formalism and race-privilege exchange, are, as above designated, time-wasting intellectual masturbation and flying blobs of infertile jism in a barren uterus.

July 29, 2010 at 6:00 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

"And surely the commenters at Gayfuck's blog are a representative sample"

They're certainly representative of something. Don't be obtuse.

July 29, 2010 at 6:48 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Leonard,

"you say that "CofC is basic territory to cover before pronouncing judgment on 20th century intellectual movements." Sorry, have not read it and have no intention to."

You need not apologize to me. I am not injured by your decision to remain ignorant of MacDonald's work. What your motivation is to do so, I do not know. The book is freely available to read, and can be read in a matter of hours. I myself have never claimed to know the value or non-value of an academic work without reading the work first.

"there's nothing in CoC that contradicts the Moldbuggian view: progressives assimilated the Jews without being significantly affected by the ideological content of Judaism."

Congratulations on reading the wiki page. That must have been tiring. Wiki pages are never inaccurate, biased, or inadequate representations of the source material. All wiki contributors are certified to be unbiased Brahmin judges of all possible theories and forms of logical exposition.

However, I would simply object to the claim that CofC is consistent with the view expounded by Moldbug and his devotees, that the individuals who created and propagated the central tenets and movements of modern leftism were without Jewish identity and were merely assimilated into the culture of Protestants, leaving behind their Jewish identity and any motives traceable to their Jewishness. This is emphatically not supported by CofC, or, more importantly, the sources and data upon which CofC relies.

"That you cannot seem to give any such evidence, to me, reveals the weakness of your position."

That's why you read the referenced work. You haven't. Nor have you referenced any works for me to read, only citing the infallible Moldbug. Alas, I have read Moldbug; Moldbug too has failed to read MacDonald; Moldbug is wrong.

"Next, Rudd in several places clearly states that Judaism is racist."

Quite clearly. Can you point to the extensive Protestant criticisms of Judaism for its racism? Can you point to the extensive criticism of Judaism by the very prominent progressives of Jewish background? Can you point to the prevalent American attitude toward Judaism, in which Judaism is considered a racist ethnocentric blood-cult? These phenomenon should all be present in a Protestant-progressive movement largely dominated by apostate Jews who have abandoned their Jewish identity and adopted a Christian one. Alas, such is not the case, outside of outcasts like Shahak, considered as low as neo-nazis by mainstream Jewish opinion. (The same mainstream Jewish opinion that is excessively leftist and highly critical of western/christian society.)

"He rails against the anti-black racism of his upbringing."

I wouldn't say "rails;" more like reminisces wistfully, and breezes by. He also clearly points out that his attitudes of anti-racism stem from Jewish consciousness of their minority status in Nazi Germany. He doesn't allude to his strong assimilation and acculturation into a Protestant milieu; rather just the opposite. You must have deliberately avoided absorbing Rudd's message of intense Jewish ethnic identity > leftist political views and activism in America > leading to feelings of slight misgiving toward Israel's racism and brutality.

"He clearly identifies with the Palestinians over Israelis."

Hardly. As a strongly identified Jew, he strongly identifies with other Jews. He merely expresses disappointment and confusion over Israel's reversion to blood-and-soil ethnocentrism the moment they are removed from a Goyische Majority setting, where they suddenly cease to be leftists.

I guess all the Protestant indoctrination they received as socialists in Polish ghettos failed to a) keep them from rushing to ethnostate Israel and b) wore off after a couple of generations outside a Goyische-majority setting.

July 29, 2010 at 6:48 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

cont.

Therefore, in your theory, the Israeli proclivity toward ethnocentrism and racial Judaism must be genetic, because there is no other explanation of the political climate in Israel. According to you, these were all progressive Protestants who created the state of Israel, as a bastion of Democracy and Progressivism. After all, prior to arriving in Israel, these Jews from Europe and America were all far to the left; they even persisted as laborites and socialists for a while yet in Israel; however, this did not in any way run counter to their high levels of Jewish identity and ethnocentrism...

July 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Appropos to the topic...

Is the Far Right Anti-Semitic?
A Symposium

By Paul Gottfried, Taki Theodoracopulos, & Srdja Trifkovic

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/is-the-traditionalist-right-anti-semitic/

July 29, 2010 at 6:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Omg! in singapore race is printed right on people's identity cards! omg! that's the solution to all our problems!

Yeah, without that, we'd never be able to tell the niggas, spics, and slopes apart from the regular folks. They'd be able to infiltrate our schools and neighborhoods, and nobody would know who they were!

July 30, 2010 at 1:58 AM  
Anonymous Truth(er) said...

I believe the readers here are missing a critical point about the relationship of Jews to Liberalism. It does not matter if real Jews are authentically Liberal or if only "Protestantised" Jews are Liberal. In either case, these are Jews.

Furthermore, the anti-Left movement is on a collision course with anti-Semitism simply because Jews will eventually identify all anti-leftism as anti-semitism when the power of the Left sufficiently weakens.

in other words, Jews are Leftists and any anti-Leftist movement will eventually collide with Jews, no matter how scrupulously you want to avoid that.

July 30, 2010 at 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Truth(er) said...

Let me provide an example: I am an ardent anti-Leftist. In fact, I hate the Left and seek its destruction more than I love what I want to see protected, preserved and expanded.

If necessary, I see no problem with having the Left completely exterminated, something akin to what Augusto Pinochet did in Chile. This would inevitably start from the very top and move down as necessary.

Taken to its logical conclusion, physical elimination of the Left would wipe out nearly 80% of the American Jewish population...a new Holocaust by any measure no matter if intentional or not.

Even a partial measured approach would have the affect of disproportionately affecting Jews.
No matter where you start, you end up in the same place.

July 30, 2010 at 2:05 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Truth(er),

You may want to re-learn the art of counting. There's no chance that 80% of any population could be politically active or politically dangerous. Even among the most educated, intellectual, and politically conscious groups, it's never more than 5-15% who drive the whole. The jews are unfortunately victims and hostages of their political leadership, who corral and whip the jewish community into the political form that best serves and suits the elite leadership. They just have much better control of their group than any European/Christian ethnic group, for reasons to do with their character, aptitudes and history as a politically organized people.

July 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> you'll have to find some significant ideological tenet of modern progressivism where Jewish ideas, and not Christian ideas, have come to dominate. That is, some aspect of progressivism not descended from Christianity.

Genetic fallacy.

August 3, 2010 at 10:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberalism is a religion invented by secular Jews. If you read CoC, it is really striking how every theme in modern Liberalism was first articulated by Jewish intellectuals. The problem is that although Jews are good at inventing religions, they are not always good at controlling them once they have turned into mass movements--Marxism and Christianity itself being prime examples. This has already happened with Liberalism where gentile adherents outnumber Jewish ones by at least thirty to one. The Jewish insistence that Liberalism not be tainted by Christianity, however, seems to have been successful. The most devout believers have converted to Gaiaism or Buddhism; all the leaders of the mainline Protestants denominations are on record as saying that they no longer believe in Christianity; and the high priests of Liberalism are quick to disassociate themselves from anyone who actually believes in Christianity such as Catholics or Evangelicals.

It has not escaped notice that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict fits neatly into Liberal historical narrative--with the Israelis playing the role of the evil, racist oppressors and the Palestinians their innocent victims. This has already caused some soul searching among liberal Jews. Not to worry. Like all liberals, Jewish Liberals delight in soul searching. Being the verbally facile people they are, they will come up with some nuanced position that allows them to keep a foot in both camps. It is, of course, all meaningless. American policy toward Israel and American policy on all other social issues are financed by separate streams of money. They do not have to be internally consistent.

Meanwhile over at the paleo right, Patrick Buchanan is attacking Israel using all the emotional themes and and methods of Liberalism. I really do not understand what he is doing. He seems to have become so fixated on the Jews that he seeks to diminish their political power by any method available. Perhaps he thinks he can broaden the base for his brand of conservatism by appealing to the anti-war left. If so, he is delusional. Politics makes for strange bedfellows--but not that strange.

The only battle that needs to be won right now is the battle against race replacement by third-world immigration. If that battle is lost, America becomes a one-party state with an established religion. If it is won, I think the religion of Liberalism begins to die a natural death. It is a belief system so delusional that maintaining it as our official religion will only be possible through coercion.

August 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Liberalism is a religion invented by secular Jews. If you read CoC, it is really striking how every theme in modern Liberalism was first articulated by Jewish intellectuals. The problem is that although Jews are good at inventing religions, they are not always good at controlling them once they have turned into mass movements--Marxism and Christianity itself being prime examples. This has already happened with Liberalism where gentile adherents outnumber Jewish ones by at least thirty to one. The Jewish insistence that Liberalism not be tainted by Christianity, however, seems to have been successful. The most devout believers have converted to Gaiaism or Buddhism; all the leaders of the mainline Protestants denominations are on record as saying that they no longer believe in Christianity; and the high priests of Liberalism are quick to disassociate themselves from anyone who actually believes in Christianity such as Catholics or Evangelicals. (continued)

August 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has not escaped notice that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict fits neatly into Liberal historical narrative--with the Israelis playing the role of the evil, racist oppressors and the Palestinians their innocent victims. This has already caused some soul searching among liberal Jews. Not to worry. Like all liberals, Jewish Liberals delight in soul searching. Being the verbally facile people they are, they will come up with some nuanced position that allows them to keep a foot in both camps. It is, of course, all meaningless. American policy toward Israel and American policy on all other social issues are financed by separate streams of money. They do not have to be internally consistent.

Meanwhile over at the paleo right, Patrick Buchanan is attacking Israel using all the emotional themes and and methods of Liberalism. I really do not understand what he is doing. He seems to have become so fixated on the Jews that he seeks to diminish their political power by any method available. Perhaps he thinks he can broaden the base for his brand of conservatism by appealing to the anti-war left. If so, he is delusional. Politics makes for strange bedfellows--but not that strange.

The only battle that needs to be won right now is the battle against race replacement by third-world immigration. If that battle is lost, America becomes a one-party state with an established religion. If it is won, I think the religion of Liberalism begins to die a natural death. It is a belief system so delusional that maintaining it as our official religion will only be possible through coercion.

August 4, 2010 at 12:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about the double post. Comment control said it was too long, so I sent it again in two parts.

August 4, 2010 at 1:36 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

MM has demonstrated again and again that progressivism is an outgrowth of Protestant and specifically Calvinist Christianity and that its ideas have taken such root in the West that atheists, Catholics, and Reform Jews all tow the same Calvinist Progressive dream.

NB: a few idiots call this "new Gnosticism" because they're ignorant of history--it's Puritanical Calvinist Protestantism through and through. Cromwell must be smiling up from Hell.

August 4, 2010 at 9:39 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

Cromwell must be smiling up from Hell.

If Cromwell is in Hell, it's because of his illegal readmission of the Jews (perhaps the most monsterous act of treason committed by any Briton).

Cromwell’s betrayal of his own principles by acting as monarch when he overturned his parliament’s reaffirmation of Edward I’s expulsion, was perhaps history’s greatest betrayal of the British people.

There can be no forgiveness for this act of treachery.

Cromwell’s act of re-admitting the Jews enabled them to live as such in England (and not in crypto-Jewish, Marano guise as they had done in Spain) at a time when there was sufficient opposition to them on the part of the clergy and the mercantile classes to have prevented their residence if the government had been weak or ill-disposed towards them.

August 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

In Cromwell, like George W. Bush, we find a deranged messianistic/millenarian philo-semite. Having floated the ideas that wafted into Cromwell’s heads, the Jews sensed their opportunity:

http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzE.rtf

"At the very time when the Jews of Poland were trodden down, slaughtered, or driven through Europe like terrified wild beasts, a land of freedom was opened, from which the Jews had been banished for more than three centuries and a half....

The Jews of Amsterdam and Hamburg looked with longing to this island, to which they were so near, with whose merchants, shipowners, and scholars they were in connection, and which promised wide scope for the exercise of their varied abilities. But settlement there seemed beset with insuperable obstacles. The English episcopal church, which exercised sway over the English conscience, was even more intolerant than the popery which it persecuted....

To bury oneself in the history, prophecy, and poetry of the Old Testament, to revere them as divine inspiration, to live in them with every emotion, yet not to consider the people who had originated all this glory and greatness as preferred and chosen, was impossible. Among the Puritans, therefore, were many earnest admirers of "God’s people,” and Cromwell was one of them. It seemed a marvel that the people, or a remnant of the people, whom God had distinguished by great favor and stern discipline, should still exist. A desire was excited in the hearts of the Puritans to see this living wonder, the Jewish people, with their own eyes, to bring Jews to England, and, by making them part of the theocratic community about to be established, stamp it with the seal of completion. The sentiments of the Puritans towards the Jews were expressed in Oliver Cromwell’s observation, “Great is my sympathy with this poor people, whom God chose, and to whom He gave His law; it rejects Jesus, because it does not recognize him as the Messiah.” ... But other Puritans were so absorbed in the Old Testament that the New Testament was of no importance. Especially the visionaries in Cromwell’s army and among the members of Parliament, who were hoping for the Fifth Monarchy, or the reign of the saints, assigned to the Jewish people a glorious position in the expected millennium.

These proceedings in the British islands, which promised the exaltation of Israel at no distant period, were followed by Manasseh [ben Israel] with beating heart. Did these voices not announce the coming of the Messianic kingdom? He hoped so, and put forth feverish activity to help to bring about the desired time. He entertained a visionary train of thought. The Messiah could not appear till the punishment of Israel, to be scattered from one end of the earth to the other, had been fulfilled. There were no Jews then living in England. Exertions must be made to obtain permission for Jews to dwell in England, that this hindrance to the advent of the Messiah might be removed. Manasseh therefore put himself into communication with some important persons, who assured him that "the minds of men were favorable: to the Jews, and that they would be acceptable and welcome to Englishmen.” What especially justified his hopes was the “Apology” by Edward Nicholas, former secretary to Parliament, "for the honorable nation of the Jews.” In this work, which the author dedicated to the Long Parliament, the Jews were treated, as the chosen people of God, with a tenderness to which they were not accustomed. Hence the author felt it necessary to affirm at the end, that he wrote it, not at the instigation of Jews, but out-of love to God and his country....


continued

August 5, 2010 at 4:12 AM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

continuing

"Cromwell was decidedly inclined to the admission of the Jews. He may have had in view the probability that the extensive trade and capital of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, those professing Judaism openly as well as secretly, might be brought to England, which at that time could not yet compete with Holland. He was also animated by the great idea of the unconditional toleration of all religions...."

August 5, 2010 at 4:13 AM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

Graetz also noted that the deranged Cromwell’s views deviated sharply from those of the normal Briton:

http://www.saltshakers.com/lm/GraetzE.rtf

"The English episcopal church, which exercised sway over the English conscience, was even more intolerant than the popery which it persecuted, Not grantlng freedom to Catholics and Dissenters, would it tolerate the descendants of those aspersed in the New Testament? The English people, who for centuries had seen no Jew, shared to the full the antipathy of the clergy. To them every Jew was a Shylock, who, with hearty goodwill, would cut a Christian to pieces--a monster in human form, bearing the mark of Cain. Who would undertake to banish this strong prejudice in order to render people and rulers favorable to the descendants of Israel?"

August 5, 2010 at 4:15 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Seriously, jackass?

Joojoo!

August 5, 2010 at 7:54 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Having floated the ideas that wafted into Cromwell’s heads, the Jews sensed their opportunity:

How did the readmission of the Jews harm England? Didn't England build one of the greatest empires in history following Cromwell's readmission of the Jews?

Come on, racist dudes. Chill out and give the Jews a break.

August 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

Sawyer's selection is from History of the Jews, Volume 5, by Heinrich Graetz. It is interesting in that it shows that the policy of allowing Jews back into England was basically the progressive thing, for its day, motivated by the most radical left-wing progressive Christian notions of its time.

There was great excitement in London during the discussion on the admission of the Jews, and popular feeling was much divided. ... Cromwell's followers, and the Republicans in general, were for the admission; Royalists and Papists, therefore, who were secretly or openly his enemies, were opposed to the proposal.

This doesn't seem like support for the anti-Jew contingent here.

August 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

How did the readmission of the Jews harm England? Didn't England build one of the greatest empires in history following Cromwell's readmission of the Jews?

The real problem with imperialism, and the immediate way it attacks the people of the imperial country, is by putting the people of the country into competition with foreign labor—competition that ultimately returns to the homeland.

Guys like Disraeli, the Rothschilds, the slave-trading Marranos, etc. are all about collecting economic rent via lowered wages. They will do anything to avoid taxation of their economic rent and are insightful enough to use the threat of such taxation against the existing elite during their rise to rentiers in a newly invaded territory.

The British Empire was essentially a way to keep wages low despite the fact that the American West (and Canada, Australia and New Zealand) offered higher returns on self-employed labor than the rentiers could compete with—and this was forcing rentiers to turn to technologists to save them via the development and deployment of industrial technologies. The indigenous elite of the UK didn’t object to this so much—despite how much has been made of the conflict between the landed gentry and industrialists—but if there is one thing that the Semitic cultures like less than a dominant Yeoman class, as was emerging in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, it is handing over real power to technologists. If you don’t need large populations, who are you going to lord it over?

August 5, 2010 at 2:55 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

Disraeli’s “accomplishment” was to “solve” the rising value of labor, due to the great demand for labor in the New World, in a typically Jewy, neocon manner: Go imperial and acquire more labor. The countervailing force was typically British: Invent. It is hard to imagine what might have become of Great Britan if, rather than dissipating its energies in Africa and Asia, to ultimately import those populations to its native soil, it had focused all of its energies on technical innovation.

The problem is in the very nature of scientific knowledge. Science is defined by reproducibility. If it is reproducible outside the kin-group then, as W. D. Hamilton points out:

"Often, however, the cost in fitness of such altruism and sublimated pugnacity to the individuals concerned is by no means metaphorical, and the benefits to fitness, such as they are, go to a mass of individuals whose genetic correlation with the innovator must be slight indeed. Thus civilization probably slowly reduces its altruism of all kinds, including the kinds needed for cultural creativity (see also Eshel 1972)."

This used to be somewhat protected by differing languages, but of course one of the first attributes acquired by a mobile mercantile culture is facility in foreign language acquisition. About the only thing you can do is keep out the merchants and anthropologists and appear to all to be a primitive people wielding stone-age technologies—while, somehow, all who threaten to invade seem to drop like flies or seem just to do something else more “interesting”.

People like Disraeli who run around forcing billions of foreign people to speak your native tounge are perhaps the worst sort of enemy to a creative nation.

August 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

People like Disraeli who run around forcing billions of foreign people to speak your native tounge are perhaps the worst sort of enemy to a creative nation.

Before continuing our conversation I'd like to get something straight: You are saying that (A) the Jews created the British Empire and (B) the Jews created the British Empire in order to harm the British.

Have I got this right?

August 5, 2010 at 4:54 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

The British Empire was basically a post-Cromwell Jewish extended phenotype expressed in the body of the nation. It was a disease exploiting nationalism’s natural expression.

The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg
pgs. 22 - 25

“In Britain, Jews did not figure in the creation of the liberal state. However, Jewish politicians, publishers, and financiers helped to strengthen the liberal regime and expand its popular base between the Crimean War and the First World War. During the mid- and late nineteenth centuries, British Jews achieved considerable wealth, status, and political influence. The Rothschilds were one of the most important banking familiies in Britain. Other important Jewish financiers included the Sassoons, the Cassels, the de Hirsch family, and the Semons. By the First World War, though Jews constituted only 1% of the total population of Britain, 23% of Britain’s non-landed millionaires were of Jewish origin.”

“In the middle decades of the nineteenth century, Jews also came to be a major factor in British journalism. The Reuters News Agency, founded by Paul Julius Reuter (whose name was originally Israel Beer Josaphat) in 1848, was the chief purveyor of information on world events to the entire British press and, at times, the government as well. The Sassoons owned and edited the Sunday Times, Harry Marks founded the Financial Times, and Sir Alfred Mond controlled the English Review. Jews were especially important in the popular press. The Daily Telegraph, controlled by the Levy Lawson family, was London’s first penny newspaper and, in the 1870s, had a circulation of just under 200,000. The Telegraph appealed mainly to middle- and working-class audience and specialized in sensational coverage of both domestic and foreign events. Harry Oppenheim had a major interest in another mass circulation daily, the London Daily News. Sir Alfred Mond published the Westminster Gazette, a paper that provided its popular audience with dramatic coverage of the exploits of British military forces in the far-flung reaches of the empire.”

“During the same period of time, a number of Jews served as members of Parliament and rose to positions of considerable influence in the British government. Obviously, the most notable example is Benjamin Disraeli, a converted Jew who served twice as prime minister between 1868 and 1880, and along with William Gladstone was the dominant figure in British politics in the late nineteenth century. Other prominent Jewish politicians in the pre-World War I era include G. J. Goschen, who served as chancellor of the exchecquer from 1887 to 1892; Farrer Herschell, who was lord chancellor in 1886 and again in 1892-1895; Sir George Jessel, solicitor general from 1871 to 1873; Rufus Isaccs, who served as solicitor general in 1910, attorney general from 1910 to 1913, and lord chief justice in 1913; and Edwin Sameul Montague, who served as under-secretary of state for India.”

”These Jewish political and business elites helped to consolidate the liberal regime in Britain by reconciling conservative forces to democratic politics and by expanding the resources and popular base of the British state. The key figure in this process was Benjamin Disraeli.”

continued

August 5, 2010 at 5:58 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

uj ftw

August 5, 2010 at 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

continuing

The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg
pgs. 22 - 25

“In addition, Disraeli helped to fashion an imperialist program that, in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, bound together the aristocracy and the military and administrative establishments with segments of the financial community, the press, and the middle class in a coalition that would support his efforts to strengthen the British state. The Disraeli government’s policy of imperial expansion in India, the Middle East, and Africa yielded important political and economic benefits for the participants in this coaltion.”

”Jewish financiers and newspaper publishers were important participants in this coalition. In the late nineteenth century, more than one-fourth of all British capital was invested overseas. Long-established financial interests invested primarily in North America and Australia where property owners could rely upon the protection of local laws and authorities. New banking houses, a number of them Jewish, were more heavily invested in the Middle East, India, Asia, and Africa where local laws and authorities offered little security for foreign property. Here, British investors had to depend upon the protection of their own government and its military forces. This dependence gave Jewish financiers a stake in the creation of a strong national government able and willing to project its power throughout the world.”

”Jewish financial and business interests were important participants in the imperialist enterprise. For example, the Indian railroad network that the Sassoons helped to finance was closely integrated into the imperial administration, and Julius Reuter’s wire service functioned as the command and control mechanism of the colonial government. Upon occasion, the British government also turned to Jewish banking houses to finance imperial expansion. Disraeli’s purchase of the Suez Canal in 1878, for example, was made possible by Henry Oppenheim’s extensive contacts in Egypt and a four million pound loan from Lionel Rothschild. The role played by Jewish capital in the creation of Britain’s nineteenth- century empire was not lost on its critics. In his classic work, which became the basis of Lenin’s theory of imperialism, J.A. Hobson argued that ”men of a single and peculiar race, who have behind them centuries of financial experience,” formed “the central ganglion of international capitalism.”

continued

August 5, 2010 at 6:01 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

continuing

The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State by Benjamin Ginsberg
pgs. 22 - 25

"This theme also was prominent in the work of Goldwyn Smith, a noted scholar and opponent of Disraeli’s imperialist policies. Smith frequently charged that the Disraeli government’s foreign policies were motivated more by Jewish than British interests.”

“For its part, the Jewish-owned popular press worked to rally public support for the government’s imperialist endeavors. The press depicted the conquest and subjugation of foreign territories as a great adventure. Generals like Kitchener and Gordon were portrayed as heroic figures. Journalists captured the popular imagination with accounts of the exploits of British forces in faraway lands.”

”The Reuters news service was particularly important in popularizing imperialism. Reuter’s specialized in the collection and dissemination of news from the furthest outposts of the empire. Its dispatches, upon which all British newspapers came to rely, emphasized the positive, “civilizing” aspects of British colonial administration and military campaigns. The steady diet of campaigns, battles, and raids in Reuter’s dispatches, along with news of the more mundane details of colonial rule, maintained popular interest in the empire and made it an accepted part of British life. The British popular press, like its American counterpart during the Spanish-American War, discovered that exciting tales of empire building gave an enormous boost to circulation and revenues.”

August 5, 2010 at 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

*sigh*

If only the comment threads on this blog could get over-run with Chinese 'bots.

It would improve the quality of the comments tenfold.

August 5, 2010 at 9:00 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Sawyer,

Why are you posting here?

MM is a Jew. MM is a big fan of imperialism.

Besides being a trollio, whatsa pernt?

August 6, 2010 at 12:07 AM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

Palmer,

You have absolutely nothing to offer besides mindless sycophancy and whining whenever someone who holds views different from Moldbug's makes a comment.

August 6, 2010 at 2:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Jews "forced" the British to control 25% of the Earth's surface? Bwahahaha!

August 6, 2010 at 3:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nowhere in sawyer's comments is it claimed that the jews "forced" the british to control 25 percent of the world's land.

August 6, 2010 at 4:19 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The British Empire was basically a post-Cromwell Jewish extended phenotype expressed in the body of the nation. It was a disease exploiting nationalism’s natural expression.

But nationalism did not exist for most of the British Empire's existence.

Before Otto von Bismarck, the European right was Royalist and in anti-Nationalist.

Nationalism only come to prominence during and following the Napoleonic wars when Napoleon wielded Nationalism as a weapon to undermine his Royalist military opponents, in particular, the mulit-ethnic empires of Austria and Tsarist Russia.

And since Nationalism was used to undermine Royalist power the European Aristocracy viewed Nationalism (along with egalitarianism) as a revolutionary movement that had to be put down.

Metternich and Castlereagh set up the Conservative Order to repress both Egalitarianism as well as Nationalism.

Now, if Nationalism didn't exist before Napoleon, how is it possible that the Jews could have invented the "anti-Nationalist" British Empire to undermine the ethnic genetic interests of the British people?

August 6, 2010 at 7:22 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

nowhere in sawyer's comments is it claimed that the jews "forced" the british to control 25 percent of the world's land.

Um, that is exactly what he said:

From Tom Sawyer:

The British Empire was basically a post-Cromwell Jewish extended phenotype expressed in the body of the nation. It was a disease exploiting nationalism’s natural expression.

August 6, 2010 at 7:24 AM  
Anonymous regis said...

"But nationalism did not exist for most of the British Empire's existence."

i don't think 'nationalism' there means the articulated political ideology of nationalism.

"Um, that is exactly what he said:"

I don't see where "forced" is either stated or implied there.

August 6, 2010 at 12:59 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Sawyer,

Only the trolls bitch about me being a sycophant. You sir are a troll. A Nazi troll?

August 6, 2010 at 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Sawyer said...

Palmer,

I responded to you because you addressed me. Do you have anything to offer aside from vapid invectives like "Nazis," "anti-Semites," "trolls," etc.? If not, go back to your mindless sycophancy instead of trying to start shit with other people.

August 6, 2010 at 2:40 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

i don't think 'nationalism' there means the articulated political ideology of nationalism.

The nation state existed by time of Napoleon but not ethnic nationalism.

Before Bismarck, nation states were considered than property of the European royals (who were in many cases German during Napoleon's heyday) rather than expressions of ethnic unity and all the good stuff that led to the fortuitous events of 1914.

I don't see where "forced" is either stated or implied there.

That is what he meant.

And please, people, love Palmer a bit more.

If you are good to Palmer, Palmer will be good to you.

So there.

August 6, 2010 at 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is what he meant.

"Forced" is a strong word man. He probably ascribes more "influence" than Mencius or most of us do, but I don't get the impression he suggests that they were "forced."

August 6, 2010 at 3:52 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

anon,

what else could his point be? TUJ strikes at the heart of a tale so convoluted it seems like it loses its own train of thought.

August 7, 2010 at 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

josh,

I never said I agreed with everything this guy has said.

But like I said, "forced" is a strong word, and I don't get the impression he suggests that they were "forced."

I don't see why this is even controversial. Everything isn't an either/or issue.

August 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> Before Bismarck, nation states were considered than property of the European royals (who were in many cases German during Napoleon's heyday) rather than expressions of ethnic unity

At minimum you should push that back a ways before Bismarck. There seems to be nationalism in the French and American revolutions. People in South Carolina cared what was happening in Boston with the Brits.

But I'm not sure I entirely believe in that whole account in general. I'm not saying I can disprove it, but what exactly is commonly understood to prove this (or something like it), I cannot say.

August 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

However, not only do I not only necessarily believe in the lack of nationalism in Absolutist Europe and and the earlier Europe - I believe the horror of WWI (and the tragic end of the Belle Epoque) were due to the Industrial Revolution. Not only because of the invention of various killing and defending devices, but also because the novelty of a large economic surplus allowed you to get practically *everyone* in the nation killed (every working-age male), rather than just a handful.

Without these technological advances, would the Great War really have been worse than the Thirty Years' War or the Napoleonic Wars? Was there anything fundamentally lovely about those conflicts? Technology made the Great War what it was, not ethno-nationalism.

Why did you get "terror bombing" in WWII? I think primarily because you *could* get it. It is way easier psychologically to bomb civvies than it is to blow them away in person. Today, it's still effortless to blow people away vis-a-vis, same as it ever was. But you don't really see this in the two world wars - do you? We know of course that Nazis murdered a ton of civvies (in the East at least), but I'm not sure to what degree this activity was aimed at pacifying enemy military regulars. (The Nazis did use reprisal slaughter of civilians to stop underground guerrillas, but this is a different matter, and I don't think a great amount of people were killed that way.)

August 8, 2010 at 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> (in the East at least)

Not to ignore Jews west of the Rhine who were also murdered.

August 8, 2010 at 1:39 PM  
Anonymous JBL said...

Rob S. --

Nationalism certainly predates the French revolution; to some extent it goes back at least as far as the time of the Hundred Years War. I think the point TUJ is making is that the union between the state and the nation takes place much later. In the middle ages there were nations, but not states. In the 1600s - ~1800 there were states, and nations, and they roughly overlapped, but not until Napoleon did (to paraphrase Martin van Creveld in The Rise and Decline of the State) the state take nationalism as its ethical content: the point of the state was to be the political representative of the nation.

I do think you're right about WWI and technology, although a different interpretation of TUJ's remarks would be that ethnic nationalism played a part in causing the great war, but had less to do with why it was fought with such brutality.

August 9, 2010 at 10:03 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

There seems to be nationalism in the French and American revolutions. People in South Carolina cared what was happening in Boston with the Brits.

I'm not seeing where ethnic conflict comes into play with the American Revolution (which was in reality a war of secession rather than a revolution proper was the French Revolution).

The revolutionaries in Boston were just as ethnically Anglo-Saxon as the British aristocracy which opposed the War of Independence.

I believe the horror of WWI (and the tragic end of the Belle Epoque) were due to the Industrial Revolution.

I never claim ethnic nationalism led to a high death toll, only that ethnic nationalism was a cause of the war.

August 9, 2010 at 5:03 PM  
Anonymous Michael S. said...

Undiscovered Jew - if the nation-state existed before Buonaparte, but not ethnic nationalism, what do you make of the Jacobites?

They managed two risings against the house of Hanover, one in 1715 and another in 1745, and Jacobitism was a constant element in British politics for more than half a century. The Jacobites were nominally a a faction that defended the claims of the house of Stuart to the British throne in opposition to those of the house of Hanover. In practice, though, they were ethnically largely Scots, and religiously largely Roman Catholics. They in addition attracted partisans who were neither, but who wanted a British king (George I could not speak English, and George II spoke very little of it). Samuel Johnson, though he was Anglican and made his low opinion of the Scots quite clear, was such a Jacobite.

August 9, 2010 at 7:22 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Undiscovered Jew - if the nation-state existed before Buonaparte, but not ethnic nationalism, what do you make of the Jacobites?

I had a longer response to a similar point raised by Rob S but the post may have been devoured by a Blogger poltergeist.

Briefly, from the perspective of the European aristocratic elite and those allied with them, the primary purpose of the nation state was to serve the interests of the royalist system (broadly defined).

August 9, 2010 at 7:41 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

My longer response to Rob S was indeed lost so I will reconstruct it sometime tomorrow.

August 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

> a different interpretation of TUJ's remarks would be that ethnic nationalism played a part in causing the great war, but had less to do with why it was fought with such brutality.

That seems like a fair interpretation. Though I think the more interesting question is: which one starts wars more frequently, ethnonationalism or "I am the state"?

August 10, 2010 at 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

TUJ, if you reconstruct it I'll make sure to read it.

August 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Rob S. said...

Do people here accept the wikipedia notion of the cause of WWI (or am I making myself look silly by swallowing Atlantic propaganda)?

The wikipedia cause as I understand it:

-Serbian nationalists shot the Archduke simply because of their nationalist aims.

-No one liked the Archduke and no one really cared per se that he died (though I suppose it could still make Austria-Hungary look weak, just the same, if her response had been too timid).

-Germany, after endlessly repetitive diplomatic goading, got Austria-Hungary to declare war. Germany wanted to disable Serbia's master, Russia, before Russia was able to industrialize and thus become stronger than Germany.

So the main hinge - which is not too different from WWII - is that Germany wanted to remain able to take on anyone by herself, and thus not become a partner/satellite with others. Presumably, Germany's peaceful alternative would be to ally with the Atlantics in case of a Russian attack (or pressure), and with Russia in case of an Atlantic attack (or pressure). So why did Germany reject this? Did the rejection have to do with ethno-nationalism? Or would an absolute monarch have behaved similarly?

August 10, 2010 at 3:13 PM  
Anonymous JBL said...

>>That seems like a fair interpretation.

Actually, thinking about it more, I think that there is something to the other interpretation anyhow. Here's Clausewitz on the effect of Napoleon:
"Since Bonaparte, then, war, first among the French and then subsequently among their enemies, again became the concern of the people as a whole, took on an entirely different character, or rather closely approached its true character, its absolute perfection. There seemed no end to the resources mobilized; all limits disappeared in the vigour and enthusiasm shown by governments and their subjects. [...] War, untrammeled by any conventional restraints, had broken loose in all its elemental fury. This was due to the peoples' new share in these great affairs of state; and their participation in turn, resulted partly from the impact that the Revolution had on the internal conditions of every state and partly from the danger that France posed to everyone". I've been skimming the Google books version of War and Society in Revolutionary Europe (where I found the Clausewitz quote), and according to the author, one of the big changes is from pre-1789 armies composed of professional soldiers and foreign mercenaries to post-1789 "national" armies: "Soldiering was only respectable when it was done voluntarily by citizens from love of their country; under which circumstances it became morally admirable -- and politically safe". So, I do think nationalism can and has contributed to the ferocity with which wars are fought in two ways: it increases public support for wars, resulting in larger armies with better morale and more support for the wars at home; and it fires up the fighting spirit of soldiers in a way that inures them to the horrors and atrocities of war.

>>which one starts wars more frequently, ethnonationalism or "I am the state"?

Which I guess brings me to this question. I think it depends on the circumstances: absolutism can also be responsible for some pretty epic wars, since an absolutist monarch can conscript huge forces, devote maximum resources to the war effort, and can preside over a professional bureaucracy that can distribute those resources and command the men effectively. On the other hand, nationalism gives you more volunteers, a stronger fighting spirit, and perhaps more willingness to tolerate atrocities. I think the worst case scenario is a combination of the two: either an absolutist ruler who can tap into nationalist feeling, or a state where the institutions of an absolutist state are in place, but under the command of a people driven by nationalism.
All of this is about how brutally the wars will be fought, not how often they'll be started, but I think the same factors are likely to be involved in that as well.

August 10, 2010 at 9:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home