Wednesday, December 8, 2010 141 Comments

Homage to Slobodan Milosevic

Slobo! Once an apparatchik,
Bad economist in Warsaw tweed,
A star planner and a rising star,
As temples came down you met
Your chance. "No one will dare
To beat you anymore!" And there
Emerged a great roar; and backs
Once bent indeed uncrooked; and
The international community
Grew wonderfully displeased.
Consider our late century past
In the lens of this epilogue.
In Europe's hindmost gut, after
All the real shouting had stopped
And universal comedy prevailed,
Arose a sort of bastard king;
Stood up half a man. Half! Man,
Cross of ape and god, sometimes
Demon and sometimes seraph,
Is on average an orc; on average,
Half of him deserves to be free.
And king or dictator, emperor
Or pope, is freest man of all,
Whole sections of the sphere
As his wing and will; where he
Alone owns all credit or shame.
Yours was mainly the latter, for
Shortly once said beating ceased
Were your Chetnik snipers found,
Posting toddlers from rooftops.
Slobo, great orc, you overdid it.
To refute what Charles Beard
Called the "devil theory of war,"
You went all the way to full devil:
A mistake not invented by you,
Natural in the black mind of man,
Whose impact random strangers bear.
What truth was ever born a lie?
What devil ever told the truth?
The very first lie is the exit to hell.
To live in the devil's kingdom,
Choose a politician for your king.
It finished well for neither king,
Clamped in a fluorescent cube,
Nor realm - now well regelded.
Frankly, your part of the world
Has never been well regarded.
Still, that world well inspected
Shows more than a few bent backs;
The theory yet remains disproved.
"No one will dare to beat you!"
And who indeed should be beaten,
Desisting from all self-defence?
For some we grant deserve it,
At least the opposite carrot;
For there are nations of orcs.
But all? Or suppose empire
Endures forever: will its children
Indefinitely require correction,
Mother's love, father's wisdom,
Bribe here and blockade there,
Now or then a well-nuanced bomb?
Quite the reverse, I do suspect.
Just turn the whole thing off!
Like bad teenagers disowned
The very worst would improve;
The best would find full flower.
But which of us will ever know?
History, we learn, has ended.
Today's regime is regime eternal.
Our dear international community,
Global apex bureaucracy!
Its scope, the planet. Its life,
Infinite. Its predators, none.
What Daniel will write on its wall?
Who gets to pull the plug on it?
Could even think of doing so,
Either now or for time unending?
Future is permanent present;
Nations mean nothing. Men,
Ideal, atomic, individual,
Can laugh and fall fallow
With light souls like butterflies
Washed colorless as cellophane,
Unconcerned with past or place,
Free of all glory or ambition,
Rigorous and concrete-skulled
Or shallow, bland and gushing,
Quite immune to pride or shame,
Quite perfect for bureaucracy:
As the planet returns in space,
As homogeneous as immutable,
Growing gray in static place.
Dare we doubt this? Why not dare?
Man, who made himself with fire,
Whose bones are carved for war,
Shall write a story never over.
Does he expect to exist forever
In this homogenized condition,
As or, worse, aspiring to be
One equal planet-sized village -
One thing, varied here and there
With charming clothes and dances,
Local cooking, a quaint language,
Many of the original buildings -
Where once stood kings and nations?
"For all time, too, till his lousy own,"
Breaks the defendant, out of turn:
Small hero in a backward way, Slobo.

141 Comments:

Blogger Mencius Moldbug said...

See also this Mangan's thread, in which Mangan, myself, Steve Burton, and a whole Mos Eisley of assorted reactionaries, racists and anti-Semites savagely crow-mob an Internet impersonator of Ron Unz.

Mr. Unz is said to have fifty IQ points on me. But either his impersonator is not up to the job, or his Jedi mind tricks cannot begin to contend with the ancient wisdom of the Sith. Or probably, both. When I finally club him with the Slobo line, the badly-wounded RKU drops like a seal.

Neurons do age, I fear. And I'm sure the likes of Mr. Unz can't even begin to imagine engaging with an interlocutor who speaks fondly of Slobodan Milosevic - it's completely against all normal rules, like Mace in a boxing match.

In any case, because I have plenty of help with RKU, my hind legs remain free to pound the crap out of the Joo-haters - who, to be fair, are themselves posting plenty of points in the main event. In short, blood goes everywhere. Check it out - or comment on it here.

December 9, 2010 at 12:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What, precisely, is the biological mechanism here?

The evolution of virulence in Jews.

There are selective pressures on the Jewish group organism to make its members the most virulent people of all peoples, and these selective pressures, unfortunately for everyone—including Jews—do not require any intent by anyone, let alone a cohesive plan of any elite group, to steadily increase Jewish virulence.

Jews are acutely aware that there is some kind of anti-Jew cycle, but their view of it is part of the cycle. Rather than seeing the “persecution” phase as something that differentially hits the less virulent Jews allowing the most virulent Jews to escape and reproduce, Jews are required by the most virulent Jews—assisted by most anti-Jews—to see themselves as a monolithic group embodying innocent greatness destined for persecution until they achieve their self-prophesied position as rulers of the world. They band together more tightly into a group organism which can then sacrifice parts of itself for the preservation of other parts which—it so happens—are the most virulent of their people.

December 9, 2010 at 1:29 AM  
Blogger sconzey said...

I approve, only it was God who inscribed upon the walls of Belshazzar's palace, not Daniel, who only interpreted the riddle:

"Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin"

December 9, 2010 at 2:02 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

What is the last quote?

December 9, 2010 at 5:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anti-Jew cycle".

LOL--you sound like an advert for washing powder: "get your whites whiter than white".

December 9, 2010 at 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, Tanstaafl = classic self-hating joo. Maybe some of these guys ran out of sanitary towels at a crucial point on their monthly "anti-Jew cycle". Amirite?!

December 9, 2010 at 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Jack Burton said...

Hey, that's great and all, but shouldn't you be reading cables, or something?

December 9, 2010 at 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah--When is the NYT going to crucify Assange, then?

December 9, 2010 at 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous-5 said...

Thanks for the reference to Beard's "Devil Theory of War." A bit of googling led me to a very informative 45 minutes reading it.

December 9, 2010 at 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Contemplationist said...

Mencius Im curious. I remember you commenting on an Abu Muqawwama thread about how much you wanted that bastard Julian Assange to release the State Department diplomatic cables, instead of the Afghanistan ones cos thats where the action is.

Now, you MUST have something to say about it? Granted, that only 1% or less of all the 250,000 were leaked YET, but still..that MUST"VE been a surprise for you.

December 9, 2010 at 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe Mencius will support Assange - not the dipshit per se, but his project.
To do otherwise would be to go with the neo-con and establishment left on this. In fact this has shown nicely that there is no space between the establishment right and left. It also shows that at least in the minds of both groups, Kissinger still roams the corridors of the White House.

December 9, 2010 at 3:55 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

I'm also disappointed about the lack of discussion regarding the cables.

Putting on a google detective hat, this appears to be the first RKU comment at Steve's, in what looks like some jewbaiting.

I received "Dark Suits and Red Guards", but it will take a while to put it online.

December 9, 2010 at 7:40 PM  
Anonymous Human Quantum Energy said...

Don't you guys get it? Mencius managed to decode insurance.aes256, and this is what was in it.

December 9, 2010 at 9:58 PM  
Anonymous Contemplationist said...

LOL@ Human quantum energy

December 10, 2010 at 12:09 AM  
Anonymous Paully said...

Regarding Wikileaks

There shouldn't be any surprises from the diplomatic cables. I don't believe there is any new 'news' in them that caught folks off guard. The North Korea Iran connection? NK was one of the Islamic Republic's very first friends back in '79. Saudi money funding sunni terrorist? Numerous articles and books must be out there about this..if not blacked out by the censors in ex-spooks' memoirs. All the other crap is just gossip about world leaders and politics. nothing new.

I've seen the statement like 'how could some PFC sitting out in Iraq have access to all that information unrelated to his mission?' Easy. In the post 9/11 world, why would State, CIA, or anyone else want to be accused of 'hoarding' reports and information? It's all about sharing and collaboration these days! So, yes. A lowley high school dropout Private First Class out in Iraq does indeed have access to A LOT of information. His computer has a CD burner, etc.

My question is..why the hell did he (assuming PFC Manning did this) do it? He didn't commit espionage. He was not on the payroll of an enemy state. What benefit did he receive from committing this huge security violation?

Is he going to write a tell-all? Be a reality TV Star?

Was his alledged gayness a factor?

Back in the day, security clearances were not granted to homosexuals. Maybe because in 50s the 60s knowledge and exposure of gayness could be used as blackmail against you by the Commies coercing you into their clutches. Or, maybe from a FBI standpoint, gays were sodomites and perverts, and you don't want that type to have access to sensitive information.

I've known gays in the military..it seems after a while the fact that 'they are allowed to be in the military, but technically are not allowed to engage in gay actions' really gets to them..and they eventually get out.

With the 'Dont Ask Dont Tell' all the rage these days...it might be a time to revisit the policy that dudes who like to suck other dudes, screw other dudes or get screwed by them, should not only be barred from the military, but gay civilians should be banned from having a security clearance.

The gays hold a deep rooted anger towards many entities: such as politicians, the US government, political parties, individual US cities and states, etc. If gays are in military, their own EMPLOYER discriminates against them, I mean, wouldn't you want to stick it to the man too?

December 10, 2010 at 1:26 AM  
Anonymous PA said...

TGGP said... I'm also disappointed about the lack of discussion regarding the cables

When I first read the poem, I thought this line is about the cables:

"Who gets to pull the plug on it?"

December 10, 2010 at 5:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suspecy MM's response to the Wiki State Dept. release will at least observe that no one was really hassling Assange when he released Pentagon information. Not long after the State Dept release, though, he found himself imprisoned. That alone should highlight the balance of power.

December 10, 2010 at 6:55 AM  
Anonymous Leonard said...

Ditto that last anon.

Also, this time, unlike last time, Wikileaks appears to be going much slower, letting the official press have enough time to actually vet the documents. There was nowhere near enough time for that in the last dump. Presumably, the establishment left at least has the time this time around to notice particularly embarrassing info, and lobby Assange to hide it.

That said, I do think this episode makes MM's prognostication look weak. Assange is obviously of the left, but the anarchist left. And it has been empowered by the Internet to occasionally bite, including biting the establishment left.

December 10, 2010 at 7:08 AM  
Anonymous Local Hipster said...

Paully, don't you realize that Cablegate is the story of a man who tried to overcome his gay alienation at the hands of the Conservative/Capitalist oppressors?

If the result of this incident is awareness and change, or at least hope for change, then the penetration of The Man's secrets and the loss of a few extra warmongers is a small cost, and is even a boon.

That's why we Progressives, who have only recently been able to gain a small amount of power after 50 years of Nixon-Reagan-Bush, are fighting with all our power, limited though it may be, to protect Private Manning and his benefactor, Julian Assange, whose only crime was taking an extra cookie from the free love jar.

Unfortunately, our former friends Obama and everyone else we elected, turned out to be secret conservatives.

Our politicians have betrayed us before, but our hope is undiminished, and we will win next time.

Bill Clinton energized the young hipster vote base, and we knew he brought a new hope for change, out of the establishment elites. But now I know that the folksy hometown governor from Arkansas was really a crypto-fascist imperial capitalist neocon.

We will just have to fight on, voting--and raising vote awareness--until some day Democrats control Congress, while it appears they never can.

December 10, 2010 at 7:33 AM  
Anonymous Hieronymus Goat said...

Leonard: The amateur progressives really are bleeding-heart do-gooders, and technology enables amateurs to circumvent and subvert the establishment.

The honest-to-God socialists, anarchists, and hipsters, really believe it, and they are kind enough that they lack the insight to even need the professional doublethink.

Unfortunately, the radicals expert at subversion are not honest-to-God socialists, an oxymoron. They are cynical powermongers and aesthetes, who act like lizards even if they aren't.

December 10, 2010 at 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Hieronymus Goat said...

A do-gooder is really a feel-gooder, disguised by rationalization and culture.

December 10, 2010 at 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Jack Burton said...

Paully,

Did you read the cables? or are you just quoting the Times at me?

I don't think anybody here is surprised that the Cathedral's official report on the cables is, "Nothing to see here but stuff you knew already and gossip," but that's what they would say, isn't it?

Presumably Assange saved the best stuff for his insurance file. But it's a cult, not a conspiracy. Assange is an amateur: a true believer in the Blue religion. To the extent that Blue institutions fall short of his personal definition or righteousness, they look like Red devils to him, and Red devils deserve no mercy. So he probably left some good shit in there.

I'm guessing. I've got to work for a living, so I don't have time to go through all that verbiage. If only there were some independently wealthy reactionary crank out there...

December 10, 2010 at 11:15 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

The Times said there was nothing to see in the climategate e-mails as well.
Has anybody actually waded through these cables. Anything good in there?

December 10, 2010 at 1:36 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Anything good in there?

Amusingly, most everything in the cables involved "secrets" that were obvious to any civilian with access to the news.

The cables unveiled nothing that I didn't already assume was happening: North Korea has nukes and Iran wants them. Sarkozy and Merkel have triumphed where Napoleon and Hitler failed by conquering Great Britain with regulators and bureaucrats instead of soldiers. Putin is one of the very few world leaders who is enjoying his job because he can assassinate as many enemies and pound as much pussy as he wants. Berlusconi, ditto. Who didn't know this?

December 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM  
Blogger B Lode said...

I was glad to see you at Mangan's, MM. I haven't figured out this RKU cat - read closely and he really comes pretty close to claiming he's Unz (you can't really say "Go read this guy's article" and expect everyone to know that's your opinion too, if you expect people believe you're not that guy).

I wish Unz had replied to you. Also I wish Svigor had replied to me when I pointed out that, since I don't think he advocates any physical Jew-bashing, you and he have common ground on the JQ. (Me, I'd be satisfied with total freedom of association and Moldbug-style separation of university and state, not that that is likely to occur before the collapse.) And finally, if Unz and RKU aren't the same person, I'd like to see the real Unz reply to his critics on the White Flight Equals Genocide point.

December 10, 2010 at 6:29 PM  
Anonymous steve burton said...

It's strangely moving, isn't it, that line - "none will dare to beat you again."

December 10, 2010 at 7:00 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

The disappointed left:

http://www.truth-out.org/an-open-letter-left-establishment65848


Swipples:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/12/smells-like-white-guilt-christian-lander%E2%80%99s-whiter-shades-of-pale/

December 10, 2010 at 7:05 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

The rape accusations preceded the State department cables. The charges were apparently dropped by the Swedish authorities and then revived.

Assange has said that he is inspired by American free-market libertarianism, and also that he's not "anti-war" (though he may oppose particular wars). I'd say he has a Blue tinge (internationally-minded do-gooder idealist) rather than being a "true believer in the Blue religion".

December 10, 2010 at 10:22 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Daniel Larison: The Trouble with Wikileaks.

December 10, 2010 at 10:35 PM  
Anonymous The Undsicovered Jew said...

Btw, if I may bring up another factoid about early 20th Century German-Jewish Americans, did anyone know that D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation was financed and co-produced with a German Jew, Robert Goldstein:



The Tragic Odyssey of Robert Goldstein

http://www.angelfire.com/bc/RPPS/revolution_movies/golstn.htm

In 1915, D.W. Griffiths produced with Goldstein's assistance, Birth of a Nation, a paean to the Southern Version of the American Civil War. Until the movie Glory came out, Birth of a Nation was the accepted and authorized version. Its success electrified the world. President Woodrow Wilson, whose 'New Freedom' embodied the progressive ideal, called Birth of a Nation "history shot with electricity." Even the Russian Revolutionary Lenin was suitably impressed.

Standing in the shadows of Griffin's success, a mighty profitable place, Goldstein decided to go back to the true birth of the nation, 1776. At an expense of over $200,000 ($48m in today's money), Goldstein produced "Spirit of '76," an epic which spanned from the Battles of Lexington and Concord to Yorktown.

From descriptions of the film in court records, from Lionel Lincoln, the Cooper novel whose story line was followed, and from later copyists which include America (1924) and Howards of Virginia (1940), the movie had a weak plot, organized around historical vignettes which included various British and Hessain atrocities in the Cherry Valley New York and in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania.

The film opened in Chicago in April 1917. Local police acting on orders from President Wilson seized the film. The United States had just declared war on Germany and the war was not quite as popular as the President would have expected. The country was so divided that the Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryant, resigned in protest. After the offending scenes were redacted, showing resumed. However, like all Americans who face an arbitrary restriction, Goldstein merely took his film elsewhere to show it in its entirety.

By all accounts, Goldstein's Spirit of '76 was an electrifying rousing production. Some have said that Patrick Henry's speech to the Burgess is better told on this silent in the gripping face of the actor than words could supply. In comparison the later copyists were surprisingly flat.

By the time Goldstein's production opened in Los Angeles, the psychotic energy of the purge in the making had reached a fever pitch. Far beyond rounding up the usual suspects, labor union activists, socialists and pacifists, Wilson had prosecutions humming in all ten federal circuits against such unlikely rebels as a man who expressed reservations about the war in a private conversation over his dinner table, some Puerto Ricans who opted to retain their Spanish citizenship as was their right, under both American and International Law, a man who casually chatted with a confidant about the war and a man who yelled at Rangers in a National Park.

December 11, 2010 at 1:01 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, if I may bring up another factoid about early 20th Century German-Jewish Americans, did anyone know that D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation was financed and co-produced with a German Jew, Robert Goldstein:



The Tragic Odyssey of Robert Goldstein

http://www.angelfire.com/bc/RPPS/revolution_movies/golstn.htm

In 1915, D.W. Griffiths produced with Goldstein's assistance, Birth of a Nation, a paean to the Southern Version of the American Civil War. Until the movie Glory came out, Birth of a Nation was the accepted and authorized version. Its success electrified the world. President Woodrow Wilson, whose 'New Freedom' embodied the progressive ideal, called Birth of a Nation "history shot with electricity." Even the Russian Revolutionary Lenin was suitably impressed.

December 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

Standing in the shadows of Griffin's success, a mighty profitable place, Goldstein decided to go back to the true birth of the nation, 1776. At an expense of over $200,000 ($48m in today's money), Goldstein produced "Spirit of '76," an epic which spanned from the Battles of Lexington and Concord to Yorktown.

From descriptions of the film in court records, from Lionel Lincoln, the Cooper novel whose story line was followed, and from later copyists which include America (1924) and Howards of Virginia (1940), the movie had a weak plot, organized around historical vignettes which included various British and Hessain atrocities in the Cherry Valley New York and in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania.

The film opened in Chicago in April 1917. Local police acting on orders from President Wilson seized the film. The United States had just declared war on Germany and the war was not quite as popular as the President would have expected. The country was so divided that the Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryant, resigned in protest. After the offending scenes were redacted, showing resumed. However, like all Americans who face an arbitrary restriction, Goldstein merely took his film elsewhere to show it in its entirety.

By all accounts, Goldstein's Spirit of '76 was an electrifying rousing production. Some have said that Patrick Henry's speech to the Burgess is better told on this silent in the gripping face of the actor than words could supply. In comparison the later copyists were surprisingly flat.

By the time Goldstein's production opened in Los Angeles, the psychotic energy of the purge in the making had reached a fever pitch. Far beyond rounding up the usual suspects, labor union activists, socialists and pacifists, Wilson had prosecutions humming in all ten federal circuits against such unlikely rebels as a man who expressed reservations about the war in a private conversation over his dinner table, some Puerto Ricans who opted to retain their Spanish citizenship as was their right, under both American and International Law, a man who casually chatted with a confidant about the war and a man who yelled at Rangers in a National Park.

December 11, 2010 at 1:03 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Standing in the shadows of Griffin's success, a mighty profitable place, Goldstein decided to go back to the true birth of the nation, 1776. At an expense of over $200,000 ($48m in today's money), Goldstein produced "Spirit of '76," an epic which spanned from the Battles of Lexington and Concord to Yorktown.

From descriptions of the film in court records, from Lionel Lincoln, the Cooper novel whose story line was followed, and from later copyists which include America (1924) and Howards of Virginia (1940), the movie had a weak plot, organized around historical vignettes which included various British and Hessain atrocities in the Cherry Valley New York and in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania.

The film opened in Chicago in April 1917. Local police acting on orders from President Wilson seized the film. The United States had just declared war on Germany and the war was not quite as popular as the President would have expected. The country was so divided that the Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryant, resigned in protest. After the offending scenes were redacted, showing resumed. However, like all Americans who face an arbitrary restriction, Goldstein merely took his film elsewhere to show it in its entirety.

By all accounts, Goldstein's Spirit of '76 was an electrifying rousing production. Some have said that Patrick Henry's speech to the Burgess is better told on this silent in the gripping face of the actor than words could supply. In comparison the later copyists were surprisingly flat.

December 11, 2010 at 1:04 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

By the time Goldstein's production opened in Los Angeles, the psychotic energy of the purge in the making had reached a fever pitch. Far beyond rounding up the usual suspects, labor union activists, socialists and pacifists, Wilson had prosecutions humming in all ten federal circuits against such unlikely rebels as a man who expressed reservations about the war in a private conversation over his dinner table, some Puerto Ricans who opted to retain their Spanish citizenship as was their right, under both American and International Law, a man who casually chatted with a confidant about the war and a man who yelled at Rangers in a National Park.
What is most impressive about the tidal wave of prosecutions is that most reported prosecutions were not launched against public figures vocally denouncing the war, but were instituted against private people for activity without public fanfare or political overtones of any kind.

The wide range of suspects prosecuted concentrated in the 30 months of U.S. participation in World War I, suggest a well defined federal police apparatus and underground informant structure far beyond that which is conventionally acknowledged to have existed in that time and considerable preparation in advance of the declaration of war to undertake the purge.

Goldstein's ill luck was to be caught up in the vortex of the maelstrom. In June 1917, Wilson told Congress that a grave clear and present threat loomed: German-Americans who might side with the German Kaiser. A new Espionage Act was passed, which in broad strokes prohibited any act or utterance, which might create dissention in the Armed Forces. Although German immigration was as long standing as English Colonization, an officially sanctioned purge of Germans had begun.

The flamboyant son of a German-Jewish immigrant Goldstein and his rousing Spirit of '76 became a major target.

December 11, 2010 at 1:05 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> By all accounts, Goldstein's Spirit of '76 was an electrifying rousing production.

So, alas, it's a lost film, as these words suggest.

December 11, 2010 at 1:32 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

One of the best things I've ever read,

http://librivox.org/growth-of-the-soil-by-knut-hamsun/

December 11, 2010 at 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moar lulz:

"Anecdotes *are* how stupid people argue."

Nope. If this was an academic paper I would've wrote "Using anecdotes is how stupid people argue."


Win

December 12, 2010 at 9:04 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

So, alas, it's a lost film, as these words suggest.

December 11, 2010 1:32 PM


Yes, it was seized and lost by Anglo-Protestant intelligence agencies who were caught up in another bout of anti-German hysteria.

December 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Re, Moldberg's question:

What, precisely, is the biological mechanism here?

"Ethnic Genetic Interests" and all related theories, is easy to understand. Salter's EGI theory, means that all ethnic groups are genetically programmed to (100% literally) exterminate all those who are not racially similar to their ethnic kin based on discredited notions of group selection. This also means European subgroups are genetically programmed to literally exterminate other European subgroups.

Ethnic Genetic Interests, of course, is based on a ridiculous mis-interpretation of Darwinian theory.

Per Chuck Darwin, evolution is not about passing on "similarity", evolution is about passing on traits. So, amusingly, the racialists are correct that race is important (because of traits, especially, psychological traits for humans) but for the wrong reason.

Ian Jobling debunked Salter/kevin macdonald and the other Alt-Right/Inferior Reichers ethnic nepotism theories rather neatly here:

The Ethnic Nepotism Fallacy

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/the_ethnic_nepotism_fallacy/

ENT is responsible for endless amounts of mind-numbing commentary. For most white nationalists, anything that tends to serve “white ethnic interests” is right and anything that counters these interests is wrong. Such a crude and nakedly self-interested framework of moral evaluation does not lead to illuminating writing. The harm done by ENT does not stop at white nationalism, as the inclusion of Steve Sailer in the list above indicates. Though a fervent believer in ENT, Sailer is no white nationalist, and most of his numerous and enthusiastic fans are not either.

If we are to place the pro-white movement on rational and moral grounds, there are two things we must recognize. First of all, our instincts for nepotism stop at our kin, probably going no further than cousins. The ethnic bond is not an extension of the family bond; rather, these affiliations have different sources and natures. People did not evolve to be ethnic nepotists, but what I will call “kindividualists,” whose purpose in life is to advance their own interests and those of their kin. Since our co-ethnics would have been our primary competitors for mates and resources throughout the history of our species, directing altruism towards co-ethnics would have been a path to genetic extinction, so it is at best highly implausible that any instinct for ethnic nepotism evolved.

Though the word is new, kindividualism is far from a novel theory of human motivation. Rather, it is the established wisdom among behavioral biologists, a category that includes evolutionary psychologists, who study human behavior from a Darwinist standpoint, and students of animal behavior. ENT partisans view it as a great injustice that mainstream behavioral biologists have ignored them and declare that political bias on issues of race must be the reason.1 However, the more likely cause of this neglect is that ENT is implausible on theoretical grounds and unsupported by the empirical evidence.

December 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued

The Ethnic Nepotism Fallacy

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/the_ethnic_nepotism_fallacy/

ENT is responsible for endless amounts of mind-numbing commentary. For most white nationalists, anything that tends to serve “white ethnic interests” is right and anything that counters these interests is wrong. Such a crude and nakedly self-interested framework of moral evaluation does not lead to illuminating writing. The harm done by ENT does not stop at white nationalism, as the inclusion of Steve Sailer in the list above indicates. Though a fervent believer in ENT, Sailer is no white nationalist, and most of his numerous and enthusiastic fans are not either.

If we are to place the pro-white movement on rational and moral grounds, there are two things we must recognize. First of all, our instincts for nepotism stop at our kin, probably going no further than cousins. The ethnic bond is not an extension of the family bond; rather, these affiliations have different sources and natures. People did not evolve to be ethnic nepotists, but what I will call “kindividualists,” whose purpose in life is to advance their own interests and those of their kin. Since our co-ethnics would have been our primary competitors for mates and resources throughout the history of our species, directing altruism towards co-ethnics would have been a path to genetic extinction, so it is at best highly implausible that any instinct for ethnic nepotism evolved.

Though the word is new, kindividualism is far from a novel theory of human motivation. Rather, it is the established wisdom among behavioral biologists, a category that includes evolutionary psychologists, who study human behavior from a Darwinist standpoint, and students of animal behavior. ENT partisans view it as a great injustice that mainstream behavioral biologists have ignored them and declare that political bias on issues of race must be the reason.1 However, the more likely cause of this neglect is that ENT is implausible on theoretical grounds and unsupported by the empirical evidence.

December 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Re, Moldberg's question:

What, precisely, is the biological mechanism here?

"Ethnic Genetic Interests" and all related theories, is easy to understand. Salter's EGI theory, means that all ethnic groups are genetically programmed to (100% literally) exterminate all those who are not racially similar to their ethnic kin based on discredited notions of group selection. This also means European subgroups are genetically programmed to literally exterminate other European subgroups.

Ethnic Genetic Interests, of course, is based on a ridiculous mis-interpretation of Darwinian theory.

Per Chuck Darwin, evolution is not about passing on "similarity", evolution is about passing on traits. So, amusingly, the racialists are correct that race is important (because of traits, especially, psychological traits for humans) but for the wrong reason.

Ian Jobling debunked Salter/kevin macdonald and the other Alt-Right/Inferior Reichers ethnic nepotism theories rather neatly here:

December 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The Irrelevance of Ethnic Genetic Interests

By Ian Jobling • 2/12/10

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/the_irrelevance_of_ethnic_genetic_interests/

Ethnicity and self-sacrifice

If self-sacrifice is not evolutionarily rational among siblings, it is even less likely to be so among co-ethnics. When it comes to co-ethnics, unreciprocated altruism is virtually never the optimal choice. If it is possible for humans to reproduce themselves, then the optimal choice for them is furthering this reproduction. If humans are unable to reproduce themselves, then their optimal choice is helping their kin reproduce. It is hard to imagine cases in which altruism towards co-ethnics would be the optimal choice. Any gene that causes people to make any sacrifice at all for co-ethnics will, consequently, be an evolutionary loser.

The reason why laying down one’s life for one’s co-ethnics is irrational has already been discussed. It should also be clear that it is not rational to take any kind of risk or pay any cost for the ethny because of indirect fitness benefits. The same problem applies: taking the risk brings the greatest benefit to those who do not take risks. Nor is it rational to direct charity or welfare at co-ethnics on the grounds of relatedness, as such sacrifices raise the fitness of recipients while lowering that of the donors.

ENT partisans argue that it is rational for members of an ethnic group to restrict immigration of allo-ethnics because of ethnic genetic interests. However, this argument is bogus. If anyone derives an individual benefit from the immigration of allo-ethnics, it is rational for him to support this policy regardless of his ethnic genetic interests. Imagine the following scenario. Immigrant workers accept half the wages of native workers. One business owner hires immigrant workers, and the second hires native workers because he cares about ethnic genetic interests. What is the outcome? The answer is obvious: the second business owner goes out of business because he gets outcompeted by the first. Moreover, the ethnic altruist sacrifices his own profits for the good of the native workers that he hires. Some of those workers may themselves someday start businesses with the capital they earned as employees, and the business owners who will prosper the most are the ones who do not make the sacrifice that their former boss did. Therefore, the workers who outcompete others in the evolutionary game are the ones who free ride on ethnic altruism.

The bottom line is that maximizing individual fitness is always the rational strategy, and anyone who sacrifices individual fitness to ethnic genetic interests ends up the evolutionary loser. Consequently, ethnic genetic interests have no relevance to the study of human behavior and are useless as a guide to action.

December 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

December 12, 2010 at 1:40 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Anonymous, everything in that wikipedia link was debunked by Jobling.

Contra Salter + kmac, ethnic groups are not programmed to (literally) exterminate disimilar ethnic groups as group selection theories imply.

December 12, 2010 at 2:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TUJ,

so you say

December 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=112

Jobling gets torn up in the comments section.

December 12, 2010 at 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jobling received a doctorate in comparative literature in 2002 from the State University of New York."

So clearly he's mastered the subject matter.

"Jobling started White America because he became disillusioned with American Renaissance and other race realist publications, all of which he found too accommodating to the radical antisemitism that pervades the American racial right. Jobling believes the race realist movement's failure to denounce antisemitism is one of the major reasons why it has never gained popularity among the American public.[7] Jobling has been critical of David Duke,[8] an antisemite, and Kevin B. MacDonald,[9] a critic of Jewish influence on American culture."

"Jobling has criticized Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance and Jobling's former employer, for failing to condemn Holocaust denial and other manifestations of antisemitism on the racial right.[17] These criticisms led to a dispute with Taylor on The Inverted World."

December 12, 2010 at 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MacDonald's response to Jobling:

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=158

December 12, 2010 at 4:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wikitopian says:
December 16, 2009 at 9:18 AM

The individual is not the atomic unit of human evolution. The tribe is. As I understand it, carrying on about individuals pursuing their individual genetic interests is nearly as erroneous as carrying on about a cell’s cellular genetic interests. The tribal G.E.S., a rapidly evolving memetic superstrate over the biological substrate, assures the survival of its host (the tribe).

Individuals may have their own impulses and inclinations, but history has favored and will continue to favor individuals who subscribe to a G.E.S. While one can get lost in the data (as Jobling has done), it’s evident from an aerial view that participation in a tribal G.E.S. is more adaptive than shrewdly protecting your immediate family interests. Cohanim Jews are perhaps the best example of this. Maintaining a consistent genotype and phenotype over that length of time and throughout that much exposure to alien populations is a phenomenal accomplishment.

For countless Jews throughout history, the immediate interests of the individual and the family was to convert. Those Jews who went with their instincts failed to preserve their genotype while those Jews who inculcated the tribal religion managed to preserve their genotype.

From a tribal perspective, the loss of a soldier, suicide bomber, or kamikaze pilot is an investment in preserving or expanding the tribe’s habitat. While being chosen by the G.E.S. to become the suicide bomber is obviously a bummer for one’s individual interests, the G.E.S. which selects a small subset of its population for martyrdom is probably more secure from invasion than one which does not (all else being equal).

While human evolution has been happening at a very rapid pace, the overwhelming bulk of these new adaptations for coping with the novel habitat of civilization are to be found in the memetic superstrate, the G.E.S., the religion, than in the genome. The debate can carry on, but it’s evident from a cursory review of history that Jobling has taken a wrong turn here. Tribal loyalty is more adaptive than familial loyalty.

December 12, 2010 at 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kevin MacDonald: A Reply to Jobling

Kevin MacDonald: Ian Jobling has posted an unfriendly reply to my blog article. It can only be described arrogant, hostile, and condescending — the sort of thing one expects from children who don’t play well with others. The arrogance is especially surprising given that, unlike his adversaries, he has not published even one article related to evolutionary psychology or the theory of kinship in a refereed scientific journal. But worse, it is massively confused on the theory and willfully ignorant of the data...

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=216

December 12, 2010 at 4:21 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The arrogance is especially surprising given that, unlike his adversaries, he has not published even one article related to evolutionary psychology or the theory of kinship in a refereed scientific journal.

macdonald is hardly in a position to accuse someone of a weak academic career considering he has never provided much empirical proof that liberal Jews are ethnocentric.

Indeed, the evidence points to the opposite: Liberal Jews are NON-ethnocentric and assimilated into Northern European Protestant norms (Reform Judaism is nothing more than Protestantized Judaism).

In every survey of Jewish political opinion, one ALWAYS finds those Jews who identify most strongly as ethnically/religiously/culturally Jewish are more conservative and that unaffiliated and unobservant Jews are the most liberal.

According to the GSS, MacDonald is completely incorrect: Liberal Jews do not value their Jewish kinship much (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).

December 12, 2010 at 5:20 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

I think the root cause of all anti-semitism - from "the Jews caused the black death!" to "Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy" - is the belief that Jews are driven by motivations that are somehow profoundly different from those of elite white gentiles.

In fact, the assimilated Jews are no different from other white gentiles and go out of their way to abandon their Jewish identity to fit in with the either the inner party or the most Jew tolerant outer party available. Of course, no matter how much elite Jews go to abandon their Jewish roots and assimilate into the inner party mainstream, gentiles ALWAYS assume that elite Jews have motivations that are different from inner party gentiles. No matter that Ben Bernanke's views of economics and politics are in no way different from gentile Hank Paulson's views the antisemites always assume that Bernanke and all other assimilated elite Jews are in conflict with elite gentiles whenn in reality the reason assimilated Jews are liberal is because the gentile INNER party apartchiks are also liberal.

December 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Contra Salter + kmac, ethnic groups are not programmed to (literally) exterminate disimilar ethnic groups as group selection theories imply.

Are you sure Salter said that?

Group selection per se certainly does not imply anything about extermination. But maybe that's not what you're trying to say.

Of course, hunter-gatherers do try to wipe out neighboring groups. But this is not necessarily caused by group selection. I don't know what makes them fight at the population density that they fight at. Obviously, if their population bumped up against the ecological carrying capacity of the land, you would see killings. So, what makes them fight at their actual population density, which seems to be rather lower than the carrying capacity? I suspect that the primary factor may well be the capture of women. Probably, the individual captor(s) who took the risk cannot always corner the full value of the 'resource' captured. Ie, I might capture a second wife from the enemy, but if I get sick I lose power and someone else may be able to take her. So, there is some benefit to the group. But mostly, they capture women for themselves - for their individual fitness benefit. They get most of the benefit.

December 12, 2010 at 5:28 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

One other thought, if, as the anti-semites believe, the Jews are so powerful don't you think your movement would be better off working with Jews?

Afterall, wouldn't your late, great, and spectacularly departed Uncle Adolf have been more likely to win WWII if he had employed Jewish talent such as von Neumann (who described himself as "violently anti-Communist") to build nuclear weapons, run the economy, and create Aryan propaganda? Hasn't Ralph Lauren, a Joo, had quite a career glorifying the blond "Aryan aesthetic" in his ads?

I'm sure there would have been many talented Jews who would have been happy to wear the swastika if the Reich had even been moderately anti-semitic.

December 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Group selection per se certainly does not imply anything about extermination.

I've read at GNXP and other websites that Group selection does mean that ethnic groups are programmed to LITERALLY exterminate other dissimilar ethnic groups. According the history of research into group selection, Geneticists only figured out that group selection had strong genocidal connotations AFTER they had abandoned group selection as being viable, sometime in the 1960's.

Certainly, that's how racialists use "EGI/Ethnic Nepotism" and similar ideas in the discussions - even though they don't come right out and say genocide is strongly implied in their theories of group selection.

MacDonald has been writing for over a decade that Judaism is a "group evolutionary strategy" and that Jews are trying to "outcompete" European gentiles. By "outcompete" he clearly means Jews want to literally exterminate all ~1 billion Europeans and that, by implication, the Europeans are justified in exterminating the Jews.

Hasn't macdonald written over and over again that "Nazism was a logical response" to Jewish group interest activities, which suggests those activities were related to extermination of the Europeans?

December 12, 2010 at 5:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Afterall, wouldn't your late, great, and spectacularly departed Uncle Adolf have been more likely to win WWII if he had employed Jewish talent such as von Neumann (who described himself as "violently anti-Communist") to build nuclear weapons, run the economy, and create Aryan propaganda? Hasn't Ralph Lauren, a Joo, had quite a career glorifying the blond "Aryan aesthetic" in his ads?

I'm sure there would have been many talented Jews who would have been happy to wear the swastika if the Reich had even been moderately anti-semitic.


The Nazis saw the Jews as their biological enemy and competitor.

And W.D. Hamilton suggests that biological competition was a basic cause of the Nazi persecution of Jews.

http://lclane2.net/hamilton.html

"Hamilton is an unabashed, no-fig-leaf naturist. He believes that genetics, not nurture, accounts for a large and important range of human behaviour-from racism and xenophobia to differences in intellectual abilities between men and women-and that only by admitting this, only by casting aside hypocrisy on the matter, can fundamental human problems be tackled. As an example, he argues that a basic cause ( emphatically not a justification) of racism-and, particularly, of ethnically motivated genocide-is a differential birth rate between groups. And, yes, he does extend this to the Nazi extermination of Jews."

December 12, 2010 at 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Afterall, wouldn't your late, great, and spectacularly departed Uncle Adolf have been more likely to win WWII if he had employed Jewish talent such as von Neumann (who described himself as "violently anti-Communist") to build nuclear weapons, run the economy, and create Aryan propaganda?

The Nazis believed they were fighting International Jewry/Judeo-Bolshevism during WWII and to rid German society of Jews and Jewish influence. I don't think they would have considered it a "win" had they not met these goals.

They probably would have accepted Jewish help provided that these Jews would leave Germany and Europe following Nazi victory. It's unlikely any Jews would have accepted such terms.

December 12, 2010 at 6:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Primer on Jews, WWII, and the postwar West:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4AvXX-oMT8

December 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that video is epically funny

December 12, 2010 at 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

fashinating stuff over at TOQ

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/secession-is-a-bad-idea/

December 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation was financed and co-produced with a German Jew, Robert Goldstein.

Pretty amazing, even if it was released in 1915, while young Adolph was still a corporal in the Kaiser's army.

At about 2:40, Griffith's intertitle reads: "The former enemies of North and South are united again in common defense of their Aryan birthright."

Later on, the Klan saves a town from the black mob, riding in to the tune of Wagner's "The Ride of the Valkyries".

Uncanny.

On the other hand, several of Griffith's intertitles quote from Woodrow Wilson's history books. I suppose that quoting America's most academically qualified President made it all respectable according to the standards of 1915. Even to a Jew who should have known better.

December 12, 2010 at 7:25 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> he argues that a basic cause ( emphatically not a justification) of racism-and, particularly, of ethnically motivated genocide-is a differential birth rate between groups. And, yes, he does extend this to the Nazi extermination of Jews.

I don't think that there was large relative Jewish population growth over the 50-100 years prior to the Nazis. I googled it a year ago while studying some of Hamilton's ideas, and found a source or two for the population numbers. A 2x change (at least in Germany) would not qualify as significant, seeing that Jews were only 1% of the German population in 1933.

However, I believe there was some very steep Ashkenazi population growth at certain times many centuries ago. I wouldn't rule out a relationship between this growth and some kind of nasty past events.

December 12, 2010 at 8:37 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> if he had employed Jewish talent such as von Neumann (who described himself as "violently anti-Communist") to build nuclear weapons, run the economy, and create Aryan propaganda?

Clearly, your supremicism is more than warranted with respect to physics. With econ, it's a little less justified; for biology, still less, and in propaganda or other arts I think the Ashkenazi advantage is small (certainly not 1 SD and probably close to 1/4 to 1/3 SD). Just have a look at the canons of painters, poets, novelists (though Bellow's probably the best American one), musicians, etc.

On selection --> extermination, a detail came to mind, making me realize your position might be right. I don't know. So, forget I said anything!

December 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that there was large relative Jewish population growth over the 50-100 years prior to the Nazis.

I don't think Hamilton would argue so much that it was large relative Jewish population growth over 5 to 10 decades as it was a sharp change in birth rate differential in a short time frame during Weimar Germany resulting from economic excesses, concentration, inequality, etc. and their effects on reproductive success, family formation, polygynous behavior, etc.

December 12, 2010 at 9:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Exterminate" is a loaded word. It means specifically violent, physical extermination but it's also loosely applied so that it basically means "compete" in this context.

Group selection says that groups will compete. Physical extermination through force, violence, war, etc. is but one mode of competition among groups. Just as individual murder is but one mode of competition among individuals. Physical extermination depends on the groups in question, the situation, context, etc. Competition may involve displacement as one group takes over the ecological niche occupied by another group. Or it may involve one group taking the females of another group at a higher rate and sexually outcompeting the other group.

December 12, 2010 at 10:03 PM  
Blogger Paully said...

Jack Burton,

No, I have not read any of the cables. I did however scan through the wikipedia page with short summaries of cables related to countries or heads of state. I too am not a gentleman of leisure.

I notice that Joe Lieberman wants Assange prosecuted under the Espionage Act but only criticizes the NYT of 'bad citizenship.'

December 13, 2010 at 3:03 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

I have found the cable texts themselves highly interesting. I assume the stuff about Merkel or Sarkozy is a real snooze. But you might learn a lot if you have an interest in truly foreign countries - meaning, basically, those outside the old NATO core, especially those well outside.

December 13, 2010 at 4:52 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

"Later on, the Klan saves a town from the black mob, riding in to the tune of Wagner's "The Ride of the Valkyries"."

Was music specified for silent films or was it the option of the movie house?

December 13, 2010 at 5:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

interesting

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_eRYqGj48hB4cCsvJDEaV2M

December 13, 2010 at 4:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jewish mentality

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/40132/people-v.-leo-frank-revisits-southern-inhospitality/

leo frank is hero to them and martyr, 100 years later.

December 13, 2010 at 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Afterall, wouldn't your late, great, and spectacularly departed Uncle Adolf have been more likely to win WWII if he had employed Jewish talent such as von Neumann

http://web.archive.org/web/20091024222354/http://geocities.com/jim_bowery/vonthiefman.html

"By the time von Neumann joined the project, the ENIAC design was set and construction was well under way. Eckert, Mauchly, and others had already been meeting occasionally for more than half a year to discuss the design of the successor machine, the EDVAC. Von Neumann joined in on these discussions when he was available, every month or two. During an extended stay at Los Alamos, he wrote the Draft Report on EDVAC, which Goldstine distributed widely. Much to Eckert and Mauchly's annoyance, von Neumann's name was the only one to appear on the document. The report gave a lucid description of the functional design of the stored-program computer, using the abstract language and concepts of neural nets that had recently been invented by Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts to emphasize the "logical design," rather than discussing specific engineering implementations."

December 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Completely Off-topic: I just heard on the BBC an interview with a group in Wiki Leaks wanting to break off and found a new leak source because power was too concentrated at Wikileaks and it is always important to "distribute power on as many shoulders as possible." Naturally I thought of MM and his lessons.

December 14, 2010 at 5:19 AM  
Anonymous chebek said...

jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews jews


.... it makes a nice wallpaper pattern, doesn't it?

December 14, 2010 at 3:33 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

not really

thank tuj, for wallpaper sized posts on some jewish nobody producer.

for something actually interesting, check out non-jew hoppe's

Keynote Address (lectio magistralis) entitled “Principles of Sovereignty and Modern Democracy,” at the conference “The decline of contemporary Europe: National Sovereignty, Localization and Globalization,” University of Padova–Faculty of Law (Dec. 9, 2010).

http://www.hanshoppe.com/

December 14, 2010 at 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/018157.html

what a buffoon.

December 14, 2010 at 4:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Auster gets beat up by M4 Monologue

http://m4monologue.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/i-am-antisemitacus/

December 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since someone brought up Leo Frank-it looks like he was probably guilty:
http://www.leofrankcase.com/
(...)
Recently promoted to chief bookkeeper of the NPCo, Herbert George Schiff was only 20 years old at the time of the crime. The issue remains: was he truly expected to come in to work on April 26th? (such a previous arrangement would imply that no assignation between Leo Frank and any 'lady' was planned or likely). According to watchman Newt Lee, Mr. Frank reminded him several times on the day before (Fri.) to report for his own duties (on the Holiday) an hour earlier than usual, i.e. 4pm instead of 5pm, so that Leo could attend an afternoon ballgame with his brother-in-law. Yet when Newt appeared at the appointed time, he was instructed by Leo to leave the building until even later than usual (6pm), not take a nap inside, and "have a good time (at the Parade)." Mr. Frank had cancelled the game-date with Ursenbach by phone at 1:30pm. Schiff's long-time maid (Emma Beard) said she usually wakened Schiff on Saturdays, but did not do so that morning. Yet when a call was placed from the factory by Alonzo Mann, Emma later said she was "unable" to rouse him and Schiff never reported for work that day (or even called back). Emma and Schiff would later recall this 'summons' as occurring twice, at 10:30 and 11am, but Mr. Frank described it as a single call, at 11:30am. Alonzo also said 'once,' but did not specify the time. We are left with the puzzle of why any call(s) from the head office were essentially ignored that morning, although Schiff had stated that he knew he didn't finish all his weekly calculations by Friday evening. He was also proud that he had not previously missed one day of assigned work in five years (except for the Ohio Flood disaster in Jan.). To further complicate matters, there is some evidence that although a call was made, it was not about work but only concerned an early morning delivery of Schiff's forgotten clothing. If this interpretation is correct, then Schiff was never intended to come in that Saturday morning. Sorting out what really transpired in reference to these call(s) will probably result in a conclusion no one will want...
(...)

December 14, 2010 at 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since someone brought up Leo Frank-it looks like he was probably guilty:
http://www.leofrankcase.com/
(...)
Recently promoted to chief bookkeeper of the NPCo, Herbert George Schiff was only 20 years old at the time of the crime. The issue remains: was he truly expected to come in to work on April 26th? (such a previous arrangement would imply that no assignation between Leo Frank and any 'lady' was planned or likely). According to watchman Newt Lee, Mr. Frank reminded him several times on the day before (Fri.) to report for his own duties (on the Holiday) an hour earlier than usual, i.e. 4pm instead of 5pm, so that Leo could attend an afternoon ballgame with his brother-in-law. Yet when Newt appeared at the appointed time, he was instructed by Leo to leave the building until even later than usual (6pm), not take a nap inside, and "have a good time (at the Parade)." Mr. Frank had cancelled the game-date with Ursenbach by phone at 1:30pm. Schiff's long-time maid (Emma Beard) said she usually wakened Schiff on Saturdays, but did not do so that morning. Yet when a call was placed from the factory by Alonzo Mann, Emma later said she was "unable" to rouse him and Schiff never reported for work that day (or even called back). Emma and Schiff would later recall this 'summons' as occurring twice, at 10:30 and 11am, but Mr. Frank described it as a single call, at 11:30am. Alonzo also said 'once,' but did not specify the time. We are left with the puzzle of why any call(s) from the head office were essentially ignored that morning, although Schiff had stated that he knew he didn't finish all his weekly calculations by Friday evening. He was also proud that he had not previously missed one day of assigned work in five years (except for the Ohio Flood disaster in Jan.). To further complicate matters, there is some evidence that although a call was made, it was not about work but only concerned an early morning delivery of Schiff's forgotten clothing. If this interpretation is correct, then Schiff was never intended to come in that Saturday morning. Sorting out what really transpired in reference to these call(s) will probably result in a conclusion no one will want...
(...)

December 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wikileaks on SA’s Bling Bling black ‘leaders’

http://boerboel1.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/wikileaks-on-sas-bling-bling-black-leaders/

December 14, 2010 at 5:50 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

interesting

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_eRYqGj48hB4cCsvJDEaV2M

December 13, 2010 4:15 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jewish mentality

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/40132/people-v.-leo-frank-revisits-southern-inhospitality/

leo frank is hero to them and martyr, 100 years later.

December 13, 2010 4:49 PM


...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jaI1XOB-bs

December 16, 2010 at 3:29 PM  
Anonymous Heismanist said...

I would like to see Moldbug take on Mitchell Heisman's Suicide Note. The philistines of the internet who scoff at the supposed "incoherent babbling" are fools of fools. Heisman has written one of the most logically precise, and poetically beautiful tomes of our time. He gets to the heart of the question of why life is assumed to be better than death, and in his journey must confront sociobiology, religion, AI, and history. Just read his chapters on Jesus, the tortured son of a Roman rapist, or his epic recounting of Auschwitz as the attempt of pure Darwinian biology to kill the nagging of conscience and spirit. His definition of Jewish morality as inherently anti-biological anti-alphamale anti-Roissy in Dc.

Actually I see great optimism in his work, for he believes that eventually anti-life will conquer life. And the death of life is a good thing. Not necessarily by suicide but in the triumph of omega altruism over alpha altruism. Forget Carlyle and Froude, we need to study Heisman! And since Moldbug is so interested in "Deep history" of the Calvinist-Unitarians, I would be curious to see his take on Heisman's Anglo-Norman theory of history.

In the last analysis being pro-life pro-biology and only end in Hitler and Roissy in DC. It is only in being anti-biology that anything good has ever happened.

He must have come up with this theory after seeing all the frat boy Roissy in Dcs, since he went to the #1 Party school usa. The biological view of life can only give us Hitler, Roissy in Dc, and frat boys.

December 17, 2010 at 9:26 AM  
Anonymous Heismanist said...

Heisman also saw Auschwitz as the ultimate refutation of the Marxist Liberal-Capitalist belief that all could be reduced to rational economic, inherently non-biological factors. Auschwitz literally turned biology into matter. It made Marxism, biologically Jewish as opposed to tabula rasa. Marx and the Jews were attacked because of biology. Thus Marxisms attempt to refute biology was refuted in the most clear and brutal method possible. For Heisman it was Hitler not Reagan who ultimately refuted Marxism.

December 17, 2010 at 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His definition of Jewish morality as inherently anti-biological anti-alphamale anti-Roissy in Dc. ....Actually I see great optimism in his work, for he believes that eventually anti-life will conquer life. And the death of life is a good thing....In the last analysis being pro-life pro-biology and only end in Hitler and Roissy in DC. It is only in being anti-biology that anything good has ever happened.

This is a very Jewish worldview and attitude.

Nietzsche said that this profoundly anti-life attitude was the essence of Jewish morality.

This isn't surprising considering that Jews are co-evolved with "civilization" (i.e. the population structure of cities) which consumes populations and ecologies and leaves deracination and degredation in its wake. So naturally they'd associate being "anti-biology" and "anti-life" as being "good." Their "life" has depended on migrating among structures that end up being "anti-life" and destructive to their hosts. This life history is what has made them so virulent i.e. "anti-life" and destructive.

December 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

I read (literally) a few pages of Heisman and concluded that he was bananas. I remember really hoping it would be great, but he just kept making one inference after another that wasn't necessarily so.

December 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Heismanist said...

I did the same thing, did a quick skim, and saw the Anglo-Norman nonsense and put it aside for a while, somewhat disappointed he hadn't followed up on sociobiological implications on the meaning of suicide. But I returned to it today with a closer skim. And if you don't just read a few pages, but actually let him build his argument, it is incredibly coherent and logical. You can disagree with many of his points, I sure do, but don't just dismiss him. That is a mistake. He made the news,people shook their heads, did a shallow skim of a few lines, and mocked. Read the chapters on Jewish history or Jesus or the Holocaust. I'm not saying read it word by word- I just skimmed 1200 pages in 3 hours... still haven't finished. I think its especially relevant to the readers of Moldbug- the intersection of deep history and sociobiology. Heisman has not been given the recognition he deserves.

December 17, 2010 at 4:56 PM  
Anonymous Heismanist said...

And its simply not true that he only makes inferences. Most of his arguments are backed up by respected although not undisputed academic sources. To take his arguements on the historical Jesus for instance he follows John Dominic Crossan. Crossan is rather controversy and pushes the boundaries, but is generally in line with academic consensus. And those are generally the sources he picks. People who are on the fringes of the mainstream, but NOT fringe.

December 17, 2010 at 4:59 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

lots of good stuff at librivox.org (free public domain audiobooks).

i haven't followed it closely but it seems like the amount of content is exploding and becoming more professional quality.

December 17, 2010 at 7:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

lots of good stuff at librivox.org (free public domain audiobooks).

Anybody surprised that that sociopathic anti-Semite jkr spends his Friday nights alone in his mom's basement listening to audiobooks?

December 17, 2010 at 10:20 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

anon must be posting from his blackberry, since he's out partying at 10:20 and happens to be browsing UR's comments section. some of us are still working at 7:27, douche.

December 18, 2010 at 10:05 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-fidel-castro-barack-obama

ha, they even got castro.

December 18, 2010 at 10:07 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

How do you know what time-zone people are posting from?

December 18, 2010 at 10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some of us are still working at 7:27

The only thing you're still working on on a Friday evening is arranging your World War II Nazi figurine set in your mom's basement you disgusting anti-Semitic piece of shit.

December 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

i don't know. i don't really care. the anon abe foxman assumed it was night, so i assumed he shared my time zone. in any case, he hates librivox, which is sad. for librivox is good.

December 18, 2010 at 2:07 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

anon, for you

http://librivox.org/legends-of-the-jews-volume-2-by-louis-ginzberg/

yeah you're welcome.

December 18, 2010 at 2:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MM:

My guess is you are already aware, but just in case, I stumbled upon a new book at the Library: Tories: Fighting for the King in America's Civil WarM by Thomas B. Allen. I only just started it, so I couldn't speak to it's quality, but there ya go.

December 19, 2010 at 8:50 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

> Auschwitz as the attempt of pure Darwinian biology to kill the nagging of conscience and spirit

Certainly, I think Darwinism and 'pure biology' as you put it is a big part of what the Nazis themselves considered their ideology to be. How correct were they about that?

The human conscience is an evolved trait, an innate trait. The Nazi project of ignoble mega-murder (outside combat) ignores that fact: in that way, it has a quite salient blank-slateist, anti-innatist, anti-biological aspect.

Anti-moralist views greatly predate the Nazis and Nietzsche, but the sheer intensity of Nazi anti-moralism is likely to be partly a function of Nietzsche's influence... not just of his theoretical anti-moralism but of his specific mentions of war against 'nihilists' (including the like of Marxists), and mass slaughter of same, and ways of promoting a culture of mass public suicide of same. (Only some of the above are found in material published by him.)

The amoralism of Nietzsche is trivially true, though only in a narrow sense: moralities are not objective, but /they are highly intersubjective/. There's no objective truth-value in morals, but there is a strong tendency, based on biology, that causes people to very broadly agree and overlap on morals. Nietzsche didn't emphasize this - so his books sound like extreme moral blank slateism, regardless of what degree of that he intended.

I've mentioned before, in contemplating Nazism and fascism we should by no means assume that the Nazi regime could indefinitely bear up under the moral weight of its crimes. The general sense one gets is that moral introspection among Germans was somewhat put off by the ongoing apocalyptic war. If Nazism had lasted we might have seen just how /inconsistent/ the Nazi acts would have been with the long term well-being of German and Germanic civilization, which well-being is of course partly a function of how closely a civilization's life and world correspond to inborn biology-based desires, hopes, and drives. If I were king the design of my regime would certainly drink deeply of biological truths but this would not lead me toward mass slaughter; quite the contrary.

December 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM  
Anonymous Ivan said...

The truth is simple: There was no plans - secret or otherwise - for mass physical extermination of jews in Hitler’s Germany. Gassing and all that is pure baloney - it never happened. What’s more - it couldn’t happen the way they say it happened.

Would you pay $100 at e-Bay for a most urgently needed item the delivery of which, if ever delivered, would take two weeks if you could easily buy that same item for $1 at your local shop store down the street?

Why would Germans, or anybody else for that matter, build expensive, awkward, inefficient gas chambers while waging a war on two fronts, hoard stinking jews in concentration camps, tattoo them, feed them for weeks or even months, shower them before they shove them into these ovens, while all it takes to get rid of a human parasite is one minute and one bullet in the back of the head. And, by the way, that’s exactly what Germans were doing to the Jewish commissars in the occupied territories. Taking into account what Jews did to Germany, could you blame them for doing so?

Do you know how many human bodies per day you would have to burn to account for 6 million people? Over 4000 every fucking day for 4 years! That’s about the population of a small town, GW. Could that be done without leaving heavy footprints all over the place? This Holocaust narrative makes absolutely no sense, no matter how you look at it.

You don’t need a degree in chemistry and endless academic debates to see the absurdity of the Holocaust myth - all one needs is elementary common sense.

December 19, 2010 at 1:12 PM  
Anonymous JT said...

Ivan,

the problem with holocaust revisionism is the extreme binary nature of the possible reception.

imagine you're an ordinary ignorant person, and you're presented with the holocaust revisionist narrative.

you have two extreme, mutually exclusive conclusions to choose from.

1. jews are evil opportunistic liars.

2. holocaust deniers are even more evil liars.

which do you choose? especially if you're already inclined to view the nazis negatively for other reasons, and have zero incentive to view jews negatively.

it's a non-starter for anyone but the most coldly scientific.

December 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM  
Anonymous JT said...

To elaborate on my above point...

Even if the revisionist narrative were more or less correct, in 95% + the response is likely to be overwhelmingly negative. Not only will your arguments be rejected, you will be viewed as a miscreant. A thankless task only engaged in by chemists, engineers, etc., with poorly functioning social antennae. Even Galileo knew when to quit.

December 19, 2010 at 3:33 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

"And, by the way, that’s exactly what Germans were doing to the Jewish commissars in the occupied territories. Taking into account what Jews did to Germany, could you blame them for doing so?"
Group-Serving Bias: Bloodlands Edition.

Chip Smith's Nine Banded Books has a book of holocaust revisionism coming out titled The Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes. I've read some of it in different stages of editing, but haven't finished it since that's not my bag.

December 19, 2010 at 9:36 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Ok, so based on the logic of group selection implying groups are programmed to literally exterminate outgroups, whenever the NeoNazis/paleocons/VDare/Inferior Reichers say "Jews are hyperethnocentric" they REALLY mean that Jews are genetically programmed to literally exterminate white gentiles ("Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy to outcompete *cough* exterminate *cough* white gentiles").

And so, it follows that white gentiles, who are undergoing a literal extermination campaign launched by Jews, would be justified in literally exterminating all American Jews ("Nazism was a logical reaction to Jewish group activities")?

So if this is what they mean by non-existent liberal Jewish "ethnocentrism", then the Jews are justified in calling brimelow, macdonald, richard spencer literal anti-semitic exterminationists, right?

December 19, 2010 at 10:06 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

To the paleocon antisemites (90% of whom appear to be posting under the title of "Anonymous"),

If you have so many issues with Jews, why are you spending posting on a vocally pro-Jewish revisionist blog?

December 19, 2010 at 10:08 PM  
Anonymous Ivan said...

Even if the revisionist narrative were more or less correct, in 95% + the response is likely to be overwhelmingly negative. Not only will your arguments be rejected, you will be viewed as a miscreant. A thankless task only engaged in by chemists, engineers, etc., with poorly functioning social antennae. Even Galileo knew when to quit.

Yes, it's a religion enforced by a theocracy, similar to previous dominant religions enforced by theocracies.

The religion is "Holocaustianity."

http://web.archive.org/web/20080726195057/http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Holocaust/holocaustianity.htm

Holocaustianity is the faithful acceptance of the dogma of the Holocaust as the proper mythic narrative of 20th century history. You may be counted among the faithful if you accept the following:

1. 6 million Jews were deliberately exterminated by the Nazis during WW II.
2. The choice of this event as the dominant mythic narrative of the 20th century, relegating to obscurity other events, such as the deliberate starvation of 8 to 15 million Ukranian farmers by a largely Jewish Soviet the year before Germans hysterically elected Hitler to power, is not an affront to reason and decency.

You may judge your acceptance of these dogmas by your gut reaction to actions of people who are compared to Nazis vs your gut reaction to people who are compared to Commies. This "still small voice" of within you is your guide.

December 19, 2010 at 10:09 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

The choice of this event as the dominant mythic narrative of the 20th century, relegating to obscurity other events, such as the deliberate starvation of 8 to 15 million Ukranian farmers by a largely Jewish Soviet

What is your evidence Jewish Soviets ordered the Holodomor? Can you name the Jews who ordered the Holodomor?

December 19, 2010 at 10:12 PM  
Anonymous Ivan said...

The new religion of "Holocaustianity" is a grotesque mimicry of the old religion of Christianity.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080726195057/http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Holocaust/holocaustianity.htm

1) Christianity centers on the crucifixion of God's only begotten son whereas the Holocaust centers on the annihilation of six million of God's chosen children.

2) For both Christianity and the Holocaust the victim is entirely blameless.

3) For Christians, Jesus is the light of the world. Jews are the self-described ''light of nations''.

4) Both victims experience resurrection; Jesus rises on the third day and Israel rises, Phoenix-like out of the ashes of the Holocaust.

5) Christianity has its spotless virgin; the Holocaust has Anne Frank.

6) On the way to Calvary Jesus is helped by Simon the Cyrene; the Holocaust has it's ''righteous gentiles''.

7) For Christians, Jesus' death makes salvation possible; the Holocaust forever discredits racist nationalism thereby insuring the triumph liberal
democracy with its commitment to multiculturalism and diversity.

8) For both events the historical evidence is relatively thin, and both rely almost entirely on eyewitness testimony.

9) The Church regards deniers as heretics, tools of Satan and will not debate them; Jews regard Revisionists as deniers with a satanic political agenda i.e. anti-Semitism and the resurrection of the radical right.

10) Pilate is the consummate bureaucrat, a mere cog in the machinery of imperial Rome: he does his job efficiently and without passion. His Holocaust
counterpart is Eichmann who was described by Hannah Arendt as exhibiting the ''banality of evil''

11) Both Christianity and the Holocaust have their official houses of worship, churches for Christianity, museums and memorials for the Holocaust. In each case the larger ones contain actual relics.

12) Both have their official chroniclers; Christianity has the Gospels and the Holocaust has the accounts of Hillburg, Daswidowitz, Levin.

13) Christianity had Paul, ''Preacher to the Gentiles''. Elie Wiesel performs that same roll for the Holocaust.

14) Both tales underwent extensive in-house revision. Just as some of the earlier accounts of Jesus, many of them actually quite popular were eventually jettisoned by the early Church Fathers in favor of a more streamlined version, so were many wartime claims about how the Jews were
slaughtered, expunged from their official story.

15) For both Christianity and the Holocaust the actual instruments of death, the cross and the gas chambers have become part of the official iconography

16) Jesus was killed alongside two others but only his death is regarded as having cosmic importance, similarly the Jewish deaths among the 40-60 million
who perished in World War ll.

17) The spiritual elite of Christianity, the clergy claims legitimacy through apostolic succession which spiritually connects them to the Twelve Apostles. Judaism has its elite, ''Holocaust Survivors', ''Children of Holocaust survivors'', ''Children of the Children of holocaust survivors'' which is a kind of ''Holocaustic succession''

18) Christianity blamed the Jews for the crucifixion; Jews blame Christianity for the Holocaust!

19) Christians sometimes speak of a ''Second Coming'', the Jews never stop warning of a second Holocaust

December 19, 2010 at 10:15 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

Btw, to continue the topic of group selection, kevin macdonald is an idiot who doesn't even have an undgrad level understanding of basic concepts behind altruism, reciprocity, and kin vs group selection.

No wonder he majored in psychology - because he wasn't smart enough to hack it in a real scientific field such as evolutionary biology:

Kevin MacDonald is Confused About Ethnic Altruism

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/blog/blog/kevin_macdonald_is_confused_about_ethnic_altruism/

MacDonald’s dismissal of the concept of ethnic altruism will immediately strike anyone who understands ENT as odd. The essential claim of the theory is that relations among co-ethnics ought to be analogous to those among kin because co-ethnics, like kin, are related. What relatedness produces among kin is altruism. So if MacDonald doesn’t think relatedness produces altruism among co-ethnics, what does it produce? And what quality distinguishes relations among co-ethnics from those among allo-ethnics (members of different ethnic groups)?

“Evolutionary Perspective” is incoherent on the subject of ethnic altruism. Criticizing J. Philippe Rushton’s work on ethnocentrism, MacDonald states that relationships among co-ethnics are characterized by reciprocity rather than unreciprocated altruism:

Because the similarity-detecting mechanisms implied by [Rushton’s genetic similarity theory] assess low levels of genetic relatedness, they would not be expected to produce detectable levels of providing unreciprocated resources to others (altruism), but to affect the cost/benefit structure of self-interested behavior…. Relationships of marriage, friendship, and ethnic group affiliation fundamentally involve reciprocity.3

Presumably, what MacDonald means in the first sentence is that unreciprocated altruism can evolve among people of very high relatedness, such as kin, but cannot among people of low relatedness, such as non-kin co-ethnics. MacDonald’s logic here is plainly invalid: after all, if kin selection can work at the level of the ethny, why shouldn’t it lead to adaptations for altruism among co-ethnics as well as kin? At low levels of relatedness, altruism should be attenuated, but not absent. That is, once one accepts Rushton’s premise, one must accept Rushton’s conclusions, or at least explain clearly why these conclusions are invalid, which MacDonald does not do.

MacDonald’s effort to distinguish his theory from Rushton’s depends on the assumption that reciprocity and altruism are mutually exclusive categories. However, this assumption is invalid: reciprocal relations can be characterized by altruism. An action is altruistic when an individual forgoes a benefit to himself in order to grant one to another. When one unpacks MacDonald’s arguments, one finds that altruism is implicit in his theory of ethnicity.

MacDonald writes that relations among co-ethnics are characterized by reciprocity on easy terms: “Successful alliances of any kind with genetically similar others have a lower threshold of trust and a higher threshold for defection.”4 Rational cooperators can be expected to defect, that is cheat or not hold up their end of the bargain, when defection brings a greater benefit to self than further cooperation would. MacDonald is saying that, because of the genetic interest they have in each other’s well-being, co-ethnics go on cooperating even when it is in their self-interest to defect. That is, an individual will forego a benefit to himself in order to grant one to his co-ethnic cooperative partner. This is altruism.

December 19, 2010 at 10:23 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

For Christians, Jesus is the light of the world. Jews are the self-described ''light of nations''.

Since Jesus was Jewish, Christian European morality is profoundly molded by Jewish ethics, and since Jews and since European Christians worship the supposedly omnipotent Jewish God, from a Christian perspective wouldn't Jews be justified in calling themselves "the light of nations"?

December 19, 2010 at 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's funny that you attack MacDonald for his degree and point to an article by Ian Jobling, an English major, for support.

Why are you here, considering that Moldbug mostly writes about topics far removed from his major in computer science?

December 20, 2010 at 12:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MacDonald already responded to that attack by Ian Jobling.

Every time I try to post a comment here with the text of the links to MacDonald's responses to Jobling, the comment gets deleted right away. So just go to MacDonald's site "The Occidental Observer" and search for "Jobling" and you'll find the responses.

December 20, 2010 at 12:13 AM  
Anonymous josh said...

20) Jesus rose from the dead, jews eat unleavened bread.

Every fucking thread.

On a more fun note, has anybody read the website "newsflavor" supposed interview with a "White House Insider". My guess is fake, but its pretty fun and well done. It reads like a Tom Clancy novel (or rather what I imagine a Tom Clancy novel reads like, since I have never read a Tom Clancy novel).

December 20, 2010 at 5:18 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

It is fun to read. I had thought there was a small chance it might be real. But in fact I think Newsflavor is basically a site for fake news where anyone can post anything, for reasons mercenary. See the very bottom, and the very right a few inches up from the bottom.

December 20, 2010 at 2:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Among Africa’s elites, hostility is almost uniform. Jean Rouch, a champion of indigenous art in Niger, has compared Nollywood [Nigeria's film industry] to the AIDS virus. Cultural critics complain about “macabre scenes full of sorcery” in the films. The more alarmist describe Nigerian directors and producers as voodoo priests casting malign spells over audiences in other countries. They talk of the “Nigerianisation” of Africa, worrying that the whole continent has come to “snap its fingers the Nigerian way”.

http://www.economist.com/node/17723124

December 20, 2010 at 4:31 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

just a thought...

if every thread on uber-intellectual mencius moldbug's revisionist blog ends up discussing jews, perhaps it's a relevant topic. as much as it bunches the panties of some. tom clancy novels and and fun obama interviews are clearly more suitable fare for serious people.

my reactionary opinion is that the reason the topic always seems to come up on UR, is because UR is the only serious right-wing blog that takes a leftist position on the jewish question. it doesn't fit. it's readers as perturbed.

or, it's skinheads and the Aryan Brotherhood.

the mainstream progressive theory of antisemitism (propounded by UR as well) is that antisemitism is a universal flaw of gentiles akin to original sin. UR is right, the rest of the intellectual Right is wrong. keep thinking that.

i'd also point out that commenters who discuss many issues, no matter how informed and erudite, receive the same hysterical reception when posting on the jewish question as would a genuine hollywood nazi.

philosemitism bunches around the political center, where money, status and influence set the tone. realism on the jewish question resides in the real right and often enough the genuine left, where there is commitment to intellectual and logical integrity.

the topic is uncomfortable for everyone, since any serious, level-headed discussion of it is met with hysterical shrieks and vulgar harassment of the kind you would expect at a antifa protest against sb1070 or outside an AmRen conference.

it's all of a kind. if it walks like a duck... etc. yes, it's a duck. only pseudo-intellectual nitwits like the kind who pop up on UR could convince themselves otherwise.

December 20, 2010 at 4:40 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

it also seems that since the utter failure of the neoconservative experiment, there's a mass exodus of jewish conservatives to the real right, trying to control and co-opt the discussion. it's like rats fleeing a sinking ship.* if you want to control the discussion and abuse anyone who disagrees with you, there's always the weekly standard. not gonna happen on the genuine right. blogs which don't allow free discussion lose cred. blogs which do will have a vibrant and well informed commentariat which will be able to detect bullshit and draw proper conclusions. people who can't hack it will stay out of their blog comment sections. there's always the option to make TUJ comment admin.

*its an analogy, deal with it. sensitive pricks.

December 20, 2010 at 4:50 PM  
Anonymous Ronald said...

it also seems that since the utter failure of the neoconservative experiment, there's a mass exodus of jewish conservatives to the real right, trying to control and co-opt the discussion. it's like rats fleeing a sinking ship.*

Moving from leftism to neoconservativism was the first step so to speak:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/1/12/143549/104

December 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Ronald said...

It was my prediction over 10 years ago that a new form would emerge sometime around the year 2000 which might better be thought of as a pan-Western fascism based on a Judeo-Christian identity. This is in fact what has happened, although through the advanced warnings of people like myself that Jews would attempt to make this switch on us, there has been some success in preventing all aspects of conservatism from being captured by these “neoconservative” Judeo-Christians. Nevertheless the US is being degraded into a role of international shame and disgrace and domestic chaos.

A good deal of what Jews have been doing in the Middle East has been to play on the turn of the millennium to manipulate the religious beliefs of white Christian men—a phenomenon I was, in the 1990s predicting would lead to some kind of “big event” at the turn of the millennium to channel their pent up hatred toward enemies of Jews in a kind of “pan-Western fascism”. This is exactly what has happened with 9/11 and the neocon domination of foreign policy.

December 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM  
Anonymous Ronald said...

It was clear to me that the means, motive and opportunity would exist at the millennium for this kind of event and that with the waning of female boomer fertility there would be little reason for Jews to maintain the ludicrously “liberal” position they had been promoting for nearly a century.

So they’d need some kind of cover to whiplash and consolidate their gains—especially in the US—before other, equally or more, sophisticated cultures invading the West started playing the same game on the Jewish dominion that the Jews had played on the rest of us. (This is one reason I started focusing on Jews as early as 1992 and pretty much ignored other ethnicities—I knew they’d be going for a take over of conservatism and I wasn’t about to let them get away with that obscene switcheroo!)

In other words, Jews—particularly Zionists—would have to learn what it felt like to be “Nazis”. Also, they’d need an excuse to dump the used-up female boomers onto the street from their positions as de facto concubines (without even the meager honor—or children for that matter—accorded aging concubines by openly polygynous cultures).

December 20, 2010 at 8:31 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

interesting. i welcome jews to the right, to the extent that jews see themselves fully as members of our civilization, defer to the general real Right... in general, assimilate. the thing good Europeans have desired since emancipation, and jews have resisted, down to the marrow of their bones. what i don't support is co-option, stalinist type rhetoric and controls on discourse, attempted excommunications, and in general lying. as long as jews view christian/western society as a dangerous beast to be coralled, they will be uncomfortable with a self-confident, assertive, conscious european/western civ.

i expect that for many jews, the coming demographic chaos will show them where their home is and where their loyalty should be. but if they choose to remain apart, and constitute a hostile, largely elite, minority and fifth column, they will be ejected from positions of influence by a resurgent western civ. the Right is becoming more mature, and cannot be considered violently anti-semitic. if jews do not overcome their hatred/fear of the Right, the Right will return the sentiment.

December 20, 2010 at 9:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speak for yourself, jkr.

Many of us don't want that. If you do, move to Israel. Don't bother us with it.

December 20, 2010 at 11:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jkr, I will say this ... I've been reading Moldbug's blog since 2007. You are by far the worst -- and stupidest -- commentator to come here since that time.

I also think I would have several other people here agree with me on that.

Do us all a favor, take your ax-grinding joo joo joo crap elsewhere. If you don't like the comments here, then what the hell are you doing here? Don't you have anything else to do?

BTW, are you an SA goon (or former goon)? Something about your posts reeks of morbidly obese neckbeard with too much time on his hands.

December 21, 2010 at 1:40 AM  
Blogger Kalim Kassam said...

One can get a thirty-minute taste of that Tories book mentioned by Anonymous from this talk on C-SPAN's BookTV. The book is subtitled Fighting for the King in America's First Civil War, but there's also a new book out on The Civil War of 1812 (C-SPAN talk here, very short comment from Tyler Cowen here). Both look quite interesting, but I also can't recommend either as I'm currently reading other books, namely Albion's Seed and The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, the latter on MM's recommendation.

Related to those first two books though, I'll mention something I'd like to get MM's take on sometime--and that is the question of Canada. The old understanding of Seymour Martin Lipset, Gad Horowitz et al that Canada was founded as a Tory nation has come increasingly under attack in recent years since Janet Ajzenstat's The Canadian Founding: John Locke and Parliament. She marshaled good evidence and demonstrated convincingly at least that Canada was more liberal than commonly understood. Both tendencies obviously existed, but in my mind the question of whether Canada was more Whig or Tory in the late nineteenth century is not fully resolved.

December 21, 2010 at 2:29 AM  
Anonymous Hieronymus Goat said...

RS: The Nazis didn't believe the Jews were moral agents. The extermination program may have been crazy, but it was not inherently amoral or anti-moral.

If you think an enemy has attacked you, you may fight back and kill him (as you agree), whether he is an animal, inanimate object, or pathetic soulless nihilists.

You equate morality and right with the idea that all humans deserve the respect and dignity worthy of agents rational and good, because you are a universalist/humanist in the society of the universalist/humanist victors.

December 21, 2010 at 4:40 AM  
Anonymous Hieronymus Goat said...

Ivan: Killing 4000 people a day was well within the bureaucratic competence of Nazi Germany.

Do you think it was difficult because your extermination program is to pop a cap in their heads in the streets?

Nazi Germany kept the extermination program a fair secret, and maintained the veneer of civil society, unto the pressures of total war.

You must see the illogic in saying both:

a) The method they used was needlessly gradual and assembly-line
b) Killing 4000 a day average was impossible

The Holocaust deniers gotta have something less ridiculous.

December 21, 2010 at 4:55 AM  
Anonymous jkr said...

anon #1,

i do speak for myself.

anon #2,

get a handle if you want to engage with people. all i gather from your comments is that you disagree with me and can only express this by hurling anonymous insults, just as i described above. you lose.

December 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/the-modern-definition-of-anti-semitism/

The Modern Definition Of Anti-Semitism

December 20, 2010 by Chateau

Progressives like change, (they are always clamoring for it), so they should be comfortable with a change in the definition of anti-Semitism to a more updated and accurate modern usage suited for the times.

With that in mind, Udolpho (a very funny dude) wrote in the comments to a Steve Sailer post:

Here is a practical definition of anti-Semitism: the belief by gentiles that Jews may be criticized like any other group....

December 21, 2010 at 4:57 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

Roissy has joined the dark side.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/12/roissy-and-white-sympathism/

December 21, 2010 at 5:24 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

With that in mind, Udolpho (a very funny dude) wrote in the comments to a Steve Sailer post:

Here is a practical definition of anti-Semitism: the belief by gentiles that Jews may be criticized like any other group....


Moldbug has already built the foundation for an excellent definition of anti-semitism which even the mighty "udolpho" would struggle to convincingly argue against:

Moldbug's Definition of Anti-Semitism:

Anti-semitism is the FALSE, insane, mind consuming paranoia that elite Jews such as Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan have interests and policies that are somehow significantly in conflict with the policies and interests of elite Gentiles such as Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner.

Allow me to elaborate...

As the seemingly never ending flamewar between the kevin macdonald spambots and the Moldbergsteinian philo-Zionuts has raged it has now become clear the positions between the philo-Zionutzis and the pungent (if not potent) ejaculations of the kmac spambots are so utterly divergent that one belligerent is 100% on crack and the other is crack free.

Either Moldbug is on crack and kevin macdonald is crack free or vice versa. There is no grey area anymore. The ultimate truth must now be Boolean: 100% Moldbug or 100% macdonald.

Choose wisely.

Even though macdonald (judging by his spectacular scientific career and writings at le occidental) easily has an 100 IQ point advantage over our Hebraic host, Moldbug is surely the on the side of truth and justice.

The best way to decipher which blogger is on crack is to first neatly boil down all of their verbiage in a way which encapsulates their core argument.

The second step is to determine which argument is true and the other not.

The mutually exclusive positions of the ZionNazi Propagandists (led to glorious victory by Arch-Rabbi Moldbug) and the anti-ZionNazi Vikings (for 12 years led over the cliff by part-time community college TA kevin macdonald) can be boiled down thusly:

December 21, 2010 at 8:21 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued from above

(1) macdonald (the brief version of everything he has ever written about Jews): Elite, assimilated Jews are OUTSIDERS who possess political agendas, interests, and motivations which are completely alien and in perpetual CONFLICT with the political agendas, interests and motivations of Elite Gentile Insiders (EGIs).

(2) Moldberg (the brief version of everything he has ever written about Jews - very brief): Elite, assimilated Jews are 110% assimilated INSIDERS who posses political agendas, interests, and motivations which are, more or less, IDENTICAL with those of the political agendas, interests, and motivations of Elite Gentile Insiders (EGIs).

Specifically, elite assimilated Jews choose their political positions based on the political positions of the favored EGI INNER PARTY provided the EGIs are not too anti-semitic in which case the assimilated Jews assimilate into the nearest available OUTER PARTY. But only as an absolute last resort.

If the EGI Inner Party favors Victorian era British Imperialism then elite Jews will also support Victorian British Imperialism (e.g. Benjamin Disraeli).

If the EGI Inner Party favors Prussian Militarism, the Jews will also support Prussian militarism (e.g. WWI era German Jews who helped establish the pro-Kaiser Committee for the East).

If the EGI Inner Party favors the Civil War victorious Republican party then elite Jews will also support the GOP (e.g. the old pre-FDR German American elites such as Republican Senator Simon Guggenheim).

If the EGI Inner Party favors Black Slavery and Southern Secession then elite assimilated Jews will also favor Black Slavery and Southern Secession (e.g. Judah Benjamin)

And if the post-FDR EGI Inner Party favors the evils of the New Deal state then elite Jews will also favor the New Deal state (e.g. modern elite American Jews).

Having set forth a fairly decent synthesis of the warring Moldbuggian and kmacian positions and we now proceed to step #2:

Proving which faction is smoking crack.

December 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

continued from above

Once more, the choice is as follows.

The battle between Moldbug and kmac revolves around whether Jews are INSIDERS who act and view themselves and their policies as largely being in AGREEMENT with elite white gentiles (Moldbug)

or

Whether Jews are OUTSIDERS who act and view themselves and their policies as being in direct CONFLICT with those of elite white gentiles.

There is an easy way to tell which side is the crack inhaling one:

Make a List of how many serious POLICY DISAGREEMENTS there are between elite white gentiles and elite Jews.

IF there are few if any POLICY disagreements between elite Jews and elite gentiles then we can safely conclude the reason elite American Jews are liberal is because they are COOPERATING with the Inner Party. Surely, if such a conflict between "Interests" actually exists then it would make no sense for a "hostile, genocidal racial outsider" i.e. the Jews, to agree with all or nearly all of the policy positions of their racial enemy's elite, does it?.

If there are few if any major policy disagreements between elite Jews and elite gentiles then the court will rule Moldbug is NOT the one on crack - any rumors (or scanned college-era photos of MM posted on Facebook) to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, IF there ARE major policy differences between elite Jews and elite gentiles then Moldbug is on crack and macdonald is crack free.

So, the challenge to the paleocons is as follows:

Dear paleocons, In order to prove Moldbug and his rabid, philo-semite toadies are on crack, please list FIVE major policy differences between the following elite Jews and elite gentile combinations:


1) The economic policy differences between Jew Ben 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.

I look forward to the responses from the Inferior Reich contingent.

December 21, 2010 at 8:23 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

tuj,

why cant u just write coherently and straightforwardly.

maybe mm just has a blindspot in this area for some indecipherable reason.

December 21, 2010 at 8:37 PM  
Anonymous jkr said...

tuj,

you know damn well you have no idea what kmac says cause you've never bothered to read him. you're incapable of coherent, straightforward arguments. that's what sucks about being wrong. you have to obfuscate, while maintaining the plausibility of your being right, for those already inclined to believe you are.

December 21, 2010 at 8:42 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

why cant u just write coherently and straightforwardly.

I did write coherently.

All I asked was for judeoskeptics, such as you, to prove, as you keep claiming, elite Jewish interests are in conflict with elite gentile interests by listing the policy differences between particular elite Jews and elite gentiles.

Here is the question I want you (or any judeoskpetic or even pro-Jew or Jew-indifferent poster to answer):

Dear paleocons, In order to prove Moldbug and his rabid, philo-semite toadies are on crack, please list FIVE major policy differences between the following elite Jews and elite gentile combinations:

1) The economic policy differences between Jew Ben 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.

Please list 5 policy differences, jkr...

December 21, 2010 at 8:45 PM  
Anonymous The Undiscovered Jew said...

you know damn well you have no idea what kmac says

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 that this is the heart of anti-semitism because there 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 then you should have no problem listing:

1) The economic policy differences between Jew Ben 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.

WHERE are those differences?...

December 21, 2010 at 8:50 PM  
Anonymous RS said...

> All I asked was for judeoskeptics, such as you, to prove, as you keep claiming, elite Jewish interests are in conflict with elite gentile interests by listing the policy differences between particular elite Jews and elite gentiles.

1. Big boys of HBD. The pros are 30% Jewish, as potently influential scholars are in general. The antis are 90% Jewish.

2. Voting in the US. This doesn't pertain mainly to elites, but there is no justification for restricting the question to elites. Here the policy differences in question are of course the Dem v. GOP differences.

3. Some say half the Dems' money comes from Jews. I have no idea of this is true. If it is remotely true it obviously corresponds to a big power clash over Dem v. GOP issues.

Anyway, a little conflict, a medium conflict, even a big one, is not the end of the world. There's no need for hysteria or eternal bitterness. And, obviously Jews have suffered greatly from Gentiles in the past. Let's divvy up the Eurosphere, and move on with life.

December 21, 2010 at 11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's divvy up the Eurosphere, and move on with life.

Yes. All we want is separation. We don't want to persecute you.

December 22, 2010 at 1:07 AM  
Anonymous Drew said...

If Jews come to dominate trade in a poor country that country will stay poor forever. If they come to dominate trade in a rich country then it can be stable if there aren’t too many of them but any rich country that reaches the point of “too many Jews” will collapse within 100 years. The Anglosphere hit the TMJ point around the 1920s and is heading for the standard Jewish caused collapse.

The reason is simple.

Jewish success is primarily caused by tribal nepotism as any disparate impact study of Wall Street, Hollywood, MSM etc would show.

Jewish tribal nepotism is created and maintained by creating and maintaining paranoia.

One aspect of that paranoia is security through wealth.

Jews first strive to draw all wealth to Jews…
[this is simply achieved by blocking money flow from Jew to non-Jew. If money-flow goes non-Jew to non-Jew, non-Jew to Jew and Jew to Jew but never Jew to non-Jew then the Jewish accumulation of wealth and capital is inevitable over time]
…and then, because they’re paranoid nomads they either hoard it or transfer it to their runaway place.

The coming economic collapse of America is a product of TMJ + 100 years. Jews are sucking out all the accumulated capital of America and either hoarding it as portable wealth or transferring it to the BRIC countries. That’s why those countries are growing so fast and America is crumbling. It’s like a vampire squid drinking America’s life blood and transplanting it elsewhere.

This isn’t the first time. After the collapse of the Roman Empire Jews completely dominated all trade in Europe and kept Europe stagnant. When England expelled the Jews in 1290 not only did England suddenly grow and expand but the other West European nations followed suit leading to the Renaissance.

The Jewish takeover of the Soviet Union led to economic disaster and mass starvation. The Jewish domination of Germany led to economic collapse and the looting of Germany by the banking system. If you deconstruct some of the Bible stories it’s probably what really happened in Ancient Egypt and Babylon as well.

Economically, Jews are like Japanese Bindweed. In their own country or in (very) small numbers in other people’s countries they act normally and don’t do much harm but if they become economically dominant then that country has roughly 100 years to collapse depending on how rich it was to start with.

December 22, 2010 at 2:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

get a handle if you want to engage with people. all i gather from your comments is that you disagree with me and can only express this by hurling anonymous insults, just as i described above. you lose.

Bzzzt, wrong. You lose as soon as you open your stupid mouth and emit self-discrediting blather.

December 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Found this on the lack of censorship in Russia interesting. People in the comments also mentioned the perception that Wikileaks is a CIA front. And as long as I'm linking to crooked timber, I found the excerpt with Slavoj Zizek as P. J. O'Rourke funny.

BRICs are growing rapidly? Brazil is the country of the future and always will be. The term arose perhaps because the acronym is easy to remember.

December 23, 2010 at 7:09 PM  
Anonymous The world's smallest political quiz, 3D version said...

Wikileaks: for or against?

Fascism: for or against?

For or against: for or against?

December 25, 2010 at 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Homage to Alexander Lukashenko said...

Batska! Once a burly state farm boss,
Lone opponent of the Belavezha Accords,
Campaigner against corruption and mafia,
You became the last dictator
In Europe. "We will wring their necks,
As one might a duck." And you
Won the election; and then
You won it the next time; and
Meanwhile you hold your own
When negotiating with Putin.

December 25, 2010 at 2:31 AM  
Anonymous RS said...

Gomez Davila is on a Moldbuggic roll this morning... at this site where four aphorisms come out each day in English:

#2,475
The descriptive use of social anecdotes has more characterological exactitude than statistical percentages.

#2,477
History exhibits two types of anarchy: that which emanates from a plurality of forces and that which derives from a plurality of weaknesses.


He also has a less Buggic aspect, a strong emphasis on ultimate meaning and cultural elevation and degradation - we could perhaps also read, or read in, racial preservation:

#2,418
One must live for the moment and for eternity.
Not for the disloyalty of time.

#2,473
Man rarely understands that nothing is permanent, but that some things are immortal.

Unfortunately, as in the phrase 'disloyalty of time', he is quite frequently over-compressed or over-obscure.

December 25, 2010 at 12:20 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home