Tuesday, December 28, 2010 258 Comments

The 20th century in two short quotes

I really must apologize for neglecting these cables. Deliverables and festivities have left little time for analysis. UR thus degenerates into Across Difficult Country - a bring-your-own-brain blog. Fortunately, I sense, few here lack that organ.

Emerich de Vattel, 1758, The Law of Nations:
But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.
Charles Rivkin (*), 2009, 09PARIS1767:
Our current relationship with France is so profoundly healthy that conventional wisdom now asserts that there are no significant differences in the foreign policies of our two countries.
Suffice it to say that there's a fine line between healthy and creepy. M. Vattel, from Wikipedia:
Emerich de Vattel (April 25, 1714 – December 28, 1767) was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy.
Ambassador Rivkin, from Wikipedia:
Charles Hammerman Rivkin (born April 1962) is the current United States Ambassador to France... Rivkin earned a B.A. (international relations) from Yale University, where he sang with the famed Whiffenpoofs... In September 2005, Rivkin became the president and chief executive officer of W!LDBRAIN, an entertainment and animation production company whose television series include Yo Gabba Gabba! and Higglytown Heroes. Rivkin served as an executive producer of Yo Gabba Gabba!, which airs on the Nickelodeon and Noggin cable networks.
(* - as a general rule, the name on a State cable reflects the VIP who authorized the cable, not the anonymous elves who actually wrote it. Secretary Clinton, for instance, does not draft cables - though it's not entirely farfetched that her lips, being after all human, might emit such a sentence as, speaking entirely in the hypothetical tense, "what pills is that bitch on?" - which pithy inquiry, entering the auditory canal of one elf and bouncing thereupon to the inbox of others, might indeed emerge in the nuanced diplomatic form of a cable.)

258 Comments:

Blogger TGGP said...

Hopefully Anonymous frequently complained about Obama's diplomatic picks (as far as I know he's the only one to do so). Under your/Foseti's view those picks are irrelevant.

December 28, 2010 at 9:53 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

America is not an empire because we do not exert much if any direct control over the internal politics of our first world allies. If America were an actual empire then we would never have allowed France and Germany to get away with sabotaging a UN resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 2003.

America is confused with empires of the past because our democratic allies have been outsourcing responsibility for their military defense to the Pentagon since the dawn of the Cold War.

Because the Western nations (and Western Europe especially) choose to be militarily inferior to the United States, observers such as Moldbug mistakenly conclude this military inferiority is imposed on our allies.

But this military subordination is not imposed from outside. The Europeans and, to a lesser extent, our East Asian allies have surrendered most of their self defense responsibilities (such as the responsibility for patrolling sea lanes where 90% of all international trade has to pass through) to the Pentagon because outsourcing their defenses is mutually beneficial for both America and our other allies.

By outsourcing their defenses since 1945, the Europeans get to spend money that would have in previous eras gone to armaments on other projects that interest them (such as propping up the welfare state and European integration).

In exchange, the US gets a bigger say in international affairs.

Historically, no major power would have willingly outsourced responsibility for defense to another competing power.

But the US, uniquely in history, is trusted to provide a defensive umbrella because we are seen as a the world's first "Ricardian" power where cooperation with us is mutually beneficial and allows nations to specialize in core competencies without having to deal with much direct interference in their internal political affairs.

This "Ricardian" power may be more durable than any previous form of empire (which were "mercantilist" in nature) because mutually beneficial economic, military, and diplomatic relationships prevent other medium sized democratic powers from trying to "contain" a hegemonic power.

December 29, 2010 at 12:42 AM  
Blogger Stewart Griffin said...

@The Indiscovered Jew
"If America were an actual empire then we would never have allowed France and Germany to get away with sabotaging a UN resolution"

That presumes America is a monolithic entity.

France and Germany did not oppose America, they opposed some Americans in alliance with others.

December 29, 2010 at 6:50 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I wouldn't say it's the case that France doesn't engage in treaties without America's say-so, just that there aren't currently conflicting over any foreign policy issues. I imagine that would often be the case in the sort of healthy Vattelian system Mencius would like to return to.

Surprising though it may be, France does actually have a military used for its own purposes. There's little need to militarily defend Europe proper, but the same could be said of North America.

December 29, 2010 at 7:22 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

A power surrendered voluntarily may not later be recoverable; if its recovery should be attempted and found impossible, the resultant circumstance is not meaningfully different from one resulting from the power's involuntary surrender.

Imagine, for example what would happen in the event Queen Elizabeth II were to exercise the royal veto today. I expect she has, in her heart of hearts, wished she could do so on more than one occasion. She has not done, not least because she knows that an attempt to revive that ancient prerogative of the monarch would cause a constitutional crisis, very likely endangering her throne and her family's rather comfortable circumstances.

Yet the royal veto was not taken forcibly from British monarchs; it lapsed into desuetude after the death of Queen Anne. Her two next successors were Germans; the first George spoke no English, and the second very little. They were more interested in continental politics than in purely British affairs, and so left the government of their kingdom to their ministers, as an absentee landlord might leave the administration of a remote country estate to his steward or factor. By the time of George III, it was already too late to revive the royal veto. That monarch, who was by no means inactive or uninterested in British politics, understood even then that he was constrained by irrevocably altered practice to exercise influence indirectly rather than to engage in personal rule to the extent that Anne had done.

It is just so with France, loudly as the French might protest that theirs was a nation of the first rank, a full peer with a great power such as the United States. Indeed, France has an armed force, which it uses for its own purposes. So, indeed, does Japan. Unlike France, Japan's military is limited by a constitution imposed on it by the United States in consequence of World War II. But there seems to me to be little operational difference. Japan in theory could amend its constitution to rid itself of these limitations, and at this point there is little likelihood that the United States would attempt to stop it. In reality, it is as unlikely that Japan would take such a step as that the British queen would veto an act of Parliament.

France is under no such constitutional limit on its military force; but it is constrained by something much more potent than a mere law on paper, namely, the realities of its economy. Like all the other western European social democracies, France has an extensive welfare state. For it to have a military force capable of more than an occasional small intervention in a former Franch colony, it would need to raise money it doesn't have. This could be accomplished by cutting back its welfare state or by exacting more from its citizens by taxation, but either is quite unlikely to occur. The seeming stability of the Fifth Republic might prove as transitory as the previous four republics, two empires, two monarchies, and one state.

Americans are accustomed to a different allocation of government revenues than are the Europeans. This accounts in good part for the propensity for American resistance to expansion of the welfare state, as seen in the massive reaction to "Obamacare" and its doubtful future. Most Americans do not want to pay higher taxes for more social welfare programs, while finding money for them through the reduction of military spending, though an eternal hope of the left, is equally unlikely. The mirror-image of this situation exists in Europe, where a public that riots in the streets over modest increases in the retirement age or in university tuition is hardly likely to tolerate either a reduction in welfare programs or higher taxation to support enlarged military strength.

December 29, 2010 at 8:34 AM  
Blogger PJ said...

So if US satellites are a matter of DOD vs State budget maximization, were Roman satropies similarly about budget-maxing in the Border Affairs Ministry or such?

Historians seem to assume Rome's choices were of necessity, kind of a Marxist materialist frame. I wonder what happens when we apply Public Choice to Rome's fall.

December 29, 2010 at 10:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So if US satellites are a matter of DOD vs State budget maximization, were Roman satropies similarly about budget-maxing in the Border Affairs Ministry or such?"

It is not about budget maximization. The dispute is ideological (or was at one time... as far as I can tell today, DOD is dominated by liberals just as much as DOS is).

And yes, of course the Romans had factional conflicts.

December 29, 2010 at 11:29 AM  
Anonymous A consumer of all that is moldbug said...

Oh dear. I wish I hadn't read that - it made me quite depressed at the state of our international affairs. And here, I thought I was so far beyond even that possibility, having for so long been so thoroughly desensitized.

The first three ambassadors to France were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams (for a short time, it's complicated, watch the miniseries) and Thomas Jefferson. All three principles of the revolution and members of the committee to draft the Declaration of Independence. Two of whom were Presidents, and Franklin might have been if he weren't so old and already so remarkably accomplished. "President" of Pennsylvania he was, anyway, back when that was the name for the position.

The next was William Short, Jefferson's "adopted son" and later minister to Spain and the Netherlands.

Then Gouverneur Morris, another principle, and author of much of the Constitution - enrolled at King's College (Columbia) at age 12. Then James Monroe, fifth President. Later Robert Livingston, another principle and Declaration drafter.

In short - the best men. And, now I learn, from these bright stars that begin the list, the path weaves through a degenerating forest of increasing mediocrity and outright bribery, positions as bonus rewards for contributions, and we arrive, at last, from Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, ... to ... the Yo-Gabba-Gabba guy.

Oh woe and despair, have ye not have had your fill with me yet? Has your day not done, and perhaps, at long last, may I rest from thy lashes? Trends being trendss - not til the 6 feet, I fear.

December 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ,


as a progressive, or democratic, or simply, a hypocritical empire, US elites must have the figleaf of a UN or a League of Nations to cover their actions. the democratic west, the elites, no matter how powerful, are plebs deep down; they lie. honesty is not a property of their power or of their mentality. they crawled and scraped to the top, they did not fight their way to the top. they rule by dishonesty, not their own personal fighting prowess.

there is no contradiction between america being an empire, though a confused and extremely poorly run empire, and allowing a certain amount of harmless dissent in the UN. it is simple a confused, poorly managed empire, managed by phonies, plebs, ideological zealots... in a word, democrats. what would you expect from a democratic empire? augustus ceasar?

But this military subordination is not imposed from outside. The Europeans and, to a lesser extent, our East Asian allies have surrendered most of their self defense responsibilities...to the Pentagon because outsourcing their defenses is mutually beneficial for both America and our other allies.

ummm. hmmm. germany and japan, the two pre-eminent powers of europe/asia, not to mention the british empire, became client states to the us voluntarily? think that one through a little more. although, you have mentioned before that this is not your area of expertise.

December 29, 2010 at 8:23 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Oddly enough, this Gabba fellow seems to have some real pedigree as it comes to diplomacy--his father being a diplomat from the HHHumphrey days. It seems he was "trained up" for a State Department career but veered off when it was clear Reagan wasn't going to smile down upon him.

He made a pile of money, one assumes, and when a president who would obviously be impressed by having HHHumphrey for a godfather was elected, Master Rivkin jumped back on the diplomacy train.

December 29, 2010 at 11:26 PM  
Blogger AMcGuinn said...

Michael - Fair point, but it is perhaps an oversimplification to say that George I and II voluntarily surrendered their royal powers - rather, George I was chosen as King by the dominant political faction, and there was an understanding that he would allow the Whigs to rule Britain in exchange for assistance on the continent.

December 30, 2010 at 4:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

See also Cable 10PARIS58, which outlines a "minority engagement strategy" to co-opt the "overwhelmingly white" French media by advancing racial minorities sympathetic to USG interests.

December 30, 2010 at 11:43 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

@AMcGuinn - You are correct, but I do not see that your points fundamentally differ from mine. I wrote that the first two Georges "were more interested in continental politics than in purely British affairs, and so left the government of their kingdom to their ministers..." You wrote that "George I was chosen as king by the dominant political faction, and there was an understanding that he would allow the Whigs to rule Britain in exchange for assistance on the continent."

In any event, this was a voluntary surrender of royal prerogatives that had been exercised by his predecessor. Further, if George I had been "chosen by the dominant political faction," the choice was still constrained by legitimate royal descent and was quite indirectly accomplished. The Succession to the Crown Act, 6 Ann. c. 7, provided that the privy counsellors and other high officers of state should proclaim as her successor the nearest Protestant in the line of succession. This act was passed in 1707, at which time the government was divided between Harley and other moderate Tories, whom Anne favored, and Marlborough, who found himself increasingly forced to rely on support from Whigs, whom Anne disliked. To suggest that the Act was a product of negotiation between Whigs and the then elector of Hanover, a Protestant descended from James VI/I's daughter Elizabeth and Frederick V, the Prince Palatine, is a stretch.

Even if the origins of the Succession Act were as you indicate, George I's purported agreement to let the Whigs rule after his succession turned out to be more than a temporary political deal, since the day of Walpole and the Whig ascendancy was gone by the time of George III - yet as I noted, despite wishing to assert himself politically, he never used the royal veto, nor did any of his successors. His great-grandfather's voluntary surrender of much of his authority for personal rule became effectively permanent.

It is a fine illustration of the equitable principle of laches, viz., that disuse after a time amounts to abandonment. The monarch lost, and Parliament gained power, as it were, by adverse possession. And just so, I suggest, can the principle apply within the law of nations.

December 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Ha Ha Ha ha. This about sums it up, doesn't it. In one quote.

WaPo's Ezra Klein: "Constitution Impossible to Understand Because It's Over 100 Years Old..."

http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-star-blogger-ezra-klein-constitution-has-no-binding-power-on-anything-confusing-because-its-over-100-years-old/

December 30, 2010 at 7:07 PM  
Anonymous His Royal Trumpeter said...

I believe the following comments shall elucidate the matter.

December 30, 2010 at 8:22 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

A power surrendered voluntarily may not later be recoverable; if its recovery should be attempted and found impossible, the resultant circumstance is not meaningfully different from one resulting from the power's involuntary surrender.

True, but only if there is an enforcement mechanism which prevents one from recovering any voluntarily surrendered power(s).

Is this the case with the military powers all of the first world nations have, to varying degrees, relinquished to America?

Obviously, no.

If some of our first world allies decided to go entirely their own way on defense America would not be able to prevent them from doing so because we don't have troops deployed in a way that could militarily force them back into our alliance system.

Unlike empires of the past, America doesn't keep troops overseas to guarantee Imperial jurisdiction over foreign territories (before 911 and our engagement in Afghanistan and Iraw, 95% of American land war assets were stationed inside American territory, not abroad).

We maintain bases primarily to ensure we can move troops across great distances and to keep pre-positioned weapons, such as tanks and fuel supplies, in case of an emergency. But those bases do not exist to force our allies' government's accept our diktats.

Since we - and unlike previous empires - don't have enough troops deployed overseas to act as an enforcement mechanism of last resort, our allies don't have to worry about never again regaining voluntarily surrendered military power.

Perhaps the reason our allies haven't bothered to take full responsibility for their defenses is because the American foreign policy footprint has been so light that they don't view surrendering some core national competencies to America as dangerous (because they can be recovered from America) in the way the Gauls viewed surrendering autonomy to Caesar as dangerous (because the Romans made clear they would hold onto any powers for as long as possible).

In other words, America has not aroused an anti-Imperial backlash previous empires were "Mercantilist" in terms of seizing as much power from other countries and at their expense as possible whereas America has been acting as history's very first "Ricardian" hegemon because we only ask that select core national competencies be given over to us so that we can specialize in them to the mutual benefit of everyone within our Ricardian alliance system.

December 30, 2010 at 9:04 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

So if US satellites are a matter of DOD vs State budget maximization, were Roman satropies similarly about budget-maxing in the Border Affairs Ministry or such?

In the case of Rome, their satrapies had no choice but to obey Rome whereas American first world allies can decide at any time to break away from us and take back core national competencies.

Yet, they willingly choose not to.

Why? The only explanation is they view their relationship as mutually beneficial ("Ricardian") because (rightly or wrongly) they don't believe we are interested in seizing more powers beyond defense and cooperating with us diplomatically in the way empires of the past would take as much sovereignty as possible until the ally was essentially annexed.

December 30, 2010 at 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Kermit le Frog said...

Why do you all dislike Ambassador Rivkin so? His time as CEO of the Henson Company gave him plenty of experience as a puppetmaster.

December 30, 2010 at 11:48 PM  
Anonymous His Majesty said...

The Undiscovered Jew seems to lack basic knowledge of Moldbug geopolitics, even though he comments profusely.

December 31, 2010 at 3:50 AM  
Anonymous Ron Potato said...

Why is the "MINORITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY" memo so concerned with black people, when they are only 3% of the French population?

December 31, 2010 at 3:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My "minority engagement strategy" involves heavy use of la mitraille...

December 31, 2010 at 6:35 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, I will offer the following useful medical information to MM and any interested readers as a New Year's eve gift.

Moldbug is over 30 which means his working memory should begin to decline at a steady rate for the remainder of his life. A decline in working memory means that Moldbug's reasoning abilities and ability to digest gigantic 19th century Victorian volumes (among other abilities) will decrease accordingly.

A decline in working memory would be a tragedy for our host in particular considering he has the cognitive firepower needed to, in his words:

Nonetheless, after joining a large startup in 1998 a few months before the IPO, and writing the harsh, stateful guts of the world's most popular WAP browser (or at least, the most installed), I walked out onto the street in 2002, with a small pile of dollars that would support at least a few years of this entirely un-economic lifestyle. And immersed myself in old books, code, and surfing. (Alas, I haven't been in the water since 2007 or so - and even then, I sucked.)

Historically, there was nothing that could be done to prevent the loss of working memory, which comes in very handy for higher level computer programming and OS development.

However there is now a proven way to prevent and reverse the decline in working memory (but still no way to make you not suck at surfing, M...)

Two choline supplements known as Alpha GPC (which is contained in human breast milk and is probably a key nutrient for the proper cognitive development of infants) and CDP-Choline restore working memory to its optimal operating levels by rebuilding the number of acetylcholine receptors in the brain.

I've tried choline supplementation for over two years even though I am still a few years from having to deal with a decline in my working memory and I'd recommend anyone interested in Choline supplementation to do the following:

1) Be careful where you order supplements from. Not all choline supplements are made to the highest standards. The two best companies to get choline supplements (or any supplements) from are Swanson Vitamins and Jarrow Formulas.

2) Take Choline on an empty stomach in the morning and at least 15 minutes before eating breakfast. When I take Choline after eating I don't notice any positive effect.

3) Unless you are over 60, do not take more than 250 mgs a day of CDP choline or 600 mgs of Alpha-GPC because your choline levels need to be kept within a narrow range to prevent an acetylcholine crisis. If you take more Choline than you should you will know immediately because you will get a pronounced jaw ache. Keep your Choline supplements at work or some other place where your kids can't get a hold of it because they may find it and take too much.

4) Never take Choline supplements with an acetycholinesteresase inhibititor. Ever.

5) Consult a physician for any drug interactions if you are on any sort of medication.

6) If you want to take both CDP Choline and Alpha GPC I reccommend alternating the days you take them rather than taking both on the same day.

December 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

More details about Choline supplementation and Happy New Year!:

What to feed your head

CDP-Choline and alpha-GPC

http://drzarkov.com/delanoblog/?p=50

Aging humans and animals tend to suffer from impaired short-term memory. This loss of working memory is largely the result of deficient functioning of the “cholinergic” neurons in a part of the brain known as the basal forebrain.2,3 (Cholinergic neurons are the brain cells involved in acetylcholine synthesis, signaling, and metabolism.) The age-related deficits in this part of the brain include decreased synthesis and release of acetylcholine, as well as decreases in the number of cholinergic brain cells and in the number and function of acetylcholine receptors on such cells.4

The same neurons that are vulnerable in aging are especially vulnerable in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In AD the cholinergic cells of the basal forebrain shrivel and die in manner resembling normal aging but at an accelerated pace. This abnormal behavior is partly the result of defective cell membranes caused by decreased availability of choline and increased breakdown of phosphatidylcholine.1,5 When choline is in short supply and cholinergic cells are active, any available choline goes to make more acetylcholine at the expense of building membranes. Eventually enough choline is withdrawn from the membrane so that the amount of PC in a cell actually decreases, a process known as “autocannibalism”. 1 In other words, the cell takes itself apart in an attempt to maintain normal acetylcholine signaling.

You might reasonably conclude from this that all we need to do to slow down brain aging or Alzheimer’s disease is supply more choline to the brain, but you’d be only partly right. The problem is that choline transport into the brain is not especially efficient and tends to decline with age.6,7 Attempts have been made to treat dementia and cognitive impairment with choline supplements such as lecithin (dietary PC, typically derived from eggs or soy), but a review of all unconfounded, randomized trials comparing lecithin with placebo revealed no particular benefit.8 Alternatives to choline or lecithin are clearly needed in order to reverse age-related cognitive decline.

Fortunately, there are two choline-based supplements that can do the trick—CDP-choline (cytidine 5'-diphosphocholine) and alpha GPC (alpha glycerophosphorylcholine). Both are natural, water-soluble compounds that achieve similar results in very different ways. CDP-choline is an essential intermediate in the biosynthesis of phosphatidylcholine and the better studied of the two compounds. Cells make CDP-choline out of choline and some other precursors before further processing it into PC. (If you’re eager for the biochemical details, an enzyme catalyzes PC synthesis by transferring the phosphocholine part of CDP-choline to diacylglycerol. Diacylglycerols are glycerine molecules with two fatty acids attached.)

December 31, 2010 at 12:23 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

At this point I think I’ve made my case—CDP-choline and alpha GPC are both effective choline supplements for enhancing mental and physical performance and counteracting age-related decline. The big question is, which supplement is better? That’s a tough one to answer because there are only two published studies I’m aware of that directly compare the activities of each compound. The first study reported that the use of 1 gram per day of alpha GPC produced higher cognitive test scores in subjects with vascular dementia than did 1 gram per day of CDP-choline.34 The second study reported that alpha GPC raised plasma choline levels substantially higher in normal subjects than CDP-choline did.35

On the face of it, the two studies comparing alpha GPC and CDP-choline would seem to indicate that alpha GPC is the more effective of the two compounds, but things aren’t quite that simple. For one thing, both studies compared the effects of alpha GPC and CDP-choline administered intramuscularly rather than orally. For another, an increase in plasma choline levels may not be especially meaningful as a measure of enhanced activity or bioavailability of alpha GPC, since the lower plasma choline associated with CDP-choline injection might simply reflect an increased tissue uptake.

To gain some insight into this issue, let’s take a look at what happens to CDP-choline and alpha GPC after they are ingested. Orally administered CDP-choline is broken down into its components in the intestine, absorbed individually as choline and cytidine, and subsequently put back together again in various tissues.36 Experiments with cultured brain cells reveal that soon after the cells are incubated with CDP-choline, newly synthesized PC can be detected .37 The same does not happen if the cells are incubated with choline itself, suggesting that either a specific mechanism for uptake of intact CDP-choline exists37 or else that brain cells can use choline efficiently for making PC only if cytidine is also present.38 Either way, CDP-choline gets into the brain and more phosphatidylcholine gets made.

As for alpha GPC, it’s believed that intestinal enzymes known as phosphodiesterases are responsible for cutting it into its components,39 but there’s no information I can find on what percentage of an administered dose of oral alpha GPC is likely to make it through the gut intact. My best guess, however, is that a fair amount does get through and in fact makes it into the brain. The reason for this is that in animal experiments only alpha GPC—and not choline nor any other breakdown product of alpha GPC—is able to reverse age-related decreases in brain acetylcholine receptors and membrane fluidity.19 As a result, if all of an orally administered dose of alpha GPC were to be broken down in the intestine, plasma choline levels would indeed be elevated but you still wouldn’t get the same beneficial effects that alpha GPC is known to provide. Therefore, some of the alpha GPC must make it to the brain intact, otherwise there’d be no difference between taking alpha GPC and choline…and clearly there is a difference.

December 31, 2010 at 12:26 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

At this point I think I’ve made my case—CDP-choline and alpha GPC are both effective choline supplements for enhancing mental and physical performance and counteracting age-related decline. The big question is, which supplement is better? That’s a tough one to answer because there are only two published studies I’m aware of that directly compare the activities of each compound. The first study reported that the use of 1 gram per day of alpha GPC produced higher cognitive test scores in subjects with vascular dementia than did 1 gram per day of CDP-choline.34 The second study reported that alpha GPC raised plasma choline levels substantially higher in normal subjects than CDP-choline did.35

On the face of it, the two studies comparing alpha GPC and CDP-choline would seem to indicate that alpha GPC is the more effective of the two compounds, but things aren’t quite that simple. For one thing, both studies compared the effects of alpha GPC and CDP-choline administered intramuscularly rather than orally. For another, an increase in plasma choline levels may not be especially meaningful as a measure of enhanced activity or bioavailability of alpha GPC, since the lower plasma choline associated with CDP-choline injection might simply reflect an increased tissue uptake.

To gain some insight into this issue, let’s take a look at what happens to CDP-choline and alpha GPC after they are ingested. Orally administered CDP-choline is broken down into its components in the intestine, absorbed individually as choline and cytidine, and subsequently put back together again in various tissues.36 Experiments with cultured brain cells reveal that soon after the cells are incubated with CDP-choline, newly synthesized PC can be detected .37 The same does not happen if the cells are incubated with choline itself, suggesting that either a specific mechanism for uptake of intact CDP-choline exists37 or else that brain cells can use choline efficiently for making PC only if cytidine is also present.38 Either way, CDP-choline gets into the brain and more phosphatidylcholine gets made.

As for alpha GPC, it’s believed that intestinal enzymes known as phosphodiesterases are responsible for cutting it into its components,39 but there’s no information I can find on what percentage of an administered dose of oral alpha GPC is likely to make it through the gut intact. My best guess, however, is that a fair amount does get through and in fact makes it into the brain. The reason for this is that in animal experiments only alpha GPC—and not choline nor any other breakdown product of alpha GPC—is able to reverse age-related decreases in brain acetylcholine receptors and membrane fluidity.19 As a result, if all of an orally administered dose of alpha GPC were to be broken down in the intestine, plasma choline levels would indeed be elevated but you still wouldn’t get the same beneficial effects that alpha GPC is known to provide. Therefore, some of the alpha GPC must make it to the brain intact, otherwise there’d be no difference between taking alpha GPC and choline…and clearly there is a difference.

December 31, 2010 at 12:27 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

Fuckin amazing info, man - THANKS. Knowledge is power! I just got some of them at the 24-h food lion... I also freebased some banana peels and mashed it together with the choline kind of with my fingers. Each point of history I know gradually began to desiccate, and alternately inundate, all the others - that must have been my neurons, and, well, I think I'm seeing the future...

January 1, 2011 at 2:00 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

The cathedral rules Europe the same way as it does the US, by controlling public opinion among the people that matter. There is no important distinction between French elite thought and US elite thought. This is not a coincidence.

January 1, 2011 at 7:02 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I tried to post this earlier, but it didn't get through.
I was reading some of George Orwell's reflections on the Spanish Civil War:
"As to the Russians, their motives in the Spanish war are completely inscrutable. [...] Indeed, their actions are most easily explained if one assumes that they were acting on several contradictory motives. I believe that in the future we shall come to feel that Stalin's foreign policy, instead of being so diabolically clever as it is claimed to be, has been merely opportunistic and stupid."
I would think we've got more documents available on what the Soviet leadership was up to. Can any of the amateur Kremlinologists here answer Orwell's question?

January 1, 2011 at 9:17 PM  
Anonymous Ivan said...

Gorbachev’s Perestroika was not a revolution from the bottom; it was nothing but the last stage of de-Stalinisation process, orchestrated by the Communist Party of Soviet Union from the top with active participation of the international Jewry - the process that started with another stupid little man, Khrushchev, shortly after Stalin’s death.

Vladimir Putin called the demise of the Soviet Union, especially the way it happened, the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. In simplest terms what happened was that the international Jewry completed successfully dismantling of jew-free empire created almost single handedly by Joseph Stalin.

Stalin preserved the Russian statehood as best as it was possible to do so under the circumstances the Russian Empire found itself after the mess of the Bolshevik revolution.

That’s why the Russians regard Stalin today as the second greatest man in the entire history of Russia. Not Ivan The Terrible, not Peter The Great, not Katherine The Great, not Generalissimos Suvorov, not Field Marshal Kutuzov who defeated Napoleon’s Grande Armée, not Feodor Dostoevsky, not Leo Tolstoy, not Vladimir Lenin - but Joseph Stalin. Only Alexander Nevsky - the key figure of medieval Rus, proclaimed “Saint” of the Russian Orthodox Church by Metropolite Macariy in 1547 - came ahead of Stalin in the TV polls conducted just two years ago:

Stalin still a hero in Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG9rbkSNYAQ

The poll results you see in this video are preliminary. Pay attention to that ugly Jewish bitch from the Moscow branch of Carnegie Endowment, Masha Lipman, talking about “Stalin The Butcher” in an attempt to put a spin on the poll results. The presenter of the show, Alexander Lyubimov, is most probably Jewish also. He is clearly trying to diminish the importance of TV poll. Compare the Jewish spin masters’ take on the outcome of the poll with that of that pretty Russian girl on the streets.

As the result of this successful completion of de-Stalinisation process, Russian statehood found itself by the end 20th century on the brink of total destruction. Russia somewhat recovered with Putin’s presidency, but it’s fate is still hanging on a thin thread.

January 2, 2011 at 1:55 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

Vox populi, vox dei, Ivan?

January 2, 2011 at 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Ivan said...

Voice of the Russian people that is. Not the voice of the Jews or of their brainwashed Americans.

January 2, 2011 at 10:42 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The cathedral rules Europe the same way as it does the US, by controlling public opinion among the people that matter.

1) The people who matter tell the cathedral whether in Europe or the United States what to say not vice versa.

2) The European liberal cathedral is not controlled by the American (and more generally, Protestant and Anglo-Protestant) cathedral.

The historical record proves the two "cathedrals" evolved independently of one another with the European cathedral's revolutionary tendencies predating the Protestant/American brand.

America was birthed from a "revolution" which was not a revolution proper but merely a war of secession that replaced a distantly located form of English Common Law governance with a more modernized and locally based one.

By contrast the French Revolution was a true revolution in every sense of the word. Whereas the American War of Independence left behind a system of government quite similar to the one which preceded it, the French Revolution created a radically secular and egalitarian government which was diametrically opposed to everything the pro-Catholic and aristocratic ancien regime stood for.

And because the French Revolution broke out in the most important and second most populous kingdom in Europe, revolutionary France was instantly and correctly recognized by every other European kingdom as the greatest threat to European order, conservatism and stability since Westphalia.

Additionally, and contra Moldbug who blames the Anglo-Protestant world for infecting the continent with liberalism, rather than acting as a pro-revolutionary agitator the United Kingdom served as the most important reactionary power throughout the reign of the Republic and Bonaparte by working hand in glove with other reactionaries (such as Prince Metternich) to repress all the leftist movements that ultimately led to the destruction of European royalism such as egalitarianism, ethnic nationalism, democracy, and secularism.

There is no important distinction between French elite thought and US elite thought. This is not a coincidence.

The major difference between the Continental European elite and American elite is that the EU elite is more liberal than the American elite is. American liberals like Pelosi, Reid, and Obama (whose politics would be considered "center right" in many European socialist and green parties) are simply trying to catch up with the even more substantial level of "progress" coming out of Brussels.

While American conservatives are horrified at how the Democrats paid no concern to public opinion in passing Obamacare, the EU elites (including many "centre right") openly brag about having circumvented the will of elected parliaments with their "supra-national" internationalist bureaucracy*.

And, no, the European Union was not established by America (or even the Joos) to serve American (or Jooish) interests. The was was founded by continental European leftists to drive out American power from the continent (EU leftists are under the impression America is a conservative and nationalist world power - which goes to show just how liberal continental European politicos are). The reason De Gaulle insisted on keeping Great Britain out of the EU predecessor organizations was because he feared Britain would act as an agent of Anglo-Saxon interests that would undermine European federalism led by France.

January 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

*EU's blueprint 'will damage sovereignty'; Peers warn of 'dramatic impact' of Euro constitution

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2003_Oct_21/eus-blueprint-damage-sovereignty-peers/ai_n37051754/

It voices concern that Giscard d'Estaing's draft includes - for the first time - 'express provision for the primacy of the constitution and of European Union law' over laws passed by our own Parliament.

Plans to sweep away national vetoes and replace them with qualified majority voting in areas like immigration and asylum also triggered alarm among the peers.

The committee questioned the impact on 'the authority of UK institutions of the proposals for extending decisionmaking by qualified majority voting into new areas'.

Ministers are also challenged over the implications of plans for a European foreign and defence policy on Britain's sovereignty.

The European constitution allows for the creation of a powerful new EU president and foreign minister.

The peers question the impact those leaders would have in Britain.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights - which guarantees the right to strike - is another area which leaves the peers uneasy.

Their report demands clarity about its 'future status and effects' on the UK.

It also highlights concerns about law and order and questions plans 'which make it possible for EU measure in this area to have direct effect ( currently not the case) as well as increasing the EU's powers in the criminal law field'.

The report challenges plans for European action on serious crime, such as the appointment of a European public prosecutor and 'other measures relating to cross-border crime'.

January 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

The Undiscovered Jew said:"America is not an empire because we do not exert much if any direct control over the internal politics of our first world allies."

When America implemented Gay pride, it implemented Gay pride parades world wide, and world wide, they called them "Gay" - the English word, revealing US fingerprints.

Similarly, consider Aristide: The US demanded an election. It then demanded an election rigged in Aristide's favor. He won, was overthrown. US demanded with threat of violence that he be reinstated. He was reinstated again, overthrown again. US invaded, installed him on the presidential throne at gunpoint with the guns of US marines, and, just to make sure he did not get up to mischief, surrounded him with an all white praetorian guard.

While in power, Aristide issued a great pile of regulations that were very much in the style of Washington regulations translated into Haitian by translators whose native language is not Haitian, and not much in the style of Haiti, though since these regulations were enforced and implemented by not very bright thugs who stole everything not nailed down, and if they could pry it up it was not nailed down, actual implementation of these suspiciously American style regulations was very much Haiti style.

Sure looks like an empire to me.

January 2, 2011 at 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

@Undiscovered Jew - if the EU was "founded by continental European leftists to drive out American power from the continent," and the European and American "cathedrals" are not identical - then why has the foreign policy of the United States been to encourage the formation and strengthening of the EU at every point? Why has the economic policy of the United States been to support the euro rather than to discourage it?

The euro was a German project from the start. I suspect there are those in Germany today who regret it, but that is because the reunification of the two Germanies subjected the resultant country to unexpected economic stress as social welfare benefits were extended at West German levels to the former East Germans, and of course more recently the Germans have had to bear the brunt of bailing out weak sisters like Greece and Ireland.

Initially the exchange rates of the old currencies were manipulated by central bank activity in the period leading up to their replacement by the euro, so that Germany received an unprecedentedly high price for its deutschemarks, while France got a relatively disadvantageous one for the franc. In one fell swoop, the Bundesbank accomplished by currency trading what Bismarck and Hitler had not been able to achieve 'mit blut und eisen' - economic hegemony over continental Europe (which Germany still enjoys, if that's the word for it). How the French leadership can have seen what happened as being in the interests of la France éternelle strains credulity. A century ago, the architects of such a deal would have ended up on Devil's Island, if not peering through "la petite fenêtre nationale" - and deservingly so!

A proper American foreign policy, if this country were looking after its own interests rather than those of the global elite, would be to throw every possible obstacle in the way of European unification, to seek to deal bilaterally with individual European states whenever possible rather than to pay the slightest deference to the bureaucrats in Brussels, and to seek the breakup of the euro. That some politicians may see favorable consequences from a high-priced euro for our trade balance with the EU does not explain all of the support the EU and the euro have received from the American elite since their respective inception.

The fact is that money-center banks here in the US hold too much euro-denominated debt to permit the euro to fall, and their extension of those credits took place in the faith that the powers-that-be would not permit the euro's fall. Hence, the unprecedented contribution of US funds to the bail-out of the EU's weak sisters. Implicit in all of this is that global elites are in harmony as to the desirability of the EU project. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

January 2, 2011 at 4:00 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

The Undiscovered Jew said:
"The European liberal cathedral is not controlled by the American (and more generally, Protestant and Anglo-Protestant) cathedral."

If they evolved independently, they would not implement American programs using American words

Reading the climategate files, it is pretty clear that if Mann tells Jones to jump, Jones will answer "how high"

January 2, 2011 at 6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has Gerd-Helmut Komossa’s book “The German Card” attracted any attention from MM or his readers?

"The former head of the West German Military Intelligence has issued a book revealing secret details of a 1949 US-German treaty, alleging America and its allies have been deliberately suppressing the nation’s sovereignty." Russia Today

January 2, 2011 at 6:22 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

very interesting anon

January 2, 2011 at 6:31 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

When America implemented Gay pride, it implemented Gay pride parades world wide,

Denmark was the first country in the world to recognize homosexual unions in 1989. Much of Western Europe (including Norway in 1993) soon followed suit (I told you the European left is way ahead of the American left).

Since Denmark implemented homosexual unions before America, this means - using YOUR own logic - that America leftism is controlled by Scandinavian liberals.

and world wide, they called them "Gay" - the English word, revealing US fingerprints.

Are you and the other internet anti-semites (such as "Anonymous", "Anonymous", jkr, and the seemingly limitless other "Anonymous"es) actually a modified version of Stuxnet code programmed to undermine kevin macdonaldian/buchanoid/paleocon antisemitism by making utterly moronic comments on internet forums?

If so, the Mossad's programming abilities are even more exceptional than I had anticipated.

Similarly, consider Aristide:

I said we don't directly interfere much in the internal affairs of FIRST WORLD nations, a category Haiti does not appear to belong to.

The reason I restricted my definition of empire to influence over first world countries is because the paleocon/anti-semite/WN indictment of modern US foreign policy is mostly concerned with how America affects European or European derived nations.

January 2, 2011 at 8:30 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

jkr, you are no longer allowed to post here until you answer the question I posed to you regarding Moldbergian philosemitism vs. kevin macdonaldian ant-semitism.

Until you answer and refute Moldbug's philo-semitic propaganda you will no longer be allowed to post on this blog.

The question I want you to answer is:

I know what he says. He's saying what most every anti-semite in history has said (albeit in a more convoluted way): elite Jews have interests that are in opposition to those of elite gentiles.

Moldbug is saying this is the heart of anti-semitism because elite Jews are normally IN AGREEMENT with elite gentiles.

If macdonald is correct that elite Jews have different interests then it follows that there must be major POLICY differences between elite Jews and elite gentiles.

If there ARE ACTUALLY policy and interest differences between elite gentiles and elite Jews then you should have no problem listing:

1) The economic policy differences between Jew Ben Shalom Bernanke and gentile Hank Paulson.

2) The legal differences on a politically charged court case between gentiles John Paul Stevens and David Souter and Jews Elena Kagan and Stephen Bryer.

3) The foreign policy differences between gentile Warren Christopher and Jew Tom Friedman.

If there are major differences then macdonald's anti-semitism wins.

If there are few if any major differences than Moldberg's philosemitism wins.
WHERE are those differences?...

January 2, 2011 at 8:37 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Michael,

@Undiscovered Jew - if the EU was "founded by continental European leftists to drive out American power from the continent," and the European and American "cathedrals" are not identical - then why has the foreign policy of the United States been to encourage the formation and strengthening of the EU at every point?

Probably for the same reason our foreign policy since Nixon has been to make China wealthy: Because our foreign policy "thinkers" are idiots.

The euro was a German project from the start.

Actually, the Germans only agreed to abandon the Mark after Francois Mitterand made French approval of German reunification conditional upon Helmut Kohl's promising to adopt the euro.

The founding father's of the euro were Italian economist Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa and former French Finance Minister Jacques Delors.

The Delors Commission (on which Jacques Delors served as Commission President) was the Commission which paved the way for much deeper European political integration, adoption of the euro under Economic and Monetary Union, and the Maastricht treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delors_Commission


snip

Achievements

President Delors in 1988

The Delors Commission gave a new momentum to the process of European integration. They 'completed' the internal market and laid the foundations for the single European currency. European Economic and Monetary Union was based on the three stage plan drawn up by a committee headed by Delors (the Delors Report). Delors and his Commissioners are considered the "founding fathers" of the euro. The groundwork and political persuasion was achieved through the work of the Commissioners leading to the signature of the Single European Act (SEA) in February 1986 and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992.[4]

The Delors Commission was also responsible for the creation of the Committee of the Regions, having enshrined the idea of cohesion between EU states and regions in the SEA in 1986 leading Delors to propose the body in 1992. It was created in 1994 and the building the body occupies was named after Delors in 2006.[5] Delors' Commission oversaw a large degree of expansion. The membership of Spain and Portugal came first in 1985; then the fall of the Berlin Wall enabled the Reunification of Germany; and in 1995 came the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden. The Delors Commission also prepared the opening to the eastern countries who later joined in 2004.[4]

In 1988 Delors addressed the British Trade Union Congress; his speech about a social Europe was pivotal in turning British Labour pro-European and the British Conservatives against it.[5] In 1992, as Delors' second term was coming to an end, the International Herald Tribune noted the effect of the Delors Commission, and the need for a third term;[6]

Mr. Delors rescued the European Community from the doldrums. He arrived when Europessimism was at its worst. Although he was a little-known former French finance minister, he breathed life and hope into the EC and into the dispirited Brussels Commission. In his first term, from 1985 to 1988, he rallied Europe to the call of the single market, and when appointed to a second term he began urging Europeans toward the far more ambitious goals of economic, monetary and political union.

Following his entrance into a Europe of eurosclerosis, Delors had heralded 20 years of euphoria.[3] In contrast, the Santer Commission which succeeded Delors in 1995 was forced to resign over allegations of corruption and the Prodi Commission won little praise despite presiding over the 2004 enlargement and the implementation of the single currency.[2]

January 2, 2011 at 9:00 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

The Undiscovered Jew said:
"The major difference between the Continental European elite and American elite is that the EU elite is more liberal than the American elite is."

Not so. See for example Wikileaks Cable 10Paris58, wherein the US elite decides France is not left enough, and commands it to move further left. It is just that the American elite has more power in Europe than it has in America. In Paris, can apply the iron fist, in Austin, must wear the velvet glove.

Similarly, Haiti under Aristide was far to the left of the US - yet Aristide was a sock puppet of the American elite, installed by US marines, surrounded by a white praetorian guard that seem to have been US government agents. The difference, what made Haiti far to the left of the US, is that in Haiti under Aristide, the US elite could set people it disliked on fire, whereas in the US, has to content itself with quietly poisoning their careers.

January 2, 2011 at 9:34 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Me

"The major difference between the Continental European elite and American elite is that the EU elite is more liberal than the American elite is."

Donald

Not so.

Yes so.

Which means the EU's leftist elite and the American leftist elite are independent on each other even if their policies overlap to some extent.

If the American elite were imposing liberalism on the EU elite then we would expect the American elite to be MORE liberal than the EU's.

Which is not the case.

Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about if you think the EU elite is more conservative overall than the American elite (and our elite isn't exactly conservative).

You can wave that one Wikileaked cable in the air all you want, but anyone who follows European politics (see the EUReferendum blogspot written by anti-EU British nationals) will tell you that on pretty much any issue, taxes, internationalism, government over-regulation, bureaucratic centralization, feminism, multiculturalism, hate speech laws, etc, the EU elite is light years more liberal than the American elite is.

I defy anyone to prove me wrong by listing even 5 political issues where the EU elite's position is more CONSERVATIVE than the American elite's position.

List 5...

January 2, 2011 at 9:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm racking my brain for any substantive differences between the respective elites, TUJ, but while we're at it, why don't you tell us the differences between France's elite and Germany's, or Sweden's. I'm sure there are many small ones, but that isn't the point.

They are all basically the same, because they are all using basically the same strategies to preserve and protect state power against those (white, middle class) members of the body politic who might threaten it. America doesn't NEED to "directly control" the EU, because being influenced by the US is in the Euro elite's own interest. Think of it like farmers sharing livestock management tips.

January 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> I'm racking my brain for any substantive differences between the respective elites, TUJ, but while we're at it, why don't you tell us the differences between France's elite and Germany's, or Sweden's.

Each of em's far, far worse than the rest, for one.

January 3, 2011 at 4:22 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

UJ, England can have lefties and righties at the same time. But still, I think you have a point to some extent. Nonetheless, England set a bad example with all that Lord Protector shit, and being run by a parliament in the time prior to 1889.

Besides, did you ever notice what a masquerade it all was? People feinted left or right when they really just wanted to get their hands on what they called theirs. You equate England with America philosophically, and at the same time want to say England damn near equals Prince Metternich. I think English elites just didn't want to lose heads, and later they didn't want to lose their autonomy to a unified continental empire stretching from Portugal to Moscow, or maybe Irkutsk. So, they took up the masque of the right. You know somewhat more than me, so you probably know how Jung Herr Blood and Iron, not Debates and Elections played the democratic liberal to get cover for smiting Austria. This strained credulity, and worked like a charm.

Note how British Parliament was right back to expanding the franchise, 15 years after Waterloo, which they naturally refused to consider at all 1789-1815.

January 3, 2011 at 4:57 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

Re: Haiti, note that UJ says "we do not exert much if any -direct- control over the internal politics of our first world allies."

We've always enjoyed knocking heads together in Latin America, and knocking 'em very often indeed. Before the Cold War, no less than during. Who knows what the excuse is nowadays but it was and is our playground for over 100 (probably well over, but I'm in a rush here). So I think the question should be more about whether we/something controls Europe, Aussie, etc. That's somewhat separate, and more interesting.

January 3, 2011 at 5:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paul Gottfried:
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1603/article_1403.shtml
(...)
Where Gottfried significantly differs from most conventional current-day conservatives is his identification of America as the main originator of this "soft totalitarianism." According to Gottfried, it initially got underway in Europe with the "re-education" of Germany in the aftermath of World War II where, he argues, traditionalist conservatism and nationalism was just as severely dealt with as Nazism. Indeed, conservative anti-Nazis were seen as suspect by the American authorities, whereas many former Nazis who eagerly adopted "liberal democracy" were embraced by the Americans. Gottfried points out the surprising Nazi past of some of today's leading theorists of the politically-correct German Left.

Gottfried argues that trends such as multiculturalism, feminism, and gay rights, had indeed emerged in the United States earlier than in Europe, and that today, the differences between the American and EU "regimes" are minimal. He also points to the largely similar, globalization visions of both American democracy-boosters such as Francis Fukuyama, and of the typical left-wingers in Europe, who claim to be critics of globalization.
(...)

January 3, 2011 at 7:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WikiLeaks: US targets EU over GM crops

"US embassy cable recommends drawing up list of countries for 'retaliation' over opposition to genetic modification"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops

"The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.

In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops.

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.

"The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," said Stapleton, who with Bush co-owned the St Louis-based Texas Rangers baseball team in the 1990s.

In other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative."

January 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"St Louis-based Texas Rangers baseball team"

???

January 3, 2011 at 10:38 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

tuj nobody reads your ten pages of bs

learn brevity.

January 3, 2011 at 12:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is there any way to block The Undiscovered Jews wrong yet extremely long comments?

January 3, 2011 at 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Hieronymus Goat said...

"St Louis-based Texas Rangers baseball team"

Bush is so evil, not only do his friends support genetically altered foods, but he mixes up his geography!

Thank God the valiant Blue Team is fighting back against these powerful heathens.

January 3, 2011 at 3:22 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

UJ is rather interesting, when he's not raving about the total spotlessness of his kin. I feel I have truly benefited from his critique of the 'out of America' phylogeny of communism presented on this site. Not to mention his persistent effort to draw attention to the transnational choline-piracetam-ginko biloba axis of the years leading up to 1848. Why not lead us blinking from the Cave yourself, dear Anonymous, if you've got the dharma by both hands?

January 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

@TUJ - Delors may have been one of the founders of the euro, but he no more acted as a patriotic Frenchman than did, say, Pierre Laval. Why was the initial exchange rate into the euro so high for the deutschemark, and so low for the franc? How did this serve the interests of France? Don't tell me it was just to make claret a better bargain than hock for American wine-bibbers! Has not Germany in fact dominated the EU since its creation?

All of this is in any event peripheral to the main question, which you haven't answered: If the American and European 'cathedrals' are not the same, why then has American foreign policy been to support the creation and strengthening of the European Union, and why has American economic policy been to prop up the euro? Our national interest would from any objective point of view have been to hinder and obstruct the EU and to undermine the euro at every opportunity, the better to weaken a potential rival politically and economically, thereby to enhance American advantage. That's what Richelieu, the father of French foreign policy, would have advised if he were in charge of ours. This has not happened; American foreign and economic policy has been hand-in-glove with that of the Eurocrats. If this does not indicate the fundamental identity of the American and European 'cathedrals,' perhaps you could tell us what it does.

January 3, 2011 at 7:50 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Michael,

I don't know enough about currency exchanges to answer your question regarding the valuation of the euro (which is why I don't comment on MM's blog entries that deal with the virtues and vices of gold and fractional reserve banking) but I am familiar enough with European geopolitics to answer this question:

All of this is in any event peripheral to the main question, which you haven't answered: If the American and European 'cathedrals' are not the same, why then has American foreign policy been to support the creation and strengthening of the European Union, and why has American economic policy been to prop up the euro?

America's support for European integration is mostly a knee jerk position left over from the Cold War when we feared a resumption of conflict and/or geopolitical competition between the Western European powers would present a fresh avenue for Communist expansion.

The reason why we haven't revised our default position on the EU from "European Integration is Good" to "we need to undermine the pillars of European Integration such as the euro and EMU in order to preserve our national interests" is because the EU has not been cohesive enough an entity to disrupt our diplomacy as much as Continental European liberals would like.

Indeed, the Bush 2.0 administration was able to turn Euro-Federalism against the federalisers by encouraging relatively pro-American Central European countries to join the EU and thus dilute the abilities of Schroeder and Chirac to wield the EU foreign policy apparatus against American policy. Afterall, Rumsfeld had great fun driving a wedge into the EU's stance against the Iraq war by picking off support from "New Europe" to the consternation of "Old Europe".

January 3, 2011 at 11:40 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued from above

And really, America's decades long support for European Federalism has mostly been verbal in nature. The powers which have diverted and sacrificed the most political, diplomatic, and economic resources have been the major Western European powers, not America.

The last time America invested significant "Hard" diplomatic assets into European political unification was during the Truman administration and Eisenhower's first term when we established the Marshall Plan, NATO, the Council of Europe, and the OEEC among others to encourage peace and prosperity in Western Europe and thereby steady the West for a possible hot or cold conflict with the Soviets.

But these American supported organizations were not the foundation organization of the modern EU.

The founding organization was the old European Coal and Steal Community. The ECSC was established by the French (though De Gaulle opposed the ECSC at first because he felt it wasn't centralizing enough).

To make a somewhat long story short, the French created the ECSC on their own initiative because France worried a rapidly recovering West Germany would have its industrial might "unchained" by American Cold War hawks who were eager to use a rearmed West Germany as a shield against Soviet expansion.

To make a long story short, the French initially wished to control German industrial might by maintaining the International Authority for the Ruhr (IAR) which was set up by the allies to keep occupied Germany's war making abilities tied down.

However, France's position was unacceptable to president Eisenhower and the British government who viewed the IAR as no longer needed.

The French federalists then decided to overcome Americans and British opposition by coming up with a compromise where France and Germany would have their industrial resources linked under the umbrella of the ECSC, which America and Britain ultimately green lighted as an acceptable middle position.

From there, the continental federalists then proceeded to construct the modern European Union on the pillars of the ECSC and we see that American interests moved independently of with European Federalist objectives.

So the case remains that the EU has been and remains independent of the American cathedral.

January 3, 2011 at 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The struggle continues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPpEQuatcTU

January 4, 2011 at 1:56 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

TUJ,

Have you read "The War for Righteousness." It makes a pretty clear case that turn of the century American missionaries became more concerned with exporting "applied Christianity" aka American-style socialism than anything to do with Jesus. The explicit goal of (modern, progressive) Christianizing the world continues at least until the 1920s. Organized protestantism and related movements had taken advantage of Rockefeller and Carnegie money, was intimately connected with the Wilson administration, the Great War, the post war peace, the inquiry, the council on foreign relations, selective loans to Germany and other war damaged countries, and eventually the New Deal and State, not to mention WWII, reeducation, denazification and anti-colonialism. This is not to say that European leftism is entirely imported, but the American Cathedral sure has picked a lot of the winners in European politics over the past century.

January 4, 2011 at 5:09 AM  
Anonymous Michael said...

TUJ - It is interesting to read of the French involvement in the formation of the EU that you describe, but what it means seems largely a question of interpretation. There has always been an element in French politics that has wished to collaborate with Germany. Were Déat and Doriot French patriots? It is perhaps worth noting that François Mitterand was a collaborator during WWII.

The American neo-Nazi Francis Parker Yockey, a.k.a. Ulick Varange, was a great advocate of European unification. He denounced nationalism as "yesterday-patriotism" and would have been pleased with the EU. Sir Oswald Mosley, the former Labour party leader who later became the head of the British Fascists, became a pan-Europeanist after WWII. Of course Yockey and Mosley had an antipathy to American domination, but if there is an anti-American component in the present EU it is not directed toward the American 'cathedral.' Rather it is directed towards those Americans that stray from its bounds. Look at the effusions with which Obama was greeted by the Eurocrats, in contrast with their expressed distaste for Bush. Again, there is nothing the European 'cathedral' holds dear that (for example) an American NPR commentator would not do as well. All these people are singing the same tune.

The German dominance of the EU is, I think, a significant reason why the Danes have kept out of the euro, and the Norwegians out of the EU entirely. Denmark and Norway have had enough of their aggressive neighbor to the south, and do not want any more of German hegemony, either military or economic.

January 4, 2011 at 10:11 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"Again, there is nothing the European 'cathedral' holds dear that (for example) an American NPR commentator would not do as well."

Flipping through the TV listings last night, the description of the program "News Hour" described Jim Lehrer as "internationally respected journalist Jim Lehrer." I thought that was pretty funny.

January 4, 2011 at 10:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>America's support for European integration is mostly a knee jerk position left over from the Cold War

Pretty weak. Nothing of importance in governance is truly "knee jerk," nobody here is that naive. Are you just trolling at this point? Maybe we should argue about what the EU and US cathedrals being "independent" means.

January 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM  
Blogger FreeZoneThetan said...

"America is not an empire because we do not exert much if any direct control over the internal politics of our first world allies."
Many of the provinces of the Roman Empire were almost totally autonomous, even subgroups within the provinces were allowed to use their own law code and traditional authorities. You do remember Judea?

January 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Very good! And the Cathedral, like old Rome, has its Herods, doesn't it?

January 4, 2011 at 5:47 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

yeah, but unfortunately it also has its rahm emmanuels.

that little trend began a little after rome, though.

i always wonder when tuj refers to the anglo-protestant establishment, which one rahm is and which obama.

January 4, 2011 at 6:08 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

he Undiscovered Jew said...
"Denmark was the first country in the world to recognize homosexual unions in 1989. Much of Western Europe (including Norway in 1993) soon followed suit (I told you the European left is way ahead of the American left)."

Denmark implemented the US Cathedral program ahead of the US, because the US Cathedral has more control over Denmark than it has over the US.

To see the dynamics in operation, look at the extreme case: Not Europe, but Haiti. Aristide was a sock puppet, installed by US troops, surrounded by a white praetorian guard. So of course Haiti under Aristide was to the left of the US - because in Haiti the Cathedral had their opponents burnt alive, whereas in the US, merely subtly undermined their careers.

Denmark is an intermediate case between Haiti and Austin.

January 4, 2011 at 6:35 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

While I am always leery of anonymous posters (seriously, get a handle as TGGP would say), this:

Nothing of importance in governance is truly "knee jerk,"

is important, good, and true.

January 4, 2011 at 8:39 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

The undiscovered Jew said:
"I said we don't directly interfere much in the internal affairs of FIRST WORLD nations, a category Haiti does not appear to belong to."

Haiti demonstrates that the more total the Cathedral's control, the more direct, totalitarian and brutal the control, the further left the policies that it imposes.

Haiti under Aristide demonstrates that Cathedral will impose policies in muppet states much further left than the policies it can get away with in the US.

This refutes your argument that Europe's leftism demonstrates independence. Europe's leftism, like the leftism of Aristide under Haiti, demonstrates subservience.

January 5, 2011 at 1:01 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

what a muddled conversation.

how is haiti remotely comparable to denmark?

what does it mean for our policy toward haiti to be "leftist"?

are we talking about economics... disribution of wealth?

america is clearly not economically leftist.

what does any of this have to do with things like secular vs. religious, multicultural vs. ethnically homogenous?


why are we hostile to cuba, venezuela?

why is our policy not pro palestinian?

how is our policy toward china "leftist"? are we in favor of higher wages and better working conditions for chinese?

how can we use a term like leftism so meaninglessly broadly?

america is obviously in favor of some form of capitalism, in favor of cheap labor and corporate profits.

how is any of this discussion comprehensible under a single-lineage ideology called leftism, as you are all using it?

too much of a mess to wade in. i don't know how any of you imagine you're actually communicating here, when you use a single terminology, leftism, cathedral, etc., to analyze a multitude of different forces at work. there is no unified cathedral that i can see.

January 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

jkr,

If it is not unified it is not part of the Cathedral. This is tautological, but the term is useful and meaningful. Harvard doesn't have public institutional disagreements with Yale. Is this because they are both independently discovering truth? Check out Rene Wormser's Foundations: Their Power and Influence.

I agree with you regarding "leftist" as a descriptive term. However, I think talking about "the left" is at least as meaningful as somebody such as yourself talking about "the jews". In fact, regardless of the historical guilt question and its implications, I think you will agree that our caricatured enemies have quite a bit of overlap (though I think my term is a bit more precise).

Finally, the US is not one thing. There is red government and the blue government and of course, these institutions can stretch beyond the official recognized institutions of "government" and need not be limited to control by Americans. In other words, the blue government is transnational. So its not so much that the US rules the world, its that we are ruled by the same people as the world (the same network people create "official truth" in France as the US, which is the focal point of elite opinion). The reason we might say that the US rules the world is that the center of gravity of the blue government is in the US or perhaps just off the coast, and (IMHO) the historical roots ar ein the US.

January 5, 2011 at 3:57 PM  
Anonymous PA said...

It's possible that there is one small flaw with Moldbug's BDH-OV model of caste conflist. The reality is probably as follows:

What he calls the ruling Brahmins, is really (at its highest sliver) a renegade faction of the same old Optimates. In other words, it's still oligarchs and not intellectuals who rule us.

The actual Brahmins are fully owned bitches of this splinter Optimate group, and the Cathedral is their propaganda tool, rather than a principal actor.

The correct model is more like OxBDH-OV

January 5, 2011 at 5:09 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh,

i think you misconstrue what i may have said in past w/ regard to the jewish question. tuj's rehashed version of something i said is not the same as what i said.

even if you accept, for instance, the culture of critique as 100% accurate description of some intellectual movements, all that does is describe those particular movements. doesn't begin to focus on other groups, other interests at work, other factors outside mere group interest as such.

i think culture of critique is basically accurate as far as it goes. tuj and others' mistake, is to assume (without reading it of course) that CofC is supposed to explain "everything" going on.

since we use a stupid term like "left" to cover lots of different things, confusion arises. i think there's clearly a christian left tradition, clearly a jewish left tradition, clearly a populist left tradition, etc. when we call all of these things the left, since they overlap to certain degrees, confusion arises.

lots going on. not that simple. words become an obstacle to communication rather than a facilitator. often words, reams of words, are a deliberate obstacle to clear understanding.

January 5, 2011 at 5:34 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

politics in general, especially in a democracy, is a coalition sport. if we don't break up the coalitions on a given "side" and measure their impact, what they bring to their side, we fail to understand anything.

the same is true on the right. catholic trads have little in common with, say, a lothrop stoddard or madison grant. or a mencius moldbug. they're still part of a theoretical "right." it gets more sketchy when you throw in marginal figures like a ron paul or a pat robertson...

imagine a leftist blog talking about the "right" without distinguishing between a ron paul and a ruper murdoch. that's the same as what is going on in this exchange, where we call everything "left." it's intellectually degrading to all of us.

what you all fail to understand, is that MM is describing a segment of the left. just as kmac is describing a segment of the left. many lefts, many rights. lots of room for friends and enemies. if everyone on the left was vaporized, the right would break into opposing factions. same as vice versa. unified field theories, sprung from a single limited mind, are path to error. myopic distortion, fun house mirror errors.

error is common enough, and forgivable. what mucks things up is when you get extreme moral particularist, special pleaders, (tuj, for instance), constructing self-interest based narratives in universalist/objective language.

January 5, 2011 at 5:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

However, I think talking about "the left" is at least as meaningful as somebody such as yourself talking about "the jews".

Concrete, biological reality is more meaningful than mere words.

January 5, 2011 at 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anecdote time.

so i was running a google search totally unrelated to this result, below... just had similar key words.

http://www.cos.edu/view_page.asp?nodeid=3410&parentid=3361&moduleid=1

i clicked, read the description, was naturally disgusted, and before navigating away, thought to myself, this kind of brainwashing course for kids can only be a jewish thing.

so i scrolled down, and sure enough, Publishing: AIMS Multimedia: An Arnold Shapiro Production, 1999

maybe that doesn't make sense to some of you.

but that kind of predictive power comes from having a correct understanding of the political layout. not every subset of the "Left," past and present, covered by that nebulous term, is equally dangerous, or similarly motivated, or even necessarily related.

multiculturalism, self-hatred indoctrination, in general, the "culture war," is basically a jewish enterprise.

that is the subset of the "left" i find most evil and threatening.

let's please distinguish between truly evil shit like the above, and more benign kinds of leftism, which will ALWAYS be with us, like the catholic social justice concept, or the populist pro-labor variety of the "left," which has existed in every society with elites vs. common people (i.e., every traditional society).

these are not the equivalent of the above link, and are in no way logically, or genealogically, connected.

January 5, 2011 at 7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...for some reason was unable to put JKR in on above comment, or this one. other anon wasn't me.

January 5, 2011 at 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many of the provinces of the Roman Empire were almost totally autonomous, even subgroups within the provinces were allowed to use their own law code and traditional authorities. You do remember Judea?

As a matter of fact I do remember Judea. Better than you do.

I remember Judea well enough to know that Roman Imperialism is not analogous to America's relationship with our first world allies.

In the case of Judea (and all other Roman territories), local law was only tolerated so long as local law did not too badly conflict with Roman interests.

In the event local law or policies conflicted with Roman interests the local law was overruled by occupying military forces that swiftly restored Roman Imperial interests back to supremacy over local law. In other words, the Romans ensured they always enjoyed ultimate control of their satellite states by using the legions as the ultimate enforcer of Roman rule.

By contrast, America, unlike every other empire in history, does not use occupying armed forces to militarily coerce our wealthiest territories/allies to do our bidding.

Therefore, America cannot be an empire because empires need a pre-positioned military ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM placed in such a way as to easily facilitate an attack on our allies/territories to ensure Imperial DIRECT CONTROL of occupied territories is undisputed.

Therefore, America is not an empire because we don't exercise direct control over our first world allies internal affairs. And the reason we have no direct control is because we have NO MILITARY ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM designed to attack our allies if they disobey us.

And, no, the fact we have bases located in allied countries like Japan does not mean we are occupying them.

1) First of all, not every first world American ally hosts American bases. France does not allow US troops on their soil.

2) Almost all of our bases were originally setup to DEFEND our allies from attack by the Soviet Union or Soviet proxy states, not to attack our allies.

3) Finally, our bases in the post-Cold War era aren't there to launch attacks against allied countries such as Japan. Our bases and troops are there mostly for logistical purposes such as moving troops outside of allied territory and keeping machinery oiled and ready to go in the event of a combat situation.

January 5, 2011 at 8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Above was from Me, TUJ

January 5, 2011 at 8:47 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

TUJ

multiculturalism, self-hatred indoctrination, in general, the "culture war," is basically a jewish enterprise.

Sigh, once again we see the value of the Moldbuggian definition of anti-semitism which is:

the faulty, paranoid and obsessive belief that Jewish elites are significantly different from gentile elites.

Multicultism (just like every other Western ideology, Left, Right, Libertarian, and others) is not Jewish because everything Jewish multicultists say is basically identical to everything gentile multicultists say.

January 5, 2011 at 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TUJ

what you all fail to understand, is that MM is describing a segment of the left. just as kmac is describing a segment of the left.

You didn't understand what Moldbug (which I neatly summarized) have written regarding Jews at all and you have failed completely to refute Moldbug's position on Jews.

Moldbug's philo-semite position:

Jewish elites are basically identical to gentile elites and assimilate almost perfectly into the inner party which is favored by gentile elites.

kmac's antisemitic position:

Jewish elites are fundamentally different from gentile elites.

I gave an easy way for you to refute Moldbug and prove kmac correct by having you list 5 ways gentile elites are different.

Now, please stop dodging my questions and prove your beloved community college TA correct by listing:

1) The economic policy differences between Jew Ben Shalom Bernanke and gentile Hank Paulson.

2) The legal differences on a politically charged court case between gentiles John Paul Stevens and David Souter and Jews Elena Kagan and Stephen Bryer.

3) The foreign policy differences between gentile Warren Christopher and Jew Tom Friedman.

If there are major differences then macdonald's anti-semitism wins.

If there are few if any major differences than Moldberg's philosemitism wins.
WHERE are those differences?...

January 5, 2011 at 9:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Denmark implemented the US Cathedral program ahead of the US, because the US Cathedral has more control over Denmark than it has over the US.

That makes no sense.

If the US homosexual program was exported to Denmark then the US should have implemented gay civil unions BEFORE DENMARK, just as the French Revolution occured in FRANCE first BEFORE the French revolutionary ideas were exported to other corners of Europe.

Since Denmark implemented gay civil unions FIRST that means Denmark's gay movement moved INDEPENDENTLY of the United States.

January 5, 2011 at 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TUJ

Rather it is directed towards those Americans that stray from its bounds. Look at the effusions with which Obama was greeted by the Eurocrats, in contrast with their expressed distaste for Bush. Again, there is nothing the European 'cathedral' holds dear that (for example) an American NPR commentator would not do as well. All these people are singing the same tune.

That the EU and American elites agree on many things doesn't refute my point that American and EU elites are operating independently of each other and I've seen nobody demonstrate the actual power running Europe, the EU Commission, is American controlled.

For instance, the EU elite has established post-democracy in the form of the EU Commission which simply overturns the laws of duly elected by parliaments by fiat whereas American liberal elites are still playing catchup with the EU in trying to establish "post-democracy"

And I never disputed French and German elites have wanted to work together from time to time.

January 5, 2011 at 9:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TUJ

josh wrote:

Have you read "The War for Righteousness."

I haven't had much time to read much of anything because of work.

It makes a pretty clear case that turn of the century American missionaries became more concerned with exporting "applied Christianity" aka American-style socialism than anything to do with Jesus. The explicit goal of (modern, progressive) Christianizing the world continues at least until the 1920s.Organized protestantism and related movements had taken advantage of Rockefeller and Carnegie money, was intimately connected with the Wilson administration, the Great War, the post war peace, the inquiry, the council on foreign relations, selective loans to Germany and other war damaged countries, and eventually the New Deal and State, not to mention WWII, reeducation, denazification and anti-colonialism.

America did leave behind parts of our liberal tradition such as NATO and democracy, after WWII , but these American imports weren't the foundation of the EU and they weren't as tyrannical as the EU which constantly overturns and imposes laws over the heads of elected representatives in Europe.

As I wrote before, leftism has always been more advanced and destructive on Continental Europe rather than America (and, to a lesser similar extent, the Anglo-Saxon nations.)

January 5, 2011 at 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MM says that the "cathedral" agenda
advanced more rapidly in Europe than the US because Europe lacked powerful organs of resistance like the Christian Right, right-wing talk radio, well-funded conservative foundations, etc.

No surprise that Denmark was first with "civil unions".Danes still hate the Germans and "civil unions" must have seemed very "anti-fascist". The worldwide renewal of the "war against fascism" began with anti-Vietnam War protests in the US in 1965 and rapidly spread to Europe.

But then you knew all of that.

January 6, 2011 at 4:33 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

jkr,

I don't think anybody disagrees that many of the worst sort of culture warriors are Jewish. The disagreement seems to be that you think it is because they are Jewish and possibly that they originated the culture war. You may also think that if their were no Jews in America their would be no culture war or at least a less significant one. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.

I disagree because I believe the culture war preceded Jewish involvement, was at times far more violent than today, and has continued without interruption. The Abolitionist crusade, WWI, and even the American Revolution to some extent were motivated by pure hatred of the past and of the wrong kind of white people. I'm sure that you believe that todays culture war is a fundamentally different thing. We will just have to agree to disagree.

January 6, 2011 at 5:08 AM  
Anonymous The Undeveloped Jew said...

Seriously stop wasting your time with TUJ. He is an idiot.

January 6, 2011 at 5:40 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Jkr asks:
"how is haiti remotely comparable to denmark?"

They are both muppet states in which the American Cathedral imposed leftists policies earlier, more thoroughly, and more drastically than they imposed those policies in the USA.

The big difference with Haiti is that in Haiti the racial difference made the arm controlling the muppet visible, whereas in Denmark, the arm up the rear and the fingers moving the lips were less visible, providing a better illusion that the muppet is speaking and acting on its own initiative.

January 6, 2011 at 9:59 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

The undiscovered Jew said:
"If the American elite were imposing liberalism on the EU elite then we would expect the American elite to be MORE liberal than the EU's."

Apply that argument to Haiti. Yet obviously Haiti's leftism is manufactured in Washington.

The American elite has more power in Europe than it has America, and more power in Haiti than it has in Europe. It is the power of that elite that makes Europe to the left of America, and Haiti to the left of Europe.

In America, the Cathedral has to undermine people's careers, in Europe, it can jail its enemies and confiscate their bank accounts, in Haiti, burn them alive. Hence America is left, Europe more left, and Haiti even more left.

January 6, 2011 at 10:07 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

The undiscovered Jew said:
"Since Denmark implemented homosexual unions before America, this means - using YOUR own logic - that America leftism is controlled by Scandinavian liberals."

Denmark implemented Gay rights using made in American rhetoric translated from English, and in some cases not even translated, "Gay" and various phrases containing the word "Gay" remaining in English - the hand of the master was visible - the muppet's lips were seemingly moving, but the voice was not that of a Dane.

January 6, 2011 at 10:15 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh

i'm aware that there was an indigenous american culture of critique.

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Gura-Transcendentalism.pdf

a little lengthy but why not read it.

i don't deny what you're saying. the two narratives aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, it's a question of degree.

anyway, all i can really suggest is that you read macdonald for an approximation of my view on the issue. he may even go a little further than i do, but then again he's the expert. i'm open to alternative viewpoints, but i find kmac's arguments more convincing, and i defer to the experts when they present a compelling case.

i think i'll bow out of this argument, as it's unlikely to go anywhere.

January 6, 2011 at 1:52 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh,

the links below, to an exchange between macdonald and author eric kaufman on vDare, is actually a better, more complete overview of the debate over indigenous culture of critique vs. macdonald's thesis.

here's kmac's initial review of kaufman's work rise and fall of anglo america

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/090729_kaufmann.htm

here is kaufman's reply and kmac's counter

http://www.vdare.com/misc/090812_kaufmann.htm

January 6, 2011 at 2:27 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

I believe I will. Though not from work.

January 6, 2011 at 2:39 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The Jews thank "jkr" for posting links to kmac's impotent blog ejaculations.

Bill Kristol, Mencius Moldbug, ""Honest Abe" Foxman, Binyamin Netanyahu, Natalie "Herschlag" Portman, Steven "Schindler's List" Spielberg, Senator "Holy Joe" Lieberman, Bar Rafaeli, Jack Abramoff, Norman "Pope" Podhoretz, Mila Kunis, and all the other Elders are always entertained when we get to observe mac's low-watt pea-brain struggle to debate someone with an IQ over 85.

However, I find even Kauffman's dissertation dull because the debate is based on the fairy tale that WASPs are "out of power".

The whole conversation between Kauffman and kmac is a waste of time because - contrary to whatever brimelow and his concubine "Athena Kerry" may say during VDare's never ending fundraising drives from their Jew exterminationist readership - the WASPs are NOT out of power.

How can WASPs be out of power if every single American president since JFK and before Obama was a male Anglo-Protestant?

Aside from dominating the presidency, the SCOTUS between 1969 and 1994 was WASP dominated by conservative WASPs such as Louis "Diversity is a compelling state interest" Powell, Earl Warren, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens. There were also no Jews at all on the 1969-1994, when many of the liberal rulings on race were made.

There are many powerful and wealthy WASPs in American politics. The former governor of Massachusetts, William Weld is blue blood WASP. So is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chaffee, failed Dailykos backed Senate candidate Ned Lamont and Howard Dean, Senator Jay Rockefeller, among others.

If there are still many powerful WASPs in American politics, how can the WASPs have been "displaced"? They look like there still very powerful and influential.

And I'm also confused as to why in the world neo-confederate VDare-buchananoid-Inferior Reich crew are so infatuated with WASPs?

Wasn't it the WASPs who destroyed the old South (the Old Confederacy being the kmac led paleocon's second favorite nation in history, second only to the Third Reich) during the unfortunate events of the 1860's? Why are "neo-confederates" eulogizing blue blood patricians who:

1) Are far from dead and are in fact still influential and powerful

2) haven't been conservative since Calvin Coolidge and

3) who destroyed the Old South ~150 years ago.

The Elders, however, thank you for all the laughs we get from kmac (who is so incompetent we're beginning to wonder if he's a Mossad mole trained to undermine anti-semitism from within...). We're so grateful that you, and all the other antisemites who peruse this Jew controlled blog are now eligible to receive free tickets to a Manhattan based showing of Darren Aronofsky's Jewess-sensual, Black Swan.

January 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

One other thing, jkr, your free tickets to the Jewess-sensual film Black Swan are contingent upon you convincingly answering the following questions:

1) Please list 5 politically charged issues where you expect Elena Kagan to rule differently than John Paul Stevens.

2) List 5 economic issues where Benjamin Shalom Bernanke is greatly different from gentile Timoty Geithner and Hank Paulson.

January 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

contrary to whatever brimelow and his concubine "Athena Kerry" may say during VDare's never ending fundraising drives from their Jew exterminationist readership

classic!

January 6, 2011 at 8:02 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

jkr,

Answer the question or else you will have to pay for your own tickets to see Jewess-sensual Black Swan (I assume you are a big Darren Aronofsky fan considering how you can't stop talking about the Ashkenazim):

1) Please list 5 politically charged issues where you expect Elena Kagan to rule differently than John Paul Stevens.

2) List 5 economic issues where Benjamin Shalom Bernanke is greatly different from gentile Timoty Geithner and Hank Paulson.

January 6, 2011 at 8:39 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

tuj,

i dont think you're capable of changing your opinion. why would i waste the time. your questions don't even make sense. to demonstrate this to other readers, i will briefly nibble at your bait, very briefly, since you've been ten-paging it on this tangent for uncounted weeks. and since no one respects you intellectually, no one has bothered to confront your retard-logic and notify you that it is retarded.

assume for sake of argument a conflict has taken place at some point between group X and group Y, and group Y was victorious.

no details here, just logical exercise. don't read anything into it. just follow along.

will there be members of group X cooperating with group Y in its rule of group X? will those members have aligned interests?

your whole argument just got sunk.

January 6, 2011 at 9:51 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

assume for sake of argument a conflict has taken place at some point between group X and group Y, and group Y was victorious.

no details here, just logical exercise. don't read anything into it. just follow along.

will there be members of group X cooperating with group Y in its rule of group X? will those members have aligned interests?

your whole argument just got sunk.


I'd assume that there would still be substantial differences between the desired policies of group X elites and group Y elites that would be larger than any random defections of elite X members looking to kiss up to the victorious group Y members.

Now then, applying your reasoning to Jewish-gentile relations since Jewish elites and gentile elites (at least as far as the anti-semites have been able to determine) do not disagree on any major issue, it appears that Jewish elites do not control gentile elites due to the apparent lack of ANY fundamental conflict over policy between Jewish and gentile elites.

Furthermore, since Jewish American elites have always had policies identical to the gentile elites of the gentile's preferred inner party (e.g. the REPUBLICAN supporting German Jewish American elites when the Republicans were the Inner Party from 1865 to 1932 such as the Guggenheim's and the Democrat supporting Russian Jewish American elites from 1932 to present) we can conclude that the Jewish American elites have not been in serious conflict with gentile elites and therefore it was not American Jews who "took over/assimilated" the elite gentiles but the gentiles who "took over/assimilated" the elite Jews.

so macdonald's argument has just got sunk by Moldbug, UNLESS...

Unless the macdonald supporters will stop dodging Moldbug's question and provide an answer to the folowing (last chance to answer before your tickets to Jewess dominated Black Swan are revoked):

1) Please list 5 politically charged issues where you expect Elena Kagan to rule differently than John Paul Stevens.

2) List 5 economic issues where Benjamin Shalom Bernanke is greatly different from gentile Timoty Geithner and Hank Paulson.

January 6, 2011 at 10:39 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

One other question, how can it be that white Anglo-Protestant males are politically out of power if every president since JFK and before Obama was an white Anglo-Protestant male (and John F Kennedy was basically an assimilated and WASPified ethnic Catholic).

January 6, 2011 at 10:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

James A. Donald is right:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/02/5_myths_about_the_chinese_communist_party?page=0,4

"All three of China's close Asian neighbors, including Japan, became democracies at different times and in different circumstances. But all were effectively U.S. protectorates, and Washington was crucial in forcing through democratic change or institutionalizing it. South Korea's decision to announce elections ahead of the 1988 Seoul Olympics, for example, was made under direct U.S. pressure."

January 7, 2011 at 12:35 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

From having quickly read KMac's review of Kaufman (and nothing else yet), I have a gripe. KMac lists Boasian anthropology as an example of how Jews are responsible for diminishing American Anglo-Saxon identity. As you would expect, he cites the number of Jewish Boasian anthropologists. This is correct so far as it goes, but he fails to mention that the dominance of Boasian anthro is attributable to the (not so Jewish at the time) Rockefeller foundation. Somebody before mentioned predictive power of a theory.

From some of what I have read (particularly the anti-semitic socialists of Charles R. Crane's Institute for Current World Affairs) there were factions of the Protestant left that did not want to work with Jews, and their was a larger faction that did. That the faction that won was the Jew loving group doesn't demonstrate any kind of Jewish domination, its just politics and history. I'm sure having them on the team didn't hurt, but its a bit like saying black people must have invented football.

Further, the most powerful faction of progressives had been minimizing the importance of ethnicity since at least the turn of the century. The progressive churches began emphasizing "applied Christianity", as opposed to salvation through Christ. They didn't give a crap if the Chinese were Buddhists as long as they were socialists, and Rabbi's were speaking at heavily protestant (Carnegie funded) Church Peace Union. I'm just having a hard time finding any particularly Jewish attributes to the American culture war that were already there in some form before the rise of Jewish intellectuals.

January 7, 2011 at 5:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TUJ, be advised that your haranguing, myopic arguments and "homework" assignments are unconvincing.

It seems natural that some Jews would use the state to advance their own ethnic interests by advancing the state's interests, if that is what the state is willing to hire them to do. Unfettered "democratic" statism has produced a lot of really ugly congruities. Says more about the state than the Jews to me, though.

January 7, 2011 at 5:57 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

It seems natural that some Jews would use the state to advance their own ethnic interests by advancing the state's interests,

Still there would have to be SOME major differences in policy if, as you and your kind claim, Jews are pursuing some exotic over the top Jewish interests which is an ethnocentric "group evolutionary strategy to literally exterminate 1 billion Europeans" (and that is what groups selection implies, genocide).

But since you and your type have failed to list ANY fundamental differences which proves Jews were assimilated rather than self interested opportunists who only cooperated on a select few issues in order to gain power.

If there are few if any policy differences between elite Jews and elite gentiles since Ashkenazi Jews started immigrating to the United States (with the first wave of elite Jews being Republican supporting German American Jews) then there is no conflict except as a figment of macdonald's imagination.

How can there be conflicting ethnic interests if there is NO conflicting differences in policy?

January 7, 2011 at 8:02 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

josh, there are much bigger problems with macdonald's pontifications about Boas than what you listed which I didn't get to because of time constraints and I'm bored with having to hear his amen-spambots regurgitate his crackpot theories.

For one thing, macdonald doesn't know his history.

1) Franz Boas' anthropology did not deny the existence of mean intelligence differences between blacks and whites.

Boas (who was trained originally as a physical anthropologist) admitted that there was a low to moderate correlation between brain size and intelligence. Because of this correlation Boas conceded that blacks, who have lower average cranial volume than whites, were therefore less likely to produce in Boas' words "Men of High Genius" than whites were and that the mind of primitive man probably differed from the mind of modern man.

According to the book "In Search of Human Nature" Boas' point was that there was enough overlap in terms of intelligence that blacks could be made to assimilate into Anglo-Saxon culture. In the book, the social scientists who supported Boas also conceded that blacks were on average less intelligent but that they should be encouraged to be "the best black they could be" even if they couldn't be brought up to white standards.

2) According to In Search of Human Nature, Boasian anthro wasn't the most radically anti-blank slate scientific discipline of Boas' time.

The most blank slate ideology in terms of claiming human mental abilities were extremely malleable to environmental stimulus was Behaviorist Psychology led by John B. Watson and latter B.F. Skinner. But since neither Watson or Skinner were Jewish the behaviorist psychologists naturally are not mentioned by little kmac.

3) Boas' famous study on the skull shapes of children which macdonald, brimelow, and spencer and all the other Jew exterminationists didn't debunk the existence of race because the study ONLY DEALT WITH EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS, whose morphological features are going to overlap very closely with those of other European ethnic groups.

4) Boas wasn't hostile to Anglo-Americans or European civilization or a cultural relativist. He wrote that European civilization had achieved the highest level of advancement and that it was the European standard which the other races should strive to achieve. He also wanted to black to assimilate into Anglo culture, he was never hostile to WASPs.

January 7, 2011 at 8:51 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

5) Another problem is that macdonald is trying to pass off blame for the loss of belief in race and the credibility of eugenics on the Jews by only listing a handful of Jews who did argue race was a social construct such as Montague and Sapir, while at the same time failing to mention the prominent Jews who did promote the idea of race such as Robert Goldstein who helped direct and finance the production of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation or that many prominent British Jews supported the British Eugenics Society, the most powerful Eugenics society on earth.

In fact it was Hitler (very unintentionally) and not the Jews who singlehandedly caused the loss in belief of the biological reality of race and eugencis because the most powerful, most prominent, and best funded eugenics society in the world, the British Eugenics Society began to lose credibility and support for their policies.

According to Yale professor Daniel J Kevles' In the Name of Eugenics (which can be viewed in preview format on Google Books) eugenics and the British Eugenics Society began losing credibility even BEFORE the outbreak of WWII because of the excesses of the Nazi regime.

In fact the British Eugenics Society had to distance itself from association with Hitler by pointing out how many prominent British Jews were members of the society.

After WWII and according to Huxley, even the former chairman of the Eugenics Society, Sir Julian Huxley, had to backtrack on his views on race and eugenics because of Hitler, not because of Jews.

So, ultimately, despite the most powerful eugenics society on earth being supported by prominent British Jews, the belief in the biological reality of race collapsed because Hitler directed racial science against other Europeans, not only the Jews, but also the Eastern Slavs, and wrecked Europe in his pointless war.

I recommend going to Google Books, looking up In the Name of Eugenics and reading pages 160-172. I also recommend scrolling to page 117 where Kevles notes the pre-1933 German eugenics society believed Ashkenazi Jews were virtually "members of the Aryan race" because they could not find major morphological differences between Jews and European gentiles.

January 7, 2011 at 8:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>How can there be conflicting ethnic interests if there is NO conflicting differences in policy?

Because upper middle class whites are unwitting race traitors? Do you even understand what the BDH-OV class conflict is about? I gave it a shot, now I'm going back to skipping your posts.

January 7, 2011 at 10:32 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Because upper middle class whites are unwitting race traitors?

LOL! So every single powerful elite gentile such as John Paul Stevens and David Souter are essentially hypnotized against their will to do the bidding of the Jews?

And kevin macdonald has the audacity to say that hyper-moralized Jews such as "Honest Abe" Foxman and Steve "Schindler's List" Spielberg are the ones who are delusional with paranoia?

Shame on him and shame on you for projecting your own failings on the Jews.

Do you even understand what the BDH-OV class conflict is about?

The BDH-OV conflict - of which Moldbug wrote about here* - was used to describe conflicts between BDH Inner Party elites and NON-elite Middle American OV's.

My question revolves around divisions WITHIN the Inner Party BDH faction, not BETWEEN BDH and OV factions.

There are of course, significant differences BETWEEN BDH elites and OV Middle American NON-elites.

The question I'm asking is why THERE IS NO POLICY DISAGREEMENT between BDH-elite Jews and BDH elite gentiles if macdonald is correct that the Jewish elites are trying to exterminate white gentile elites and white gentiles generally?

Are there any other confusions the Jews may correct for you today?

* http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/05/bdh-ov-conflict_07.html

January 7, 2011 at 11:00 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Sir Julian Huxley, had to backtrack on his views on race and eugenics because of Hitler, not because of Jews.

Well, Montagu was active (and stridently so) rather early in the postwar period, via e.g. the UN. How significant this was could be debated.

I too have heard that eugenics was winding down before a shot was fired. Still, that doesn't have to be the absolute end of the story - it is conceivable (a priori at least) that it could have started up again after the war.

No one smart would ever doubt that Hitler/Nazism had a very large effect, per se, on the race question(s). The only debate would be about the exact magnitude of the effect. I don't believe Nazi atrocities are the one and only cause of things being how they are now. For one thing, matters have gotten steadily worse over generations.

You have a range restriction or variance restriction problem when you examine only jewish officials like Bernanke (or any officials) in investigating the whole panoply of sociopolitical change over time. It's similar to the range restriction problem you get if you seek a correlation between SATs and grades within one college. A given college has a rather small variance in SATs compared to the whole US population (and maybe also a relatively small variance in grades). Therefore, when you for a grades-SATs correlation at Stanford you might find a correlation of 0.2 - and at Berkeley it would be similar, and likewise at U Oklahoma. But when you look at all US college students you could get something very different, like 0.5. Grades are subjective, but if you seek a correlation between the GRE 'aptitude' (IQ) scores and GRE physics scores, you would observe the same phenomenon.

Officials are, analogously, a restricted slice of the ideological spectrum. They are all moderate, save perhaps people elected in majority-black districts. The media is broader. Take a look at all text articles from the last 40 years on immigration, in periodicals whose circulation is above some reasonable X, and I think you will find a very marked difference of
average viewpoint, between Jews and Gentiles. The difference is also present in the big leagues of HBD scholarship. It is quite marked indeed, though the efforts of pro-HBD Jews (as well as altruistic pro-White culture warriors like Ben Stein and Saul bellow) are deeply appreciated. The amount of Jews on the pro side is the expected amount, 30%. The anti side is a different story.

January 7, 2011 at 11:41 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

[continued]

In addition to the variance restriction issue, the conflict occurs only on certain issues.

What crude anti-semites don't grasp is that Jews have many times and to a large degree been rather forced leftward even if they don't want to go there, because of the force of impersonal circumstances. Being numerically weaker, physically weaker. There's a great deal of determinism in that, and therefore less blame than many people might imagine. Similarly, chthonic Northern Euros have sometimes been pushed to nasty acts. Not in the case of Nazism, but perhaps in other cases, where Ashkenazim were rapidly increasing their population share due to superior fitness. Nord societies were pushed in a direction that maybe they didn't want to go in; they were at risk of losing control over their chthonic lands.

Hopefully we can wind this disagreement down in time. Conflicts are fundamentally about raw resources. Resources are now abundant, but the conflict continues over non-fundamental stakes. Both sides will hopefully see that much less pain and risk inheres in winding down the conflict, than in trying to permanently prevail. Not that the conflict is everything. It is, however, a major waste of energy. We may be able to eventually wind it down by trading horses. Universal nationalists will always support the right of Jews to exist, and, as much as possible, determine their own future direction. White nationalists who aren't universal nationalists might eventually find themselves on the business end of crystalline, onrushing arguments to the effect that they should become universal nationalists. Suppose I were to produce those arguments myself during the coming decades of flux, with subliming rhetoric, the particular feelings and angles that only my side could have or express, and an effort to convey as much as possible what Jews have suffered in the past. What would you do for me?

January 7, 2011 at 11:42 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> I disagree because I believe the culture war preceded Jewish involvement, was at times far more violent than today, and has continued without interruption.

While it's debatable, and depends on certain things, on my view this is running close to the genetic fallacy.

It was at times far more violent than today - definitely true, but it's also true that leftism's proposals are much more extreme today.

To me, rightism basically consists of the core of the ancient ways of malthusian societies - and when new things/positions appear, they are rightist if they are in the spirit of the ancient ways. This probably has its faults, but to me it's better than other definitions, and better than the view that let-right is highly vague. The ancient ways prominently include, but are not limited to, the idea of man as quite imperfect, men as unequal, and the affinity for traditionalism (ie, being more empirical than rational).

Leftism is changes to the spirit of the ancient ways. One of the most common forms of it is mercy to the one who transgresses against the old ways, old duties.

I maintain that leftism is a universal impulse. All societies in all times will occasionally break the old ways strategically, and occasionally break them out of sheer altruism. The leftist impulse is de-repressed in proportion to prosperity, such as the non-malthusian living of the last 150 years.

Notice that Christianity isn't the most leftist religion. Jainism is, and it's 2,600 years old.

So, I do think Moldbug's high-church Anglo-Protestants have been an important determinant of our path. But I still think there would probably be major problems without them.

January 7, 2011 at 12:02 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> I'm just having a hard time finding any particularly Jewish attributes to the American culture war that were already there in some form before the rise of Jewish intellectuals.

OK, but why does there have to be qualitative change/difference? It's hardly the case that quantitative ones are always benign.

A certain amount of, say, racial self-abnegation is good. If I had god-like power to change things, I wouldn't crank the dial all the way to 0% abnegation / 100% chauvinism and pride. Heck, I'd probably set the abnegation a little bit higher than it was in Europe, 1910.

As Celine's boss orates at the end of Voyage, everything has gone way out of balance, first one side then the other. Not least Celine himself, who was a fucking jerk.

Moderation was a classical virtue. The classicism of Mussolini and Hitler was just a masque, behind which was total hysteria. Not incidentally the same is true of Nietzsche.

January 7, 2011 at 12:25 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

RS interesting as always.

January 7, 2011 at 2:51 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

josh,

the dominance of Boasian anthro is attributable to the...Rockefeller foundation.

can you source this please? i imagine they had many sources of funding. kmac documents his claim that the intellectual movements covered in CofC were funded and supported by the organized jewish community in america.

importantly, he also analyzes similar movements among the jewish communities in central europe, eastern europe, western europe, etc. many of the movements covered in CofC came from europe, both pre-1917 eastern european imports and pre-1933 german imports (in both cases predom jewish).

(i stress that his book is a scientific treatise, and i'm unaware of anyone disputing his data, mostly jewish and respected academic sources, or pointing out any persistent flaws in his logic.)

why would such common characteristics, which are really striking, exist if each group merely conformed to local, very different elites, political traditions, cultures, etc.

just read the book if you want to know the argument. why all this talk about the issue by people, so attached or confident in their beliefs, that they won't even bother to consider the full body of the opposing argument and evidence?

why even argue about it until you have mastered the literature, both pro and anti? that's my only crit of MM on the subject. it's an important subject, but far from the only important subject. it's far from pathological, and those who treat it as such bestow more importance on it than it deserves, generally (it seems) because of some positive or latent jewish identity.

obviously if you're jewish, the issue is of central importance and your opponents, however measured, objective, and analytical, seem pathological. from my pov, its one issue among many, and the assumption by the likes of TUJ, auster, etc., that vDare readers, for instance, have exterminationist tendencies, is pretty astounding and preposterous.

January 7, 2011 at 3:37 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

cont.

whatever the facts, mature people understand that jews have behaved as they had to to survive, have interests like any other group, have positive and negative qualities, and have dignity as human beings. of course, ethnic conflict in a democratic setting tends to become a bloodsport, and that's unfortunate, but i think the intense focus on the holocaust has exaggerated this feeling, especially among strongly identified jews. we have to respect the truth, whatever it is, if we want to be intellectually honest.

it's a guilty conscience which believes that any discussion of the issue leads to auschwitz. it's really bizarre. i feel like the jewish community has been terrorized by its own elites to so fear and loathe outsiders (non cosmopolitan, homogenous outsiders) to the point of hostility, which explains so much of the character of jewish elites, once they rose to prominence in academia, social sciences, media, culture, etc. even if this rise to prominence was purely a function of higher average iq, the hostility would still be a problem and a source of conflict for our, er, inter-cultural dialogue.

January 7, 2011 at 3:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a good 20 minute documentary on The History of Political Correctness by William Lind:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Lind traces Political Correctness to the Cultural Marxism that arose following WWI from people like the Hungarian Jew György Lukács and the Frankfurt School and then was brought into the US by them.

January 7, 2011 at 4:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeeze, that Lind guy sure looks creepy. If he lived next door, I wouldn't let the children out unsupervised.

January 7, 2011 at 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you only let your kids around guys you deem sexy?

January 7, 2011 at 7:25 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous said:
"Lind traces Political Correctness to the Cultural Marxism that arose following WWI from people like the Hungarian Jew György Lukács and the Frankfurt School and then was brought into the US by them."

Then Lind is full of crap. The first modern type outbreak of PC is the London establishment raising up John Jacob Thomas and parading him about London like a trained Panda bear - primarily for his arguments and supposed evidence in support of ebonics, and his pseudo scientific condemnation of colonialism, imperialism, racism, and blah blah blah.

The Marie Curie Nobel was also modern political correctness - no one was able to make the obvious point that she was being given a Nobel for doing science that was entirely unremarkable when men did it - assuming she did it at all, for she never did anything in the slightest significant except under the supervision of her great scientist husband (which did not stop them from giving her a second Nobel after her husband croaked)

We can trace political correctness back to a long way before 1890, even though it is more obvious, and more obviously modern in its themes and activities after 1890

Google books for "nigger lover". You will find piles of people proudly claiming that unnamed others, uncouth, vulgar, uncultured others, accused them of being "nigger lovers" - a claim readily recognizable as PC, even though not so modern in form as John Jacobs Thomas's ebonics.

So PC in modern form goes back to 1890, and in easily recognizable form goes back centuries, and in the earlier PC, scarcely a Jew is in sight.

January 8, 2011 at 12:34 AM  
Anonymous Todd said...

So PC in modern form goes back to 1890, and in easily recognizable form goes back centuries, and in the earlier PC, scarcely a Jew is in sight.

You could find examples of condemnations of colonialism/imperialism/racism etc. and of putting women on a pedestal in almost all times and places throughout history. Expressions of these kinds of sentiments is not an "outbreak of PC." PC implies a systemic control of people's thoughts and behavior. Modern PC systemically enforces adherence to Cultural Marxism and naturally arose after it was developed and imported and the sufficient enforcement mechanisms and methods were embedded.

January 8, 2011 at 2:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PC implies a systemic control of people's thoughts and behavior.
That's right. PC is a system of governance developed by the modern bureaucratic state.

January 8, 2011 at 9:39 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Todd said
"You could find examples of condemnations of colonialism/imperialism/racism etc. and of putting women on a pedestal in almost all times and places throughout history. Expressions of these kinds of sentiments is not an "outbreak of PC." PC implies a systemic control of people's thoughts and behavior."

Clearly, PC has been getting progressively more repressive, authoritarian, dogmatic, and oppressive, but it was oppressive enough in 1890. The change is one of degree, not kind. You could detect the repression and intimidation in 1830. In 1890, repression, coercion, and intimidation was quite severe, in 2010, closely approximates the Ministry of Truth as depicted in "1984"

January 8, 2011 at 3:06 PM  
Anonymous Todd said...

In 1890, repression, coercion, and intimidation was quite severe

You mean like how they were lynching Italians in 1891?

January 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

Certainly one substantial component of PC was introduced by Rousseau - the myth of the 'noble savage,' and the accompanying notion that civilization (western civilization in particular) was responsible for everything wrong with the human condition.

January 8, 2011 at 3:30 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

James A. Donald said
In 1890, repression, coercion, and intimidation [to enforce political correctness] was quite severe

Todd said...
You mean like how they were lynching Italians in 1891?

Italians were lynched for murder and organized crime - private enforcement of law and justice was normal up to around 1910, and there is no indication that Italians or blacks were more subject to it than anyone else, nor any indication that it was less just than official government enforcement - on the face of it, probably more just.

Lord Cromer, however, was charged with having politically incorrect thoughts.

January 8, 2011 at 5:20 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

i guess some people just have no idea what PC means and just call anything they disagree with PC. forget 1890, why not 30 AD when jesus was preachin it. for christ sake, pun, can't we have some basic respect for the meaning of words.

January 8, 2011 at 5:27 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said:
"i guess some people just have no idea what PC means and just call anything they disagree with PC. forget 1890"

The doctrines that were being enforced in 1890 (enforced by men confidently speaking power to truth) were PC because they were the same doctrines as are being enforced in 2011, merely enforced by means somewhat less extreme: Among other things, that males and females and blacks and whites are equal in the sense of interchangeable, and equal in mean and distribution. For example what is now called Ebonics, the doctrine that common black speech is as grammatical in its own way, as well organized, and as capable of communicating complex concepts, as regular English, is modern PC, and is 1890s PC.

Gays are a recent addition to the groups that it is impermissible to speak truthfully about, but gender differences and racial differences have been a forbidden topic for a very long time, depending on how severe a sanction has to be before one calls a thought "forbidden".

January 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM  
Anonymous Todd said...

The point is that "in 1890" the "repression, coercion, and intimidation" that "was quite severe" consisted of lynching people for murder and other crimes. In other words, coercion was used to enforce adherence to things like not murdering people.

Making a joke about Ebonics, dismissing Ebonics, etc. at work during the 1890s did not get you fired. A lynch mob did not go after you during the 1890s for disrespecting Ebonics.

January 8, 2011 at 6:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

heh. lollolz.

http://www.youtube.com/user/OriginalSavagechick

January 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Todd said...:
"Making a joke about Ebonics, dismissing Ebonics, etc. at work during the 1890s did not get you fired."

True, would not get you fired from a private business, but it did mean that the establishment turned up their noses at you. If your job was in government, might not get you fired, but could get you in trouble.

People were, for the most part, delicate and evasive when talking about political incorrect facts, and the politically correct addressed the politically incorrect in the characteristic arrogant and confident voice of power speaking to truth.

The politically correct, then as now, do not need to refute the politically incorrect with such things as evidence or argument. They condescend to them from a position of social superiority, and if a fact is inconvenient, they vaguely suggest that they have thought of some clever means for rationalizing it away, and ridicule the incorrect for not having been sufficiently clever to find a way around the inconvenient fact, which clever rationale the politically correct need not bother actually explaining, merely have to assert that it exists.

The voice of power was as recognizable then as now.

Then as now, their argument did not appeal to facts, evidence, or reason, but rather they pointed out that the politically incorrect argument was evidence of low social status.

January 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM  
Anonymous observer said...

James Donald,

You're confusing political correctness as a social phenomena -- i.e., what is socially acceptable, with a particular brand of political correctness, or political correctness proper; the political correctness we've been referring to as cultural marxism. There have always been social enforcement mechanisms on belief; if you want to call this "political correctness," in modern parlance, go ahead. Just don't confuse it with the specific set of taboos and beliefs that constitute political correctness proper, for which the modern term PC was coined, and which have a pretty clear and distinct ideological lineage. Thanks!

January 8, 2011 at 8:53 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

observer said...
'if you want to call this "political correctness," in modern parlance, go ahead. Just don't confuse it with the specific set of taboos and beliefs that constitute political correctness proper, for which the modern term PC was coined'

But it was the specific set of taboos and beliefs that constitute modern political correctness: The belief that males and females are equal in the sense of being interchangeable and having the the same mean and distribution of abilities, the belief that blacks and whites are equal in the sense of being interchangeable and having the the same mean and distribution of abilities, and so and so forth.

The difference is that in the 1890s, these beliefs were merely enforced by means considerably less extreme, but, except for gays, they are the same system beliefs, enforced by the same sort of people, against the same sort of people, without significant change.

January 8, 2011 at 9:50 PM  
Anonymous observer said...

James Donald,

You are amazingly ignorant of history! You can't just skip huge areas like that!

January 8, 2011 at 11:17 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

observer said...
You are amazingly ignorant of history! You can't just skip huge areas like that!

In your version of history, did those evil racist sexist dinosaurs rule the earth in the 1950s, and shoot anyone who thought that women could do maths or logic?

To someone who reads enough old books, that version of recent history is as bizarre and fantastic as Winston Smith's account of 1950s capitalism

Winston Smith is explaining capitalism to an old man
"Here in London, the great mass of the people never had enough to eat from birth to death. Half of them hadn't even boots on their feet. They worked twelve hours a day, they left school at nine, they slept ten to a room. And at the same time there were a very few people, only a few thousands--the capitalists, they were called-who were rich and powerful. They owned everything that there was to own. They lived in great gorgeous houses with thirty servants, they rode about in motor cars and four-horse carriages, they drank champagne, they wore top hats--"

The old man brightened suddenly.

"Top 'ats!" he said. "Funny you should mention 'em.

The same thing come into my 'ead only yesterday. I donno why. I was jest thinking. I ain't seen a top 'at in years. Gorn right out, they 'ave. The last time I wore one was at my sister-in-law's funeral. And that was--well I couldn't give you the date, but is must 'a been fifty years ago. Of course it was only 'ired for the occasion, you understand."

"It isn't very important about the top hats," said Winston patiently. "The point is, these capitalists--they and a few lawyers and priests and so forth who lived on them--were the lords of the earth. Everything existed for their benefit. You--the ordinary people,the workers--were their slaves. They could do what they liked with you. They could ship you off to Canada like cattle. They could sleep with your daughters if they chose. They could order you to be flogged with something called a cat-o'nine-tails. You have to take your cap off when you passed them.

January 9, 2011 at 12:19 AM  
Anonymous observer said...

James Donald,

No. I think we can date the beginning of PC to Charles Lindbergh's fall from grace.

PC began in the 30s-40s. Has gotten consistently stronger and broader since, with the rise of our new elites.

That you can quote some mild socialist opinion about the awful conditions in England (Carlyle talks about this, so he must've just been afraid to violate PC) and define that as PC demonstrates, that for you, PC is any opinion you don't like.

I don't know why you jumped to 1950, weren't you comfortable with 1890? Why are you retreating toward the present? I thought you believed PC was firmly entrenched in 1890?

You're grasping at straws.

January 9, 2011 at 9:50 AM  
Blogger George Weinberg said...

The world is full of ideas, most of them old, most of them bad, and it seems to me that where they originally came from is a much less important question than what sustains them and causes them to spread. Even if it's true that modern PC ideas have their origin in the low church Protestantism of the 19th century, that really doesn't tell you much about what's happened in the last 50 years or so. Blaming the Jews and blaming the 19th century Protestants are both unsatisfactory, since neither group has the capability to compel belief.

January 9, 2011 at 11:22 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Observer said:
"That you can quote some mild socialist opinion about the awful conditions in England (Carlyle talks about this, so he must've just been afraid to violate PC) and define that as PC demonstrates, that for you, PC is any opinion you don't like."

Carlyle was horribly politically incorrect, and so was Froude. They were speaking truth to power. To find late nineteenth century political correctness, read power speaking to truth, for example John Jacob Thomas. Read not the truth that was permitted then and is forbidden now, but the lies that were being pushed then and are being pushed now.

The core of PC is elite enforcement of the doctrine that men and women are equal in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution, and that blacks and whites are interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution, This was being enforced, by means less extreme and drastic that those presently applied, in 1890.

The rise of political correctness has been a steady increase in the scale and breadth of affirmative action, and a steady increase in the level of coercion with which the doctrine is enforced.

Affirmative action and doctrinal enforcement were both visible in the 1890s, and have become progressively more visible.

January 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

George Weinberg said...:
"Blaming the Jews and blaming the 19th century Protestants are both unsatisfactory, since neither group has the capability to compel belief."

But 19th century protestants did have the power to compel belief. It is just that after 1940s, stopped calling themselves protestants.

The power was less than they acquired in de-nazification and re-education, but still disturbingly formidable.

From around 1890s to 1940s, political correctness was in substantial part nominally protestant and more european than American, from 1940s onwards, nominally "scientific" and nominally world wide, but in practice dominated by the US elite.

God got evicted in or shortly after the 1940s, and enforcement became progressively more severe throughout the entire period, but the core doctrines (literal material equality), core religious practices (affirmative action) and the theocracy remained unchanged.

When they started applying that power by increasingly drastic means and on a on a considerably larger scale, (denazification and re-education) which was primarily American protestants, they tossed God and Jesus overboard, but it is recognizably the same movement with the same ideas.

The people in charge of PC have become more American in the 1940s, and are less open about enforcing a religion, but the core of PC is literal, this wordly, equality, that people are not just the same before God and before the law, but quite literally the same, and that this idea can and should be enforced by the elite through doctrinal repression and affirmative action, which ideology and repression well and truly predates US dominance in the movement, and the movement's discarding of its overtly religious roots.

January 9, 2011 at 12:34 PM  
Anonymous observer said...

James Donald,

>Carlyle was horribly politically incorrect

He was popular, widely read, widely published, widely known by the whole intellectual world, in Europe and America.

>This was being enforced, by means less extreme and drastic that those presently applied, in 1890.

Show me some examples of this being "enforced" on anyone, please. I'm dying to see this.

>Affirmative action and doctrinal enforcement were both visible in the 1890s, and have become progressively more visible.

Please, show me. Don't just claim this. Demonstrate it. Quoting the opinion of an author at the time won't do. I can quote a widely known author at the time with an opposite point of view. I don't want to hear your theory, I want to see the evidence. A few incontestable examples will do.

January 9, 2011 at 2:26 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Clearly, PC has been getting progressively more repressive, authoritarian, dogmatic, and oppressive, but it was oppressive enough in 1890. The change is one of degree, not kind. You could detect the repression and intimidation in 1830. In 1890, repression, coercion, and intimidation was quite severe, in 2010, closely approximates the Ministry of Truth as depicted in "1984"

JAD - do you know what the genetic fallacy is, can you give an account of it?

How many ideas do you think there are, that I could not use to the detriment of a society, if I took them to 'typical', rather than unaccustomed extremes? That was the point of my mention of the genetic fallacy. Do at least read Wik on same and consider the concept.

I mean, in the extreme, suppose I don't want to wipe out bloodily the 'niggers', the lovers of whom you mention, but rather want to cede them their space on the earth. Does that mean that I have to embrace PC?

No. There is a middle ground, and if you refuse to learn about what the genetic fallacy is, you are fated to minimize or deny, I would say, the existence of said middle ground.

January 9, 2011 at 3:45 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Clearly, PC has been getting progressively more repressive, authoritarian, dogmatic, and oppressive, but it was oppressive enough in 1890.

Indeed, it WAS 'oppressive' enough... and yet at the same time the 1890 midstream was also 'nazi' enough to be called all but nazi, today, by those to the left of yourself.


> The change is one of degree, not kind.

Apparently I do no good at all by bringing the genetic fallacy into the conversation. Please, read about the genetic fallacy on Wik, think about it, and then please consider me indebted to read, sacrificing the ten minutes that it takes, whatever Wik article under the sun that you would like me to read. That's fair play. That way we'll be closer to being on the same page. Otherwise we'll be farther apart...

January 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> The voice of power was as recognizable then as now.

Right, that's why Mencken wrote for the Baltimore Sun until his natural dotage in 1948 at thew age of 70 or so, after both wars. He was employed by the Sun for an entire generation after his 1918 comments on the malodorousness of 'Greek busboys' and on the mixed virtues and vices of the Jews.

Again... you cannot, absolutely cannot fail to incorporate both quantity and quality into your analysis if you want to be serious. Read Wik on genetic fallacy.

January 9, 2011 at 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In fact, RS, everyone who posts here should just read the entire wiki page on Logical fallacies, and learn how to construct a valid argument. Of course, some people use logical fallacies deliberately, and most don't realize their beliefs contain logical fallacies and cognitive biases.

Every site should have, instead of a moderator, a logical fallacy patrol. of course, he might be biased too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

January 9, 2011 at 4:34 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

The esthete can see that the most beautiful music in today's West savors of 'nihilism', Untergang:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdWhlo9b9zg

The ideal culture, the great and distinguished culture - or more broadly, the merely civilized one - most certainly distinguishes between quantity and quality, and it is not pure health. Rather, it consists in heath 9right) as a majority drive and power - and spes phthisica (left), or morbidity especially in its excellent and unique aspects, as a minority one. That was the formula for (inter alia) the culture of the great poems of the Jews, e.g. the Song of Songs as we Anglophones access it in the KJV - recognized as the greatest poem ever written even by 'Nazis' like Nietzsche and Mencken.

The real, great culture - and likewise the grounds for amity between two great cultures - seems to lie in balanced, but not formulaically median positions on the great dialectics. As Gomez Davila emphasized more than many other writers, these great problems do not have solutions by virtue of principles or in the logos... these insoluble problems are themselves, a sort of principles...

Take a look, not just rightward but leftward too, at those who followed, and reconciled, principles instead of profound problems, dialectics... I don't like what I see.

January 9, 2011 at 5:11 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

observer said...
[Carlyle] was popular, widely read, widely published, widely known by the whole intellectual world, in Europe and America.

He was also “controversial” and demonized. You did not want to be known as a fan of Carlyle if you hoped to be part of the elite.

observer said...
Show me some examples of this being "enforced" on anyone

Political correctness was enforced by means considerably less drastic than today, but Froude got publicly scolded by the wise, the good, and the great for his political incorrectness. John Jacob Thomas got affirmative actioned up to a position of power, prestige, and influence on the basis of race despite conspicuous lack of ability, and everyone was reluctant to say that he was none too bright, or that his arguments lacked evidence and logic, while they would not have displayed such diffidence and politeness in laying into a white man.

Kid gloves and elevation despite dubious merit for Thomas, sharp reprimand from above for Froude

Google books of the period for “nigger lover”. You will find few, probably no writers calling people “nigger lovers”, nor examples of named and identified people calling other people “nigger lovers”, but you will find lots and lots of writers making the “argument” that those who doubt material equality – that those who suggest that the various races are unequal in mean and distribution, that those who doubt the holy doctrine of material equality, are not merely wicked, but, worse than that, far worse than that, are socially inferior and of a lower social class

January 9, 2011 at 5:12 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

'Love your enemies' is more than a little extreme... do learn something, though from your enemies!

January 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

RS said...
and yet at the same time the 1890 midstream was also 'nazi' enough to be called all but nazi, today, by those to the left of yourself.

To decide whether the 1890s were politically correct, should we compare it with the 2000s, by which standard it is horribly politically incorrect, or the 1800s, by which standard both the 1890s and the 2000s are horribly and oppressively politically correct and not all that different from each other?

We should do neither. We should compare those views that were socially favored in the 1890s, those views to which there was pressure to conform in the 1890s, to reality, not to the 1800s nor the 2000s.

Reality was that those who were being affirmative actioned in 1890-1910 were being affirmative actioned up beyond their ability, and that the view that was socially favored - that men and women are equal in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution, and that blacks and whites are equal in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution was false, was contrary to reality.

By the reality standard, the 1890s were politically correct, and the 2000s were even more politically correct.

January 9, 2011 at 5:27 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald..

lots of people have promoted the idea of human equality for different reasons at different times.

since there is no such equality, any tendency to advance an inferior group, will by nature apply to that same group vis a vis another group, at any point in history. after all, there obviously is never going to be affirmative action for whites in africa, for example.

obviously the proximity of blacks to protestant christians within the same society is a relatively new phenomenon, so the opportunity for believers in equality to attempt to advance blacks is also new.

none of these facts are valid premises for an argument that the political order that exists at present is directly related to some past expressions of belief in human equality, or even some past attempts to artificially elevate the achievements or status of groups occupying an inferior social position.

as i said before, there are many different lefts in history, even if you limit definition of 'left' to active egalitarianism.

it's not all necessarily of a piece, nor does the success of one group of egalitarians imply lineage to some previous failed group of egalitarians.

there may be no link, a direct and complete descent, or somewhere in between.

today's political correctness, in my opinion, is deeply different and genealogically distinct from some expressions of egalitarian belief in the 19th century.

whether you agree or not, your argument does not in any way demonstrate what it is supposed to demonstrate. it's just an elaborate statement of your opinion.

January 9, 2011 at 6:00 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

you mencius moldbuggites are like the mirror image of the progressive/whigs.

you imagine some inevitable progress of the progressive themselves.

part of MM's framework in fact is the necessary postulate of the inherent progress of the progressives.

no such progress is natural, nor did it occur that way.

they lost. the average educated american in 1920 was not a progressive. nor in europe.

leftists got their asses handed to them in europe post WW1.

the american transcendentalists lost the intellectual debate by the 20th century. equality was not the mainstream belief in 1920.

there was no PC. darwinism reigned in the social sciences. america restricted immigration to the ethnic status quo of the country.

mencken published, nietzsche and carlyle were read.

blacks in america were degragated, no immigration to europe was accepted.


anti-semitism, in the old sense of the term, was widespread in europe and america.

people in the usa could write, say, publish what they wanted.

the onslaught that displaced and overcame the intellectual consensus of the 1920s was something different.

the movements discussed in the culture of critique by kevin macdonald displaced the regnant orthodoxy of western educated classes from the 1930s, through WW2, into the 50s, 60s, 70s, and so on.

these movements were predom jewish, originated outside america, had their contemporaries in germany and russia, and came to america largely due to rightwing reaction in europe to the jewish left's activity.

that the rump movement of american egalitarianism joined up with this newer radical egalitarianism to displace the Right from the intellectual stage is a natural and expected occurrence.

if you want to be a right winger today, your main opposition will be the jewish establishment and other minorities. the anglo element to the present day right is fleeting and impotent.

my impression is that, old as he is, mr moldbug discovered politics late in his life, put his magnificent brain to the task of figuring stuff out, and due to 1) social status concerns 2) partial jewish ancestry, MUST reason his way around the clear and obvious jewish role in the transformation of the west from 1920 to 2010.

January 9, 2011 at 7:33 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

the anglo element to the present day left* is fleeting and impotent.

January 9, 2011 at 7:40 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

if the anglo element of the present day left (e.g., jimmy carter) wasn't fleeting and impotent, you would not have had the rise of the neoconservatives (jewish trotskyites) to power, and the pro-israel component of PC. in america, being anti-arab and pro-israel is a part of political correctness, not its antithesis.

January 9, 2011 at 7:44 PM  
Anonymous observer said...

James Donald:

Like I said, grasping at straws. You've shown me nothing remotely close to political correctness, by mentioning Froude and Jacobs. This is the basis of your argument? The basis of your belief? Please, tell me you have something more firm to go on.

January 9, 2011 at 8:01 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said:
as i said before, there are many different lefts in history, even if you limit definition of 'left' to active egalitarianism.

The left that in the 1890s promoted the proposition that women were equal to men in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution, and blacks were equal to whites in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution did so from a position of power and social supremacy, were an established elite, which power and social supremacy was never at any stage interrupted, thus were in this sense the same elite with the same ideology, which ideology has not drifted very far from its origins, despite dropping God and Christ from its rhetoric.

January 9, 2011 at 8:22 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

http://www.archive.org/stream/renaissancesavon00gobiuoft/renaissancesavon00gobiuoft_djvu.txt

Oscar Levy's translation (and introduction) to

THE RENAISSANCE

SAVONAROLA CESARE
BORGIA JULIUS II. LEO X.
MICHAEL ANGELO

by ARTHUR, COUNT GOBINEAU

...

Relevant to the above discussion, in the intro, Levy discusses the Gobineau vs. Tocqueville debate over Gobineau's theories of racial inequality vs. Tocqueville's proto-progressive tabula rasa viewpoint. Contains selections from Gobineau/Tocqueville correspondence, who were friends, in their disagreement over the malleability of Man...

Gobineau is the [in]famous author of the essay On the Inequality of Human Races, the first scientific racialist monograph, and everyone knows Tocqueville as the author of Democracy in America.

Their correspondence is illuminating in regard to the debate at the time between the realists and idealists regarding race characteristics, heredity, human nature.

May throw some light on the debate ongoing here....

The link above is an html text of the work, with the relevant info in the first pages. Just ctrl + f for Tocqueville.

You're welcome.

January 9, 2011 at 8:33 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James... you certainly have not demonstrated that this is true, or even attempted to. You've just claimed it.

January 9, 2011 at 8:34 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said...
they lost. the average educated american in 1920 was not a progressive. nor in europe. leftists got their asses handed to them in europe post WW1.

Affirmative action began in 1890-1910 and has grown in scope and severity ever since, steadily become stronger and broader, affecting more and more people in ways more and more extreme.

The welfare regulatory state was implemented post World War I, by Bismark in Germany, by Hoover in the US. That sure looks like the left winning to me.

When you say the average educated American was not a progressive in 1920, you mean he was not a progressive by 2010 standards. By 1890 standards he was a raving extreme left, and by 1800 standards the mainstream of 1890 were lunatic fringe left.

January 9, 2011 at 8:36 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said:
http://www.archive.org/stream/renaissancesavon00gobiuoft/renaissancesavon00gobiuoft_djvu.txt

Relevant to the above discussion, in the intro, Levy discusses the Gobineau vs. Tocqueville debate over Gobineau's theories of racial inequality vs. Tocqueville's proto-progressive tabula rasa viewpoint.


Thanks for this link:

Which link tells us that Gobineau's life and career was destroyed by the government - likely for political incorrectness. Sounds like not much has changed between 1870 and 2010

January 9, 2011 at 8:44 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Observer said...
You've shown me nothing remotely close to political correctness, by mentioning Froude and Jacobs.

John Jacob Thomas wrote late twentieth century political correctness in the late nineteenth century, and was blessed by the establishment for doing so. Froude did not, and was damned by the establishment for not doing so.

January 9, 2011 at 8:49 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James,

whatever you may think, by 1920 gobineau had won that debate.

from the 1930s on, there was no debate, just censorship, in america.

in europe, from 1945 on, there was no debate, only censorship.

the left lost the debate. it won the political power contest in america, lost it in europe, and won the second world war in europe.

the correct model for PC in the west is the soviet union, not progressives from 1890 who were just naive.

those naive people did not run the show in america or europe by 1920.

they certainly did not spread their naive ideas to europe...

it's almost comical, the idea of john brown's ideas being victorious and causing the bolshevik revolution or the frankfurt school.

yet, you guys are serious with this proposed lineage.

i can only disagree and chuckle.

January 9, 2011 at 9:13 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

lol, John Jacob Thomas doesn't even have a wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froudacity

Wiki says:

"[Froude's] English in the West Indies received mostly positive reviews in London newspapers when it was published [...]"

James can you please grace us with some more hard hitting examples of PC run amok in 1890?

January 9, 2011 at 9:18 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous jkr said...
"whatever you may think, by 1920 gobineau had won that debate."

Gobineau was punished in the nineteenth century, Nei was punished in the late twentieth.

From 1850 to 2010, those arguing that blacks are equal to whites in the sense of being interchangeable and equal in mean and distribution are the voice of authority, the voice of power, the voice of the establishment. Those disagreeing, are the voice of the losers. Froude speaks in the voice of the losers, John Jacob Thomas speaks with the voice of authority, speaking power to truth, the voice of those with the power to punish and reward, and that is the way the debate has sounded ever since and in every year in between.

The 1920s doctrine of separate but equal conceded a literal equality that was obviously false.

January 10, 2011 at 3:18 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous jkr said...
"those naive people did not run the show in america or europe by 1920."

In 1910, we saw a couple of affirmative action Nobels for a woman scientist - and "those naive people" have continued to distribute Nobel prizes politically ever since, with the prizes expressing the same politics then as now without change or interruption.

January 10, 2011 at 3:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed were the two main architects. In the wake of intense lobbying, the Act passed with strong congressional support.[1] There were six dissenting votes in the Senate and a handful of opponents in the House, the most vigorous of whom was freshman Brooklyn Representative Emanuel Celler. Over the succeeding four decades, Celler made the repeal of the Act into a personal crusade. Some of the law's strongest supporters were influenced by Madison Grant and his 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race. Grant was a eugenicist and an advocate of the racial hygiene theory. His data purported to show the superiority of the founding Northern European races. But most proponents of the law were rather concerned with upholding an ethnic status quo and avoiding competition with foreign workers.[2]

The act was strongly supported by well-known union leader and founder of the AFL, Samuel Gompers.[3] Gompers was a Jewish immigrant, and uninterested in the accusations by many Jews that the quotas were based on anti-Semitism.
---

How did an immigration act that set "national origin" (race) quotas and was supported by racial hygiene theorists receive only six dissenting votes in the senate if the voice of power was PC?

From the same year:

---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth and divided society into only two classifications: white and colored (all other, essentially, which included numerous American Indians). It defined race by the "one-drop rule", defining as colored persons with any African or Indian ancestry. It also expanded the scope of Virginia's ban on interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation law) by criminalizing all marriages between white persons and non-white persons. In 1967 the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in its ruling on Loving v. Virginia.
---

Eugenics was a pet concern of the left and progressives in the 1920s. How is that PC?

>The 1920s doctrine of separate but equal conceded a literal equality that was obviously false.

What was the justification for the separate part if the doctrine was about literal equality? The doctrine was about a black entitlement to legal equality, not social equality much less genetic equality.

January 10, 2011 at 7:32 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Anon,

James Donald, as an unwitting progressive, imagines a world where the establishment in 1890, if presented with an image of the present society, would have been quite satisfied; that this is the kind of future they envisioned. He believes in a world of planned linear progress. It's the whig theory from the perspective of someone who, as a self-styled "reactionary," wants to assume this was an inevitable march of progress toward the present, even if, as a reactionary, he doesn't like this present.

I find this to be absurd. I think if you could present today's society to the people James thinks of as the harbingers of PC, they would disavow any intention of such a future, and would in fact be horrified.

The truth is there is no steady progression from Tocqueville, for instance, to Barack Obama. The Gobineau school of inequality had won the day by the 20s, and the Right had won in Europe by the 1930s.

The reversal of these victories were their own set of movements, as anyone who looks into them empirically, rather than purely theoretically, would see.

That's why a Kevin MacDonald, trained as a scientist and familiar with empirical work, avoids the pitfall of describing a world that only exists theoretically, a la Mencius Moldbug. You simply cannot describe history deductively! If you try, you end up a Marxian, a Whig, or a Moldbuggite. Actually look at the empirical reality of history, and you'll see clear enough who, what, and how is going on.

James Donald, question. Why are you quoting me above as Anonymous jkr?

January 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

That's why a Kevin MacDonald, trained as a scientist and familiar with empirical work,

If he's a "scientist" how come he has presented hardly any EMPIRICAL proof liberal Jews are ethnocentric, the key foundation of ""?

According the GSS, liberal Jews are LESS ETHNOCENTRIC than other whites and the most liberal Jews, the unaffiliated Jews, are the least ethnocentric than ANY OTHER WHITE ETHNIC GROUP.

If macdonald is a scientist, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE LIBERAL JEWS ARE MORE ETHNOCENTRIC THAN WHITES??????

(GSS variable used is ETHCLOSE):

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-measure-showing-high-jewish.html

Orthodox and Conservative Jews are the most ethnocentric of all groups. (snip)

On the other hand, TUJ has a point that tribalism varies greatly across types of Jews. While Orthodox Jews are one full standard deviation more ethocentric than Americans of English/Welsh descent, Jews with no religious affiliation actually score a bit lower than the reference group(WASPs). (Keep in mind that the N's are tiny).

January 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

TUJ is obviously in dreamland as always.

You attach yourself to an anomalous data-point, which supports what you already believe (or want people to believe), and repeat it ad nauseam, despite all experience and common sense to the contrary.

The Jewish left (80% of American Jews) support Israel without qualification! Think Bill Maher, a rabid leftist and rabidly pro-Israel. Think media mogul Haim Saban (an Israeli), think Rahm Emmanuel (an Israeli), think Joe Lieberman, think Elliot Spitzer, think Ezra Klein, think Dianne Feinstein, think Abe Foxman, think The New Republic, think Hollywood!

The elite of the left in America, and the democratic party, is unqualifiedly pro-Israel!

The neoconservative leadership of the Right, who are pretty much leftists on everything else, and worship Joe Lieberman, are Israel boosters through and through!

The American left supports Israel!

Israel is to the right of South Africa.

That portion of the American left which is self-consistent, and therefore opposes Israel, are viewed as radicals and extremists!

The truly progressive, genuine Left, is pro-Palestinian! Not as stridently as they were anti-South Africa, but at least mildly critical of Israel! This mild criticism is called "the New AntiSemitism" throughough the mainstream center of American politics!

This ideological split of the left shows us clearly that the Jewish left, not the old egalitarian or Christian left, rules the roost!

They publish the neocons (Jewish trotskyites and open-borders leftists) in all the elite news media, like the NY Beta Times and WaPo! These are small ideological divisions of the Jewish mainstream, which constitute the center of American politics! Jewish sentiments are our present day mainstream. The attitudes of Jews 50 years ago (and no other group) constitute the present mainstream of American politics.

If you looked at the attitudes of any group of Americans 50 years ago, the only group who's views have not changed drastically and would be recognizable at present are the Jewish community!

Jews, not WASPs, staffed and led and funded the NAACP from its inception!

The real Right and real Left (paleocons and real progressives) and marginalized outsiders!

Gentiles follow the Jewish lead.

Genuine Jewish progressives, such as Israel Shamir and Israel Shahak, are referred to as extremists and self-hating Jews in the American mainstream, and considered outcasts.

Crude racism and hostility toward anything Arab or Muslim is commonplace throughout American culture, media, politics. Not toward criminal and indigent blacks, not toward illegal Mexican colonizers and MS-13ers, just "towel-heads" on the other side of the world! That's the sole acceptable racism in America, and is championed by the neocon Left and the Hollywood Left.

The only acceptable slurs in American lexicon are white trash, towel head, Kraut, hick, and other variations on goy.

The only time the mainstream American left even bother to criticize anti-Arab sentiment is when they are trying to score political points against talk radio. Other than that, Arab is synonymous with suicide bomber!

Hollywood liberal Jews not ethnocentric? Ha. Hollywood is a Jewish colony, characterized by ethnic nepotism and exclusivity, which portrays Jews as moral paragons, and portrays Germans, Arabs, rural Whites, southern Whites, WASPs, et al, as backward, pathological outgroups!

Mainstream American attitudes are traditional Jewish attitudes, which would be unrecognizable in America just 50 years ago!

If you can't see that even the Jewish left are extremely ethnocentric, pro-Jewish, and Judeo-centric in all their concerns and reporting (google NY Times + Holocaust), you're deluding yourself!

Get real man!

January 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

brutal takedown of the Noble Peace prize farce

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/01/the-nobel-peace-prize-dissenters-from-western-political-correctness-need-not-apply/#more-6098

January 10, 2011 at 7:52 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

How did an immigration act that set "national origin" (race) quotas and was supported by racial hygiene theorists receive only six dissenting votes in the senate if the voice of power was PC?

It did not set race quotas.

That it set "national origin" quotas when 99% of the electorate really wanted race quotas shows who had the power, shows that in 1924 political correctness was the voice of power.

Again you are using the argument that because political correctness in year X-10 was less than in year X, those evil horrid racists ruled, and the good progressives were out of power.

What we are getting now, though it would have horrified the midstream of the nineteenth century, is exactly what the elite in the nineteenth century intended.

Froude in 1890 tells us exactly what is going to happen in the West Indies, and lo and behold, it is exactly what is happening.

Froude perceived himself and his faction as defeated, and the winners as intending then to eventually do what they are doing today.

January 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said...
The Jewish left (80% of American Jews) support Israel without qualification!

If they supported Israel without qualification, they would support the right of Jews to settle in all of Jerusalem. They don't.

If they supported Israel without qualification, they would support the right of Jews to bomb Gaza and the West Bank flat. They don't.

If they supported Israel without qualification, they would support throwing Muslims out of the temple ruins. They don't.

January 11, 2011 at 2:18 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said...
I think if you could present today's society to the people James thinks of as the harbingers of PC, they would disavow any intention of such a future, and would in fact be horrified.

Froude thought that they intended to do what they are now doing, and Thomas intended to do what they are now doing.

And much the same could be said in every year between the late nineteenth century and the present.

Gay rights is not something that they envisaged back in the nineteenth century, but the abolition of marriage, the abolition of sex roles, and the complete integration of black and white on the basis of affirmative action is proceeding according to a plan laid down in the nineteenth century, possibly earlier.

January 11, 2011 at 2:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That it set "national origin" quotas when 99% of the electorate really wanted race quotas shows who had the power, shows that in 1924 political correctness was the voice of power.

The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, included the National Origins Act and the Asian Exclusion Act.

It set national origin quotas because they didn't want non-Northwestern Europeans in the country.

Political correctness in 1924 meant not wanting non-Northwestern Europeans in the country.

January 11, 2011 at 10:07 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous said...
Political correctness in 1924 meant not wanting non-Northwestern Europeans in the country.

Political correctness in 1924 meant that you could exclude a black from the Congo, but not a black from France because you has to pretend that race was not a factor, just as today at airport security you have to pretend that religion is not a factor.

January 11, 2011 at 11:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. Political correctness today means things like hate crime legislation. Political correctness in 1924 meant things like legislation curbing non-Northwestern Europeans.

January 11, 2011 at 1:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That it set "national origin" quotas when 99% of the electorate really wanted race quotas shows who had the power, shows that in 1924 political correctness was the voice of power.

Nonsense! In 1924 ethnicity and national origin were synonymous concepts. If they wanted, they could have called it the Ethnic Origins Act, but why would they, when "national origin" conveyed exactly the same meaning, and had the advantage of common use. Back then, "nation" meant "a place for and of people of similar ethnic origin," because, indeed, nations were (typically) the origin of the ethnicity living there. That was, and always had been, the whole point of a nation: a place an ethnicity, or "people," called its own!

From the wiki page for Albert Johnson, one of the "architects" of the act:

>In support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included this quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits."[3]

The state department!

January 11, 2011 at 3:22 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald says

It did not set race quotas.

That it set "national origin" quotas when 99% of the electorate really wanted race quotas shows who had the power, shows that in 1924 political correctness was the voice of power.


possibly the dumbest thing i've ever read. the electorate wanted exactly what it got in 1924, to preserve the ethnic status quo. a perfectly reasonable desire which has never, in fact, been a non-majority position, even today.

the disproportionate power of the jewish community, even then, only succeeded in delaying the enactment of 1924 ethnic status quo legislation, which was the popular sentiment from the late 19 century on.

no one was clamoring for purely race based quotas besides an intellectual minority of darwinists/eugenicists. they were certainly mainstream, and politically acceptable among the educated elite, but they did not constitute the "electorate."

mainstream organizations like the klu klu klan, however, were quite influential, but they were interested in religion and ethnicity, not race as such. i.e., anti catholic immigration.

James Donald shows his obliviousness to history and just makes claims based on his faith in his theory. again i point out that you cannot understand history deductively, only empirically.

January 11, 2011 at 5:34 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald says,

If they supported Israel without qualification, they would support the right of Jews to settle in all of Jerusalem. They don't.

They support Israel without qualification. If settlement of Jerusalem was a deal breaker, there would be a mainstream movement among the American left, the democratic party, and the 80% + of Jews who are democrats, to divest from Israel, just like S. Africa. Nothing remotely close exists and it is not even imaginable. Lots of mainstream dems want to sanction or bomb Iran.

Posturing doesn't count James. Lip service to a truly progressive minority among the American left (which again does not have control, obviously). Actions, not words, are important. Are you so eager to believe something that you lose the ability to think straight?

January 11, 2011 at 5:40 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald says,

Froude thought that they intended to do what they are now doing, and Thomas intended to do what they are now doing.

Vague and undefined claims. Quote something. Say something specific.

January 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Anonymous says,

From the wiki page for Albert Johnson, one of the "architects" of the act:

>In support of his 1919 proposal to suspend immigration he included this quote from a State Department Official referring to Jewish people as "filthy, un-American, and often dangerous in their habits."[3]

The state department!


Just look at the state department and US Army intelligence cables and docs about the nature of the Russian revolution and the ethnic character of it's leadership. Can you imagine something similar in the cables leaked recently?

I am referring to these image scans of said docs:

http://www.white-history.com/hwr61iii.htm

I don't recall MM drawing attention to this. He is either ignorant of it, or thinks you should be.

These are clearly hate documents discussing hate facts.

US State dept, clearly the cutting edge of PC.

January 11, 2011 at 5:48 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

From the link above on Army and Sate dept reports on Bolsheviks,

However, none of these authorities quoted above dared to use quite the language of a US Military Intelligence officer, one captain Montgomery Schuyler, who sent two reports to Washington in March and June 1919, describing in graphic detail the Jewish role in the Russian Revolution. Both these reports were only declassified in September 1957 and the originals are still held in the US National Archives in Washington, open for public inspection.

The first report, sent from Omsk on 1 March 1919, contains the following paragraph:

"it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type..."

The second report, dated 9 June 1919, and sent from Vladivostok, said that of the

"384 commissars there were 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government."


I've known about these for years, and assumed other educated people did too. You will never lose a buck, though, by underestimating the knowledge of people who think they're educated. Even self-styled free thinking reactionaries. It's sad.

January 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said...
Posturing doesn't count James

So when the Democrats sound like genocidal anti semites, they are just posturing, and they are really in a secret conspiracy to support Israel?

Possibly, but such a theory is impervious to evidence.

It is politically incorrect for a left winger to say he hates "Jews" but he sure hates “zionists”, “neocons”, and “international financiers” - and he sounds like he hates them enough to collaborate with Islam in killing them all.

January 11, 2011 at 7:40 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

jkr said...
The first report, sent from Omsk on 1 March 1919, contains the following paragraph:

"it is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type..."


It was indeed, but those Jews, just like today's Jews in the Cathedral, hated Jews, and proceeded in due course to purge each other until by the late 1930 the Bolshevik party was Judenrein.

Similarly, the Khmer Rouge hated intellectuals, especially foreign educated intellectuals, and proceeded to torture them all to death in the most horrible fashion, not because they consciously intended to torture them all to death in a most horrible fashion, but because whenever anything went wrong, they would suspect disloyalty, and whenever they suspected disloyalty, they suspected an intellectual, especially a foreign educated intellectual.

Since the Khmer Rouge was composed primarily of foreign educated intellectuals, especially in the upper ranks, most Khmer Rouge members wound up being tortured to death.

The Cathedral's self hatred is less extreme, but in leans in that direction.

January 11, 2011 at 7:49 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald says

So when the Democrats sound like genocidal anti semites, they are just posturing, and they are really in a secret conspiracy to support Israel?

which democrats do you mean? joe lieberman, vice presidential candidate and orthodox jew?

bill clinton?

his nat sec advisor berger? sec of state albright? sec of def cohen? richard holbrooke? sup court justices breyer, ginsburg, kagan?

obama's alexrod and rahm emmanuel?

senators boxer, feinstein, schumer?

i'm starting to wonder if you're fucking nuts.

i'm sure there's a simpler explanation; you're just a propagandist.

nobody could say such stupid things sincerely. that only leaves the motive of propaganda and dissembling.

of course, just like TUJ, you resort to red herrings like "secret conspiracy" and other loaded phrases when you find yourself unable to make a coherent argument.

January 11, 2011 at 8:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is politically incorrect for a left winger to say he hates "Jews" but he sure hates “zionists”, “neocons”, and “international financiers” - and he sounds like he hates them enough to collaborate with Islam in killing them all.

Are you retarded? It is absolutely NOT politically correct to start railing about "zionists" and "international financiers."

As soon as you utter those terms red flags go up and you're permanently branded as a conspiracy theorist at best, and a neo-nazi at worst.

January 11, 2011 at 8:35 PM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous said...
Are you retarded? It is absolutely NOT politically correct to start railing about "zionists" and "international financiers."

Here are the scions of the Cathedral, at Harvard University, piously raving about "zionists"

That is the voice of power, political correctness, and authority speaking.

These guys would kill all the Jews, and, being disproportionately Jewish, would kill each other.

January 11, 2011 at 9:42 PM  
Blogger Mitchell said...

Causes and consequences of democracy

January 11, 2011 at 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That is the voice of power, political correctness, and authority speaking.

No it isn't.

"Rami Khouri," Editor-at-large of The Daily Star, and Director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut, and affiliated with Harvard by being a Senior Fellow at The Dubai Initiative of Harvard, is hardly an "authority" or a "scion of the Cathedral" in a place with people like Dershowitz and ex-presidents like Larry Summers.

January 11, 2011 at 10:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Helen Thomas' 'Zionist' Comment Leads University To Pull Honor"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/08/131796183/helen-thomas-zionist-comment-leads-university-to-pull-honor

"Wayne State University won't be bestowing any more diversity awards named for Helen Thomas following more controversial remarks by the former dean of the White House press corps."

January 11, 2011 at 10:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

test

January 11, 2011 at 11:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there's stealth moderation going on here, just so you guys know.

January 11, 2011 at 11:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there's stealth moderation going on here, just so you guys know.

What do you mean?

January 12, 2011 at 12:10 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

James Donald,

Many on the left seem to be anti-Israel. That doesn't mean it's "politically correct". If it were, you couldn't publicly support Israel without consequences. That's what PC means. It's originally a Maoist term I believe.

Also, the State Dept was relatively conservative until well into the 50s.

JKR, Rockefeller was responsible for the direction Anthro took not by supporting Boas, but by putting his followers at the forefront of the profession. Sapir was Rockefeller's man. Of the Lawrnece K. Frank, director of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, Mead said something like, "this is how god would do philanthropy." That guy created the icky concept of scientific parent education.

RF founded the Social Science Research Council which basically decided the direction of social science generally. FDR was on the Board in the late 1920s. This was the Cathedral staging its coup.

January 12, 2011 at 3:59 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

FYI:

Joe Lieberman is an "observant Jew" not an Orthodox Jew.

His second wife, Hadassah, is an Orthodox Jew (although not ultra-Orth, since you know, she works) but he is merely "observant"--which appears to mean keeping kosher and not doing work on the Sabbath.

Just so you know.

Also, regarding moderation, MM has been known to delete posts in the past.

January 12, 2011 at 5:01 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

josh said...
"Many on the left seem to be anti-Israel. That doesn't mean it's "politically correct". If it were, you couldn't publicly support Israel without consequences."

What happens to a member of the elite that says:
"The capital of Israel and the Jews their business and no one else's business. Israel says, and Judaism says, that the capital is the eternal and undivided city of Jerusalem."

If it was possible to say that, someone would say that.

You cannot say that Jews should be shipped back to the concentration camps, which is what Helen Thomas implied - but neither can you say that they should be left in peace.

josh said...
Also, the State Dept was relatively conservative until well into the 50s.

Relative to what?

The State Department was conservative relative to Pol Pot, perhaps, but not conservative relative to Mao. They gave China to Mao.

This is the same argument we have been having about political correctness in the late nineteenth century. People keep arguing that because people were not as far left then as now, the right was in charge. That is a fallacy of presentism. If you look at the late nineteenth century from the early nineteenth instead of from the twentyfirst, there is not much difference between the late nineteenth and the early twenty first, just as there is not much difference between the early twentieth century state department and Maoism.

The relevant measure is not whether one period was to the right or left of another, but what are the officially enforced holy doctrines of politics, and whether those doctrines are to the left or right of reality.

What has been enforced with increasing vigor for a couple of centuries is the doctrine that men and women are equal in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution, and that human races are equal in the sense of interchangeable and the same in mean and distribution

January 12, 2011 at 6:49 AM  
Blogger James A. Donald said...

Anonymous said...
hardly an "authority" or a "scion of the Cathedral" in a place with people like Dershowitz and ex-presidents like Larry Summers.

Larry Summers is expresident in part because he opposed Harvard's policy of treating Israel like South Africa.

So anti "zionism" is official Cathedral policy, for Harvard is the most holy Synod of the Cathedral.

January 12, 2011 at 6:58 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

State was conservative relative to the emergent crusading internationalists. The conspiracy that eventually came to be called the New Deal captured State but not until the 30s For some history on said conspiracy Wormser's book that I previously mentioned as well as Lippow's Authoritarian Socialism in America.

I honestly don't know what your point is. Do you deny that there was ever an Old Deal? That the nature crowd once had the upper hand on the nurture crowed? Yes, even as far back as the 1850s there were free-love Bohemian socialists, but, unlike today power was multi-polar.

January 12, 2011 at 8:58 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

GM,

FYI: Lieberman is an observant Orthodox Jew.

January 12, 2011 at 9:25 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

GM, it says so in your own wiki link. He hires a shabbos goy to turn his light switches. He's observant, of what? His religion, orthodox Judaism.

January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

James Donald says,

It was indeed, but those Jews, just like today's Jews in the Cathedral, hated Jews

I think you need to read Alexander Solzhenitisn's 200 Years Together, which, unable to find a publisher in America, is now being translated chapter by chapter online.

What you say is patently untrue. I have no idea why you believe it, since it has no empirical foundation. Its simply another example of you commanding the facts to adhere to your theory. The only question is if its a sincere theory or just deliberate bullshit.

Radicalism was a part of Jewish culture in the 20th century. It in no way detracted from or opposed Jewish identity. It was a major part of Jewish culture. This was as true in America as in Europe. You're either ignorant or simply lying to suggest otherwise.

January 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

cont.

Someone like Einstein is a typical example. Ardent Zionist, politically radical his whole life, and a strongly identified Jew. There was no contradiction for him, anymore than there was for Freud, Marcuse, or the thug who pulled the trigger on the gun pressed up against each of the Romanovs.

The strong ethnic identification of the figures profiled in Macdonald's work are exhaustively documented. A main plank of his thesis, one of its major foundation stones, is that only those figures who had a strongly documented Jewish identity are even considered as part of the movements profiled in the work.

This is hardly debatable. To deny it is ignorance or obfuscation. The sources on which Macdonald builds his work are not controversial. They are all either Jewish or respected academics. You are either willfully ignorant, or lying, to suggest otherwise.

January 12, 2011 at 10:23 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

JKR:

It says in the link that Lieberman regards himself and refers to himself as "an observant Jew" not "an Orthodox Jew" in order not to offend the Orthodox.

It states that he and his wife keep Shabbat but doesn't go into any further detail.

January 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

If you would like something resembling proof, look at this picture.

Notice the lack of head-covering (kippah)? No male Orthodox Jew would be outside without a head-covering.

January 12, 2011 at 10:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home