Last week, Sparks123 countered my claim about the pervasiveness of anti-anti-Semitism by citing a couple of recent articles on young Jews’ views on Israel, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment” by Peter Beinart and “The Answer is Jon Stewart” by M.J. Rosenberg. I had read the former after it was featured on Arts & Letters Daily and even linked to it a couple weeks back, but I hadn’t really thought about its implications. The facts presented in both essays show that American Jews are just now joining the rest of their white brethren on the leftist path to national suicide.
Denizens of the anti-Semitic right typically cite, as proof of the Jews’ clandestine mission to undermine and destroy white Gentile nations, American Jews’ support for liberal policies in the U.S. (such as mass immigration and amnesty) and their uncritical support of Israel, which has spent the past few years running roughshod over every liberal principle known to man. For example, in his recent post on how Chuck Schumer may become the next Senate Majority Leader, Occidental Dissent contributor H. Rock White notes that “although liberal on most issues, Schumer is a ‘far right’ neoconservative when it comes to Israel.” He quotes Schumer:
Luckily in terms of Jewish people we have good representation in terms of the Supreme Court. That will continue. One thing I want to assure your listeners, Nachum [the host], my name as you know comes from a Hebrew word. It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov and I believe Hashem, actually, gave me name as one of my roles that is very important in the United States Senate to be a shomer to be a shomer for Israel and I will continue to be that with every bone in my body for of the other is against me.
And yet, both Beinart and Rosenberg’s articles claim that Jews on the street, particularly young Jews, either don’t give a flying fuck about Israel or are openly sympathetic to the Palestinians. Beinart writes:
The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz found that they mostly didn’t. “Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,†he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.â€
Luntz’s task was to figure out what had gone wrong. When he probed the students’ views of Israel, he hit up against some firm beliefs. First, “they reserve the right to question the Israeli position.†These young Jews, Luntz explained, “resist anything they see as ‘group think.’†They want an “open and frank†discussion of Israel and its flaws. Second, “young Jews desperately want peace.†When Luntz showed them a series of ads, one of the most popular was entitled “Proof that Israel Wants Peace,†and listed offers by various Israeli governments to withdraw from conquered land. Third, “some empathize with the plight of the Palestinians.†When Luntz displayed ads depicting Palestinians as violent and hateful, several focus group participants criticized them as stereotypical and unfair, citing their own Muslim friends.
Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives.
This knowledge will probably blow the minds of the dumber anti-Semites in the audience, who thought all Jews were genetically programmed to be tribalistic hypocrites when it came to the West and Israel. But it seems that not even the Chosen People are immune to the siren song of liberalism, even if it means rejecting Zionism. But if American Jews are finally succumbing to the suicidal ideology that has doomed the rest of the West, why were they able to resist the indoctrination for so long, and why is the Jewish establishment so out of step with its children? Both articles contain the answers.
Beinart and Rosenberg write from the perspective of liberal Zionism, the dominant ideology of the American Jewish elite but increasingly scarce among young Jews and Israelis. The problem with liberal Zionism that neither Beinart nor Rosenberg can articulate is that liberalism and Zionism are incompatible and always have been, as Robert Lindsay writes in his post on Beinart’s essay:
I’ve been thinking a lot along these lines myself for some time now. This setup has never really made sense. Zionism is nothing but Jewish fascism, hence we on the Left oppose it. Nevertheless, the super-liberal US Jews, committed and impassioned liberals all, support this fascist state that in so many ways opposes everything they stand for.
Well, it’s tribal thinking. They’re supporting their people. But US Jews won’t let Whites do the same thing: support our people.
This was always a foundation made of clay, and it’s starting to crumble. Young Jews are increasingly estranged from and apathetic about Israel. They act like the less they hear about it, the better. And it makes sense, since Israel represents the polar opposite of the liberal values that young American Jews uphold.
Jewish liberalism in Israel is also dying, as it never made sense anyway. Liberalism in a fascist state? Come on. What’s happening now is that Zionism’s logic is finally starting to manifest itself. Zionism has always been fascist, but at the same time Israel has always prided itself on being some kind of liberal democratic state. The two views of course are incompatible.
Lindsay’s description of Zionism as “Jewish fascism” is partially true, but doesn’t encompass everything about it. Zionism is Jewish nationalism, and nationalism is just an extension of tribalism, so it would be more accurate to say that Zionism is basically Jewish tribalism. Aside from that, Lindsay is dead right. Liberals oppose nationalism and tribalism, at least for whites,* because the values of liberalism – pluralism, multiculturalism, and “liberty” – stand in opposition to tribalism, which entails putting the interests of your people before everything else. The Israelis themselves have realized this, which is why Israel is the only nation in the West where liberalism is in retreat. Beinart continues:
In 2009, a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 53 percent of Jewish Israelis (and 77 percent of recent immigrants from the former USSR) support encouraging Arabs to leave the country. Attitudes are worst among Israel’s young. When Israeli high schools held mock elections last year, Lieberman won. This March, a poll found that 56 percent of Jewish Israeli high school students—and more than 80 percent of religious Jewish high school students—would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset. An education ministry official called the survey “a huge warning signal in light of the strengthening trends of extremist views among the youth.â€
If liberalism and tribalism are like oil and water, that calls into question how the chimera known as liberal Zionism emerged. Beinart asserts that it came into existence both due to the occurrence of the Six-Days and Yom Kippur Wars when today’s Jewish elite was young and impressionable and the secular, liberal nature of Israel’s government during the same time period:
These American Zionists are largely the product of a particular era. Many were shaped by the terrifying days leading up to the Six-Day War, when it appeared that Israel might be overrun, and by the bitter aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, when much of the world seemed to turn against the Jewish state. In that crucible, Israel became their Jewish identity, often in conjunction with the Holocaust, which the 1967 and 1973 wars helped make central to American Jewish life. These Jews embraced Zionism before the settler movement became a major force in Israeli politics, before the 1982 Lebanon war, before the first intifada. They fell in love with an Israel that was more secular, less divided, and less shaped by the culture, politics, and theology of occupation. And by downplaying the significance of Avigdor Lieberman, the settlers, and Shas, American Jewish groups allow these older Zionists to continue to identify with that more internally cohesive, more innocent Israel of their youth, an Israel that now only exists in their memories.
Rosenberg backs this up:
All my friends (or almost all) felt about Israel the way I did then. We were an embattled minority, but we knew we were right. (The occupation, still new, was infinitely less onerous then than it is now. There were no more than a few thousand settlers. And, back then, no Arab state recognized Israel’s right to exist.)
Today, not one of my friends from those days feels the way we did then. It is not so much that our feeling for Israel disappeared, but that the situation changed.  Even in the 1970′s, none of us would have supported a settler-dominated Israeli government or the horrific Gaza war.
But there is another element as well.
Even in those days, pro-Israel American kids were uncomfortable straying too far from the general campus ethos. Those were the days of the anti-war movement. Fortunately back then, Israel seemed to be pursuing peace while the Arabs weren’t. There wasn’t all that much space between us and our fellow students. The government in Israel was socialist, for heaven’s sake, and the country’s huge agricultural sector was dominated by communes! Israel was not that hard to defend.
The top liberal Jews in the government, the ones who white nationalists and anti-Semites like to complain about – your Chuck Schumers, your Barbara Boxers, your Rahm Emanuels – all had their worldviews shaped by coming of age in an era in which Israel’s existence was not guaranteed and Israel itself was openly left-wing. I would add that the machinations of the Holocaust industry also fueled American Jewish hypocrisy on this matter.
Of course, as both Beinart and Rosenberg observe, the Israel that Chuck Schumer remembers no longer exists. Israel hasn’t fought a conventional war for decades, its skirmishes with the Palestinians being of the asymmetrical variety. For the first three decades of its existence, leftist parties dominated Israeli politics – every prime minister for the first thirty years of its existence, from David Ben-Gurion to Golda Meir, was a member of a socialist party. The Labor Party, the heir of those movements, is now merely the fourth largest party as of last year’s Knesset elections, behind Yisrael Beiteinu, the party of Avigdor “Throw the Towelheads Out” Lieberman. Benjamin Netanyahu, a man hated by liberals and anti-Semitic paleocons, is Israel’s Prime Minister, and the politics of the average Israeli would make any good leftie shit his pants in shock:
More than half of Jewish Israelis think human rights organizations that expose immoral behavior by Israel should not be allowed to operate freely, and think there is too much freedom of expression here, a recent survey found.
They found that 57.6 percent of the respondents agreed that human rights organizations that expose immoral conduct by Israel should not be allowed to operate freely.
Slightly more than half agreed that “there is too much freedom of expression” in Israel.
The poll also found that most of the respondents favor punishing Israeli citizens who support sanctioning or boycotting the country, and support punishing journalists who report news that reflects badly on the actions of the defense establishment.
Another 82 percent of respondents said they back stiff penalties for people who leak illegally obtained information exposing immoral conduct by the defense establishment.
Conservatives of all stripes speak of waking Westerners up from their liberal-induced coma, but so far the Israelis are the only tribe to have done so. My theory on the reason why Israelis are becoming so conservative so much faster than any other Western people is because the reality of tribal extinction is much more stark for them. Aside from disorganized street violence and isolated acts of terrorism, the West has had sixty years of relative peace, making Americans and Europeans lazy, complacent and stupid. But the Israelis have spent their entire existence in the midst of a tribe that is actively trying to wipe them out. If Mexican guerrillas started committing regular acts of terrorism in the southwestern U.S., a la Pancho Villa, you bet that American politics would take a hard-right turn overnight.
Finally, if Israelis and American Jews are politically bifurcated, why do Jewish elites like Schumer still uncritically support Israel, and why do liberal anti-anti-Semites like Abe Foxman shout down anyone who criticizes Israel, from a liberal perspective or otherwise? This is where the more insane anti-Semites insert their cockamamie conspiracy theories about Jewish plots to destroy the white race and give blonde, blue-eyed Nordic gals permanent jungle fever. Rosenberg has a more accurate, less deranged explanation – the Jewish establishment is practically an old folks’ home:
And, least surprising of all, the “leadership” of the “major” Jewish organizations (AIPAC, American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League) speaks only for older Jews and not for that many of them.
All this is obvious, especially to those with kids. Â In this context, the “kids” range from teenage to about 63 (i.e., the baby boomers — born between 1946 and 1964 — and their children). Â The Woodstock generation did not turn into an amen corner for our own government, let alone Israel’s. Â And our kids are even less accepting of dogma.
It’s a truism that old people are stubborn and set in their ways, and the Jewish elite is nothing if not dominated by old farts. Abe Foxman is seventy years old. Chuck Schumer is fifty-nine. Rahm Emanuel is fifty. All of them are well past the point where they would change their mind on any issue, let alone something so dear to their identities. The middle-aged and old fogies of the Jewish elite are painfully out of step with the people, as all old fogies eventually become.
The confluence of factors that allowed the American Jewish establishment to support tribalism abroad and liberalism at home are gone, forcing them to choose between the two. They chose liberalism, and with it they have turned their backs on their heritage and their tribe. Beinart and Rosenberg are like panicked EMSes shocking a dead patient with a defibrillator, hoping in vain that his heart will restart. The dissolution of Zionism among the Jewish elite won’t happen overnight – the Schumers and Foxmans of the world will remain in charge for the time being. But their heirs have rejected ethnic solidarity to follow the rest of the West like lemmings off of the liberal cliff. If the white race is committing suicide, American Jews are taking the poison pill right along with them.
…
* – And before any anti-Semite chimes in with, “You’re wrong Ferdinand, Jews aren’t white!”, let me say that whether YOU, a fringe ideologue, think Jews aren’t white is irrelevant in this instance. As far as liberals are concerned, Jews are white. None of the fancy graphs or cherry-picked data tables you can pull out of your ass matter here.
{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }
The situation is much the same on the ground in Israel. The kids in Tel Aviv want to pull out of the West Bank completely and be left to smoke their hash pipes.
I’ve hardly seen any use of pipes for smoking hash in Tel Aviv. This is very much a joint-rolling culture, in my experience.
Whether one is accepted as White depends not entirely on skin colour. I consider the brownest of Italians and Spanish as White yet I wouldn’t consider a Jew White unless he explicitly vowed fealty to a White nation over his religion.
In the past the White Nationalist movement in Anglo nations was anti-Papist which excluded people such as myself. There is still antipathy towards Catholics. Yet today I believe that Catholics are included in the White movement. It would be insane to not include those who have a common cause.
From my perspective White consciousness is evolving rapidly into an agglomeration of cultures and religions/atheists more than the exclusively Protestant movement it was in the past.
At the moment Jews don’t get to be White. They may be white but they’re not White. And before someone like Tarl asks “who gave me the right to decide who is in and out of the club” the answer is “I did.”
I believe those who are interested in a White movement should engage in as many debates on-line and in society in general and challenge the orthodox understanding of whiteness. Obviously race is important but culture matters just as much.
[Hmmm, so you consider whiteness to be a social construct and not merely genetic. Interesting. - ed.]
My theory on the reason why Israelis are becoming so conservative so much faster than any other Western people is because the reality of tribal extinction is much more stark for them. Aside from disorganized street violence and isolated acts of terrorism, the West has had sixty years of relative peace,…
Respectfully, your definition of “sixty years of relative peace” includes the Malayan Emergency, Korean War, Vietnam War, both Gulf Wars, the Lebanese Civil War, the British occupation of Ireland and IRA terrorism, the Indonesian annexation of East Timor and later intervention and liberation, the Cold War in general and the shock as I was growing up to find out that I could be destroyed in a nuclear attack in a second, to name a few conflicts and not to mention the Bali Bombing, 911, London Subway bombings, the Spanish Railway bombing, Beslan atrocity etc.
[That's why I qualified "peace" with "relative". No Western country has fought a conventional war that deeply affected its populace since World War II. The closest was Vietnam. Additionally, no North American/Western European/Commonwealth countries have fought wars against each other since then.]
The anti-semitic view is that “tribal extinction is much more stark for…” the Jews in Israel because they get to have a united people who are acknowledged as a people by their own people. Whites have had their institutions overwhelmed and over-run by cultural marxists and their economies turned inside out to maximise global efficiencies at the detriment of national solidarity. White history is derided and White children indoctrinated to be ashamed of themselves for their skin colour. All minorities within Western societies are extolled as virtuous by dint of their status as victims and Whites as nothing more than oppressors. The Jews play/played a large and decisive role in developing this situation.
[If you take that view, in light of the anti-Zionist liberalism that is popular among young American Jews, describing the Jews as having committed suicide is appropriate.]
The White race is not committing suicide it is being murdered from without. It is genocide not suicide.
In short “tribal extinction is much more stark for” the Jews because they haven’t had their sense of tribe completely smashed for them the way it has for Whites.
To say that Whites have been lazy etc is a cop out imho. No matter how much the White majority polls and votes against the policies now dominant over all, those policies still came in to being. The current situation has been imposed from above much to the dismay of the majority. To call that suicide is demonstrably wrong.
I remember when Canberra, which was a mere Territory in the Oz Federation, had a referendum on becoming a state. People voted overwhelmingly against the proposition. Yet Canberra became a State.
Short of citizens rioting over every decision that goes against them, which is not the White way (ever noticed how it is the 3rd Worlders who go mental over anything that goes against them?), this situation has been death by degrees. Each small Progressive policy advancement has been the thin edge of the wedge getting wider and wider.
It will get to a point where the people will say “enough” but by that time the solution will be ugly, though hopefully not hopeless, as it is currently in South Africa and like Rhodesia/Zimbabwe before her.
Liberalism is obsessed with motives over actions, which is why liberals won’t notice the irony that in most respects, the average Western society is as oppressive, if not more so, than Israel. At least Israel has a damn good reason for its attitudes and politics. The average Western state has strong restrictions on freedom of speech, property rights, etc. but because these are done for the “right reasons” rather than politically incorrect reasons like maintaining one’s ethnic identity, Israel is singled out.
The more desperate a civilization becomes for its survival, the more it understands liberalism and justifiably rejects its premises.
Zionism isn’t “Jewish fascism”. It’s just the belief that Jews should have their own country, simple as that. And it’s not even analogous to White Nationalist’s dream of a whites-only country, because, from the beginning, Israel was perfectly fine with having a large (~20%) non-Jewish minority.
The reason why there has been a growing disconnect between Israel and American Jews is because most American Jews are liberal but haven’t been mugged by reality, because they live in upper middle class areas. Most Israelis were liberal too, but they’ve been living in the equivalent of a giant poor neighborhood for 60+ years.
For example, Israel used to have a pro-Palestinian organization called “Peace Now”. They would march and rally in support of Palestinians. Then the Palestinians would throw rocks at their rallies, shoot pregnant Israeli women in the belly, send suicide bombers to kill Israeli teens, etc. Since then, the popularity of “Peace Now” has dwindled.
I read the title and was hoping for something a little more general than a narrow focus on a very minor issue =P
Zionism isn’t “Jewish fascismâ€. It’s just the belief that Jews should have their own country, simple as that.
That’s close enough. If you say that American-Americans should have their own country, you’re denounced as a fascist.
Some of the original Zionists thought (or pretended to think) that they would live peacefully with the arabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land
But they’re figuring out that two people can’t own the same piece of land. Imagine that.
Three words: Mandatory Military Conscription.
Every male Israeli gets a “3 year Degree in Tribalism” directly after finishing high school. I think the importance of this is often overlooked.
It’s true that Israel was socialist once, but its socialists were hawkish socialists who were heavily dominant in the military in their time. Once the IDF, and particularly its vanguard infantry divisions, became associated primarily with the right, the left’s decline in popularity was probably inevitable.
Let me state that it is hard to believe that somehow with magic mind rays, Israelis/Jews got White women hooked on “jungle fever.”
Rather, the irregular distribution of feminine and masculine attractiveness among the races makes Blacks then Latinos more attractive to women of all races than White and Asian guys.
Bruce Lee fretted over his slight build, cinematically, and his brutal workouts may have led to the stroke that killed him, in an effort to get that hooded back. Asian women meanhwhile are viewed as the most feminine and Asian men the most feminine. While Black men the most masculine, and Black women … the most masculine.
The Kardashians are all over every tabloid/glossy celeb magazine, with their various Black boyfriends and babies, along with “Kendra.” Advertising is chock full of icky beta White guys being swept away by hunky Black guys, for White women.
White women seem to find Black men more masculine. Though upper/middle class women still have reservations about their violence/STD/low status wrt potential LTR and such, compared to White men, on average.
“Let me state that it is hard to believe that somehow with magic mind rays, Israelis/Jews got White women hooked on “jungle fever.â€
…..
Advertising is chock full of icky beta White guys being swept away by hunky Black guys, for White women. ”
Eeeeh….
[Hmmm, so you consider whiteness to be a social construct and not merely genetic. Interesting. - ed.]
Yes. Obviously race is vitally important but being White as opposed to white i.e. skin colour should incorporate our history and culture/s.
But when people say that “white is a social construct” they mean to diminish the racial aspect by asserting that being white is merely a “construct” having no tangible significance and no commonality.
A White Nationalist movement that confines itself to race only is doomed to failure imo. The movement will be riven by racial exclusion. For instance Auster is a white nationalist, so long as whites always acknowledge Jewish superiority, and excludes the Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans from acceptable white culture. Auster is an anglo-phile in his approach to whiteness.
For a while at Mangan’s blog there were regular debates about the inferiority of Auster’s subset of inferior White peoples. While entertaining and informative, for a movement such arguments are disastrous. Thus the need to be aware of Jewish infiltrators who will cause division in a White movement by provoking division in its ranks by stirring up old ethnic/religious rivalries.
[Why do you assume that the people encouraging rivalries are Jewish? There are plenty of white peoples who still hate each other. The English and the French, for example. Just because they aren't shooting each other anymore doesn't mean they love each other. - ed.]
Jewishness is not merely racial. It is religious, racial and cultural. Having a shared history that incorporates the varying factions that constitute being a Jew is critical to the Jews ongoing group survival. Zionism is a cause that unites these otherwise divided factions.
That is why I am not opposed to Zionism seeing in it what I desire for Whites. I do oppose Whites being suborned into the Zionist venture whilst simultaneously having denied for us what is right and good for them.
Racial solidarity is something that appeals to the majority of all races. Many of the Indians I have met are amazed at how we Ozzies allow un-targeted migration from a racial/cultural aspect into our countries. Indians for example are racially and culturally proud people. Being part of the Commonwealth Ozzies share alot of values with the Indians and Pakistanis yet they don’t want their countries over run by Whites and expect that we would be the same.
Indians by and large don’t oppose a White racial nation like Oz for the very simple fact that they desire the same for themselves. If we all intermarry and inter-migrate then we all cease to exist.
Anyway, I don’t want to bore you or your readers, this is an idea I’m still coming to terms with. What I do know is that Jews cannot be White even if they look white because they hold themselves out as an Other pursuing their own group goals. They will always remain so, unless what you are saying is true and they are “suiciding”. But a Jew in the ranks will always be suspect thus the requirement for “inquisitions” to flesh out that Marranos.
[That's why I qualified "peace" with "relative". Yes I take your point. It seems to me that the more equal we all become the more our differences, no matter how slight, hurt and enrage. The Great Depression with mass poverty seems from my reading to have been a unifying experience because of the shared diversity. Today with recessions, and economic variance within a national economy the shared adversity isn’t there. One man profits from a lowered interest rate while his neighbour goes to the wall.
My old man used to say “war will sort this out” with regard ambivalence to the circumstances of others. When we’re all in the shit together a common cause is found. As Marx said “every nation is three meals away from revolution” (I think it was Marx).
Sorry for the long winded comment. I tend to be full of it, long wind not shit that is. It’s a thought provoking topic, White as opposed to white. So long as people are becoming aware that is a good start.
That should have been “he Great Depression with mass poverty seems from my reading to have been a unifying experience because of the shared adversity.” not diversity.
Most of the antisemitic right is now informed by theories stemming from evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, rather than the conspiracy theories that characterized earlier generations of antisemites. As such, accusing us of theorizing, “the Jews’ clandestine mission to undermine and destroy white Gentile nations”. Rather, we simply believe that Jews exist as a partly distinct group from white gentiles, thus leaving them with certain group interests and group strategies. It is important to note that these interests and strategies are not necessarily explicit–witness how conservative “tough on crime” rhetoric amounts to a white group strategy despite not being so explicitly.
Kevin MacDonald, the leading intellectual in the modern antisemitic movement and the man behind The Occidental Quarterly, has already reviewed Peter Beinhart’s article. His conclusion (predictably, I suppose) is that the attitudes of Jewish youth in America does not necessarily portend a problem for Zionist support in America, for a reason that Beinhart has already alluded to.
Beinhart notes that establishment Jewry will increasingly have to cultivate Orthodox Jews, who are a growing share of the Jewish population in America. While only twelve percent of Jews over sixty are Orthodox, they are thirty-four percent of Jews aged eighteen to twenty-four. They further marry earlier and have more offspring.
[This of course means that the Jewish establishment will become more conservative, hence they will be less likely to support mass immigration into America and other multicultural insanities.]
Orthodox Jews are strongly pro-Zionist. While only sixteen percent of adult Jews under forty feel “very close to Israel,” seventy-nine percent of Orthodox feel that way. Devotion to Israel is taught in their yeshivas, and spending a year in Israel after high school is customary.
MacDonald’s prediction from this is an increasingly illiberal, tribalist American Jewry. The question then is–will the Orthodox themselves succumb to liberalism? There are already signs, for instance, that the younger generation of Evangelicals are becoming poisoned by liberalism. Whereas their elders thunder against homosexuals, they are much more likely to be influenced by a dispensationalist equivalent of liberation theology. Might not the same malady spread to Orthodox Jews?
[Possibly, though again, it will be much slower than evangelicals because the Jews are just catching up to anti-tribal indoctrination.]
At any rate, I’m not sure Zionism is the most useful lens through which to explore Jewish group behavior. There are many Jewish, liberal anti-zionists who identify as Jewish humanists as opposed to merely humanists. They feel that they have a special calling to serve oppressed humanity, dovetailing nicely with anti-white liberalism. While I am not sure how he self-identifies, Norman Finkelstein would be such a man.
In the absence of real dangers to Israel or to world Jewry in general, one would expect Zionism to become less prevalent in Jewry. This, however, would not eliminate evolutionary strategies in their group behavior. It may be instead that world Jewry is reasserting the ideals that governed them in the early industrial period. That is, after Jewish emancipation, but before the Holocaust. Jews of that time most certainly did act against the interests of white gentiles in a manner we might today call liberal, but they did not support Jewish nationalism and were distinctly cosmopolitan.
[In other words, they're going to behave exactly like white gentile liberals.]
So instead of the current trends among reformed Jewish youth being somehow evidence that antisemitism is wrong, I think that the long period of Jewish safety is in the process of recreating a previous expression of Jewish identity. This does not mean that they are immune from liberalism, as their birth rates clearly show. I suppose what a humorous Sephardi once told me is correct–reform Jews are deform Jews.
[It's not that anti-Semitism (at least the Hunter Wallacian brand of it) is wrong, it's that the belief that Jews would continue to support liberalism at home and tribalism abroad is wrong. The secular Jews are assimilating into the white liberal elite and will cease to be Jews, while the Zionists will increasingly look like Avigdor Lieberman.]
For those unable to respect their adversaries, I suppose there could be a certain schadenfreude in these developments. Don’t be fooled–the threat of Jewry is not receding but transforming.
For those interested, Kevin MacDonald’s article can be read here: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Peter-Beinart-American-Zionism.html
‘None of the fancy graphs or cherry-picked data tables you can pull out of your ass matter here.’
In other words, your mind is made up, so we shouldn’t try to confuse you with facts.
[Re-read the note. LIBERALS consider Jews to be white, hence their increasing opposition to Zionism. Whether they are white are not does not matter in this context. - ed.]
You never studied any kind of science, did you?
[Anti-Semites have an established record of mendacity and goalpost-shifting on this issue. Forgive me if I'm more than a bit skeptical of them because of this.]
Hmmm, so you consider whiteness to be a social construct and not merely genetic. Interesting.
I look at whiteness from different aspects. I look at white in terms of an elite upper middle class to upper class segment of American society (i.e the exclusion of prole whites), then as a legitimate racial category (i.e whites versus blacks), and as a civilization. Thus as an example, Athena is Greek, but she’s not white in the first case, but white in the second. In the third case, Athena and I are both white as we subscribe to norms of people that are generally found in majority white countries.
If we all intermarry and inter-migrate then we all cease to exist.
I see nothing wrong with that. It just merely means that superior white genes will filter their way into the rest of the world. But then I believe in the magical ability to turn dark people into light skinned white people who speak white languages. Of course, if we’re not able to, it certainly makes my belief in our world’s future rather pessimistic.
A Jew:Zionism isn’t “Jewish fascismâ€. It’s just the belief that Jews should have their own country, simple as that. And it’s not even analogous to White Nationalist’s dream of a whites-only country, because, from the beginning, Israel was perfectly fine with having a large (~20%) non-Jewish minority.
Zionism isn’t fascist in of itself, but in order to preserve Israel as a Jewish state, the Israeli government will either have to resort to increasingly illiberal tactics or as Beinhart has suggested, give the Palestinians a state and fortify themselves against any potential attack. (Which the Israeli far-right finds unacceptable.)
Pat: I believe those who are interested in a White movement should engage in as many debates on-line and in society in general and challenge the orthodox understanding of whiteness. Obviously race is important but culture matters just as much.
If “whiteness” is going to be defined by arbitrary means, than what makes a liberal Jew who has no emotional ties to Israel less of a white person than a liberal Anglo-Saxon who believes that race is a social construct?
And can Whiskey have one post that doesn’t reek of sexual insecurity, a la Sam Francis?
It [intermarriage] just merely means that superior white genes will filter their way into the rest of the world.
You should then promote an arrangement wherein non-white women are impregnated by white men, via sex or lab and selecting for a female child, with all non-white males guided toward a gelded caretaker role and eventually phased out.
Whiskey is one part insight and nine parts absurd extrapolation. With his last comment he convinced me he’s either:
- mentally ill,
- a straight guy with a massive homoerotic fixation on dark skinned males, or
- a bad faith player.
Given that very few males really desires to be cuckolded, it’s certainly not a realistic approach to that issue. Coincidentally, I suspect that the few non-whites willing to do that would are those who are the least likely to have large enough families to compensate for the low participation rate.
Realistically, we’ll probably just have low levels of intermarriage where non-white men end up picking up the semi-unwanted batch of white women, or a few high IQ men of lower IQ races marry high medium to high IQ women due to the ease of finding high IQ white women versus high IQ female NAMs at competitive beauty points.
And maybe we should encourage black women to date white guys. It works for my cousin and Alte…
If “whiteness†is going to be defined by arbitrary means, than what makes a liberal Jew who has no emotional ties to Israel less of a white person than a liberal Anglo-Saxon who believes that race is a social construct?
I admit that what I have written may seem arbitrary but I hope to get some clarity on the subject. imo the White movement needs to incorporate as many White cultures as possible and not put up racial roadblocks like the North/South divide in the way of our cause. For that reason race shouldn’t be the defining characteristic of the White movement.
I am in favour of people who were Jews being accepted as Whites. But they need to renounce attachment to the Jews and make White goals their foremost aim.
Take Tanstaafl for instance, one of the best advocates for the White movement out there yet married to a Jew with half Jewish offspring. Auster and his cohorts found that amusing, an instance of the Jewish attempt to divide, yet I would see it no more amusing than an African convert to Judaism. The movement is more than racial purity. It is about our shared history, values, religions and cultures. If the movement doesn’t coalesce all these seemingly disparate factions then the movement will go no where.
Just as Auster is a Christian and remains a Jew, Half Sigma is an Atheist and remains a Jew, Guy White is an idiot and remains a Jew so too can a White movement that acknowledges and incorporates its factions be united in pursuing what is common to all, our shared White history and thus our combined future.
Why do you assume that the people encouraging rivalries are Jewish? I am not saying that all rivalries are induced by Jews, of course inter White rivalries have historic and racial roots. What I am saying is that it is a Jewish tactic to cause division. I have seen it at Occidental Dissent where some troll comes in and starts random abuse about Catholics or whatever. Could be the KKK I suppose but since there is no constant theme about White interests in the trolls comments just abuse of some sub-White faction one can plausibly assume it is a Jewish troll.
Look at a recent post by Auster McGrew, the un-Mangan. Why is McGrew an un-Mangan? Because she has a Celtic surname yet passes his Litmus Test of Israel first. Classic example of ethnic division. Auster did the same years ago with a series of scathing posts on how the Irish had ruined Britain which some HBDers took up on his behalf with gusto. Auster spread the division to the Italians and East Europeans.
When I used to write to him I asked him why he was so adulating of Churchill and had nothing good to say about the Germans and French (I was very niave then – and very drunk in the first of that series of emails). Auster’s head nearly blew off and I was subsequently banned from ever writing to him again having been put into his “bad apple” (I kid you not) basket of posters.
I have experienced working for Jews and have seen how they sow discord amongst their employees as a management technique of control. I hope to produce a case study on a Jewish academic in Oz who speaks openly about the “time honoured” method of turning “one against the other.” in one of her essays.
So, I hope I have made it clear that I don’t blame the Jews as “the cause of all the wars” but I’m canny enough, and well read enough to know what their tactics are when I see them.
Whiskey
I suspect Whiskey is a Southern Californian and laid off worker from the military industrial complex who probably wants as much intervention in foreign affairs as possible to induce a need for higher amounts of military spending. He wants war with Iran primarily to ensure that we’ll use shiny F-22s and other aircraft and have a need to replace them with something made by in a semi-abandoned plant in that area. Without a glorious career in the defense industry*, he’s merely a prole with no ability to “buy” a wife.
Bias: Athena’s brother works for a large military contractor.
As a positive for the White movement I believe that it should promote racial harmony. Just as your post on the Latvian blondes promotes the beauty of White women as a virtue to be conserved so the White movement should promote all races and cultures.
For example when Yanks come to Oz do they hope to meet White Ozzies, see the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Opera House, see Kangaroos hopping down main street and go on a walkabout with a grinning Aboriginal, have a beer in a pub or do they want to see some polyglot society of Hijabs, Burqas, Mosques, Buddhist temples, slum areas, crime, racial division and violence?
If you go to India do you want to see Indians and their temples and all that is stereotypically Indian or do you want to see White people in McDonalds restaurants? When you watch the English cricket team do you want to see White poms and beat them or do you want to see Arabs, Pakistanis, Indians and South Africans all wearing the English colours?
Racial division makes life interesting. If everyone inter-marries there ceases to be uniquesness but some drab bland communist grey world. White nationalists don’t want to kill and destroy other cultures and races they want to preserve them in their homelands so that we can all live in our way and learn bit by bit the best from each other through visits that don’t turn into immigration.
In the words of the Groove Armada song “If everyone looked the same, we’d get tired of looking at each other.” Who wants the Liberal’s bland world? Not me. Vive la différence!
If everyone inter-marries there ceases to be uniquesness but some drab bland communist grey world.
I want a drab, bland grey world, but that’s because I’m a black person that wants to live in a white country and have white friends without feeling like a third rate human.
I don’t quite get the “finally” part you keep mentioning though. Its not like this situation is anything new; the majority of American Jewry has been heading over the waterfall of Western Civilization with everyone else for quite a while now. When the intermarriage rate for a population is at least half and probably more (the last measure of 52% was done almost 10 years ago; I’d bet its at least 60% by now) how can anyone believe that the half opting out are really that interested in the old causes like Israel? If you aren’t interested in Judaism or remaining Jewish (which intermarrying signals you aren’t) then why are you going to care about some foreign country on the other side of the world that all of your friends hate? The Jews that we are talking about, the liberals who aren’t tribal anymore and just want to disappear down the tubes with the rest of the elite population, are only Jews by virtue of having been born to Jewish parents. Other than that, they self-identify as anything else but Jewish, usually as Liberal or Democrat or Secular Humanist, whatever term you prefer.
As for Israel, its shouldn’t be surprising that its been moving steadily to the right. They’ve spent the last almost 20 years following the liberal game plan for bringing about peace and have essentially ended up in a worse position than when they started out. They went from essentially a police action against stone throwers in the late 1980s and early 1990s to facing suicide bombings, then rocket attacks and coming up in the wings is the threat of atomic bombs. I do agree that “the reality of tribal extinction is much more stark for them”; not only because they have basically half the world screaming to murder them but the base of the population was formed basically in this order, Holocaust survivors, Sephardic refugees, and eventually post-Soviet Russian Jews. Its a group that is going to much more self-aware of how easy it is to be wiped out. Its also a very different demographic than the one that exists among American Jews; half of Israel have folk memories of persecution from Arabs rather than the American Jewish focus on Cossacks from a couple of generations ago. And the greater presence of actually from Russia Russian Jews (as opposed to someone in America who’s great grandmother got off the boat from Russia in the 1900s) means that there isn’t going to be the same kindly inclination towards socialism (nothing like practical experience to kill enthusiasm for socialism) and there are more people influenced by the ideas of how Russia handles things rather than what American college professors suggest.
The future of American Jewry is probably smaller and more localized but also much more religious, conservative, and insular. The liberal Jews are shedding themselves off into the general population of liberals but this tends to happen every couple of generations. The 20th century was more an aberration than the norm.
(As for Israel, ultimately it’s problem is that it needs to learn the geopolitical equivalent of game. By being the reasonable “beta”, in comparison to their enemies who you could say are playing heavy “asshole game” they end up in a situation that isn’t to their advantage. Why else do they get leaned on for concessions except that nobody is worried if they are inconvenienced? They’re essentially LJBF’ed or worse. Meanwhile the Arabs and Iranians and even the North Koreans “thug it up” and end up getting their way. Anyone think the Iranians aren’t likely to get what they want ultimately? Aren’t the South Koreans backing down even now?)
I want a drab, bland grey world, but that’s because I’m a black person that wants to live in a white country and have white friends without feeling like a third rate human.
I don’t understand why the world must be grey just because you’re a Black American David. Seems to me that Blacks on the whole were far better off in a Conservative White America than they are today. Rates of violence amongst American Blacks are horrendous just as they are for Aboriginals in Oz which escalated since they were treated as equals with none of the equal responsibilities borne by Whites.
But I’m not an American so I don’t have an understanding of what you mean. Can you explain why the world need be grey for you?
I don’t understand why the world must be grey just because you’re a Black American David.
Since it’s impossible to wipe away my memory and dump me into a middle class white existence, the second best choice is for some bland multi-cultural world where I fit in and no longer feel like an outsider from a racial perspective. I’ll probably always be an outsider socially, but at least I wouldn’t feel weird in terms of race. For some reason, for me, the only “safe spaces” are the multicultural ones because I feel weird in both whites only and black only situations. So a grey bland world is just one large self-perpetuating safe space.
Seems to me that Blacks on the whole were far better off in a Conservative White America than they are today
If one wanted white friends and to live with white people, then no, it probably wasn’t ideal. If you’re a black nationalist, perversely, it was probably a glory period given that it created a cause to rally around and inflated the black community and its self-preservation. You had to go to the black doctors, lawyers, and businesses, live in black neighbourhoods, and go to black schools.
Yes, I see your problem.
I would hope that countries like the US, Canada and Oz that have historically had mixed races culturally can remain with the same mix.
My notion of Whiteness incorporates Blacks and Aboriginals into the society because White is not strictly racial. It is cultural, political and historical. Just as the Convict experience in Oz didn’t result in a fractured society but a new nation that universally recognised the British system of government as superior to all others so too can Blacks and Whites co-habitate so long as they all believe in and observe the White system of government and conventions.
But to achieve such a state one need destroy the Left/Liberal egalitarianism/equality shibboleth.
This is without a doubt the dumbest shit I have ever read. The logic is comical, the loaded points childish and the writing reminicent of 12th grade English. At no point have you let reality intrude on your little kosher nostra dlt world. The Mens movement seems to have been taken over by megaphone jews. Neocons and neolibs are the same and zionism is millitant antigoyism. You are. Fucktard ferdinand.
[Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you! - ed.]
You knocked it out of the ballpark with this post, Ferdinand.
“The Mens movement seems to have been taken over by megaphone jews.”
Not surprising, as megaphone jews are nerdier and thus more beta.
How does Whiskey rank Jewish men on the attractiveness scale?
Whiskey is one part insight and nine parts absurd extrapolation. With his last comment he convinced me he’s either:
- mentally ill,
- a straight guy with a massive homoerotic fixation on dark skinned males, or
- a bad faith player.
Whiskey is a logic chopper, i.e. someone who isn’t very sensitive to context. BTW, this also happens to make them the personality type that women loathe the most. Women don’t HATE HATE HATE beta males, but they sure do HATE HATE HATE logic choppers. So, men in this category, even those intelligent and charming enough to occasionally get women into bed, are the by far the most likely to get beat the hell up by women in their dating lives. Those who can occasionally get women into bed perhaps even more so than those whose logic choppiness condemns them to be essentially celibate. Their presence is everywhere in the Roissysphere/MRA/MGTOW world. I suppose these very Aspergery guys like Whiskey could be classified as having some kind of mental disorder.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me, Mr. Bardamu. After having read your blog posts on antisemitism (as well as anti-anti-semitism), I wasn’t quite sure what to expect. I am new to this blog and find it to have much excellent content, and your personal style is enjoyable as well.
I now see that your objection is not to antisemitism per se, but to tinfoil hat antisemites who see a Jewish conspiracy in every malady that plagues our civilization. Since you accept the reality of human biodiversity, would a fair analogue be the idiocy of trailer park racists?
[Close enough. My issue with most intellectual anti-Semites, that I may not have articulated as clearly, is that they're overthinking the Jewish Question. The friction between Jews and gentiles is due to nothing more than the conflict that inevitably results when any two tribes occupy the same slice of land. In my opinion, Jews have a greater adverse effect than other tribes not because of some evo-psych group strategy but due to their cognitive advantages - other groups such as blacks and Hispanics are handicapped by their genetic limitations. Though I'm reading The Culture of Critique, so maybe MacDonald will be able to change my mind. Until then, I'll hold that the Jewish Question is simply one part of a greater question about multiculturalism and whether multiple tribes of any origin can get along in one nation. - ed.]
Now, as to your specific points:
“This of course means that the Jewish establishment will become more conservative, hence they will be less likely to support mass immigration into America and other multicultural insanities.”
This does not necessarily follow. Our current establishment Jewry is strongly influenced by its experiences in New York City, which is ground zero for mass immigration and multicultural insanity. While the Crown Heights Riots did help prompt them to get tough of crime, and most Jews will tell you in private what they think of schwarzes, there has been no fundamental change in mentality.
Now, someone might point out that’s because they’re liberal, and liberals are experts in rationalizing disasters in such a manner. And you know what? That point of view might be correct. But most Democrat voting whites who got mugged by reality as a result of inner city riots and forced bussing didn’t stay liberal. Because Jews do not identify with this country and its people they do not have a proprietary interest in. For establishment Jewry in particular, multicult insanity simply results in a proliferation of highly profitable sinecures.
How does this relate to Orthodox Jews? They may very well be conservative, but lacking a proprietary interest that will not necessarily mean abandoning support for mass immigration and multiculturalism. It may be as simple as isolating themselves from liberal culture, which is accomplished successfully through their yeshivas and endogamy. Republicans constantly salivate over how this or that non-white group is culturally conservative or naturally Republican, but none of those groups–especially not their leaders–ever seems to abandon support for multiculturalism.
Sorry, I’ll believe outgroup support for abolishing mass immigration and multiculturalism when I see. All experience seems to go against that, both in our society and historic “vibrant” societies (e.g. the Austro-Hungarian Empire).
[I'm not looking to Orthodox Jews as a Great Hope for conservatism. I still consider your scenario to be an improvement over the current situation, though. - ed.]
“Possibly, though again, it will be much slower than evangelicals because the Jews are just catching up to anti-tribal indoctrination.”
More to the point, most Evangelicals attend public schools and are not that bright. Evangelicals who home school are not assimilating into liberalism. There is an intellectual movement afoot to effectively outlaw home schooling (despite higher performance by home schoolers), but no such movement for yeshivas that I’m aware of.
“In other words, they’re going to behave exactly like white gentile liberals.”
Chicken and egg. Modernity to a significant degree consists of Judaization. Jews have for a very long time been urban, literate, cosmopolitan, and practiced priest morality. The Jewish bourgeoisie also abandoned the practice of endogamy while retaining Jewish group affiliation.
I suppose that’s not too important, but suffice to say reform Jewry behaving like 19th century Jews–or 21st century gentile liberals–does nothing to diminish the Jewish threat. It merely reduces their support for Zionism. Our Zionist foreign policy is certainly wrongheaded and results in some spectacular disasters, but is certainly not as disastrous as, say, the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965.
[This is where you and I part. You view liberalism as a product of the Jews imposed on white Westerners - I view liberalism as a result of the corruption of white gentile Westerners, albeit one the Jews had a significant role in fostering. Liberalism is bad for both Jews and gentile Americans because it breaks down ethnic ties and leaves them at the mercy of third worlders who are allowed to retain their tribal identities. Zionism is good for Jews because it gets them into their own nation where they are not subject to the whims of a gentile majority, and good for Americans because it lessens the inter-tribal conflict that plagues the country.]
“It’s not that anti-Semitism (at least the Hunter Wallacian brand of it) is wrong, it’s that the belief that Jews would continue to support liberalism at home and tribalism abroad is wrong. The secular Jews are assimilating into the white liberal elite and will cease to be Jews, while the Zionists will increasingly look like Avigdor Lieberman.”
I think the first part is more or less already done. I don’t see an effective difference between elite gentiles or elite Jews. Old line WASPs increasingly do not practice their refined social etiquette nor wield much power, and the tastes of most elite gentiles has more or less been Judaized.
The second part is definitely true, and it will be interesting to see what level of cooperation can be expected from future reform Jews who are ambivalent about Zionism.
I wonder: could an alpha male voice the same opinions as Whiskey and still make women wet?
I view liberalism as a result of the corruption of white gentile Westerners, albeit one the Jews had a significant role in fostering.
In contrast, I view liberalism as to why white people are superior to other races including Asians because it permits the free and open societies that don’t exist anywhere else in the world.
Mr. Bardamu,
It seems you and I may be closer in positions than either of us originally envisioned. Your position on the Jewish Question is in fact the same as mine. While it may be possible that Jews have a greater faculty for cognitive dissonance, since becoming aware of JQ I have felt that their corrosive influence is simply a function of their being an outgroup in tandem with their formidable intellectual powers.
I am glad to see that you do not see Orthodox Jews as a great hope for conservatism, as I’ve seen some deluded Republicans do, but at the moment I feel the jury is out as to what their effect might be on our body politic. All I know is that they are not going to be liberal in their own sphere and that they probably won’t even bother pretend to care about Palestinians. Both of those are fine by me. I respect adversaries and have no desire to see Jews destroy themselves through liberalism, and unlike all too many antisemites I have not allowed mine to transfigure itself into an unwarranted, grotesque concern for Arab Mohammedans.
Regarding the genesis of liberalism, Jews certainly played a strong role, but it was not decisive. While I feel the Jews may have been decisive in certain hyper-destructive strains of 20th century liberalism (as you may agree after reading The Culture of Critique), it seems to me that the genie was let out of the bottle as a result of the abolition of feudalism, the Protestant Reformation (I say that as a proud ethnic Protestant), the Enlightenment, and of course 1789. Antisemites who perversely place the Jews on a pedestal, to appropriate Game language, should much more seriously study the role of Napoleon. Doubtless they’ll reply Napoleon emancipated the Jews of Europe, but they should not forget Napoleon’s role in spreading radical “rational” doctrines by armed force. If that does not suffice, they ought to consider the role of the arch-antisemite, Adolf Hitler, in the REACTION his antisemitism caused (sort of the reverse of how anti-antisemites create antisemites).
I wouldn’t expect Orthodox Jews to join in with blood n soil American nationalism, but neither would I expect them to oppose it too vigorously, if it wasn’t explicitly anti-them (a big if). If they’re introverted and clannish like the Amish, they’re harmless like the Amish.
They don’t need to be natural conservatives. They just need to stop with the Tikkun Olam as it’s been practiced by recent generations of Jews.
My notion of Whiteness incorporates Blacks and Aboriginals into the society because White is not strictly racial.
So, let me get this straight, Blacks and Aborigines are White but Jews are not?
That is without a doubt the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
Hi Lugo, haven’t heard from you for a while but I see you haven’t changed at all.
Re, your point “So, let me get this straight, Blacks and Aborigines are White but Jews are not?”, no you haven’t got that straight. My White society would incorporate Blacks and Aborigines so long as they were allied with the White society’s history, culture, conventions etc.
I already stated above that I have no problem with Jews who abandon their exclusive group focus and take up White culture as their primary objective from being included in a White society.
The point of this argument about white and White is that just because someone has white skin doesn’t mean they will pursue White interests. Take David Alexander above for instance, he’s Black but would certainly be accommodated in my White society, from the small amount I have read from him.
But take your own position in the past where you have exhibited an extreme dislike for the Irish. The Irish are white skinned yet you obviously have a problem with including them in acceptable white company.
Obviously having white skin is not enough to be accepted by someone like you. The same goes for me. I won’t accept Jews simply because they have white skin just as you wouldn’t accept the Irish because they have white skin. White unification will rely on concepts far greater than race though they may be based in race, as you have amply demonstrated in the past.
Oh and as I said to you once before, go and get fucked.
zionism is millitant antigoyism.
Maybe for some it is, but as a Zionist I learned far more respect, appreciation and admiration for non-Jews than I ever had before. For a lot of Zionists, “goyische kop” is a great compliment.
My White society would incorporate Blacks and Aborigines so long as they were allied with the White society’s history, culture, conventions etc.
The problem with accepting acculturated blacks is that there is no guarantee their children will continue to be allied with Whiteness. If fact, reality is pessimistic about this prospect. First generation Arab/Paki immigrants to the UK were very pro-English, as are many Carribean blacks n the USA. Subsequent generations steer anti-White.
“goyische kopfâ€
My non-expert hunch is that white-Gentile and Jewish IQ bell curves are identical, except for Jews having its left tail loped off. In other words, genius likely appears at similar rates within both groups, but gentiles have more sub-100 IQ people. This skews the average Jewish IQ higher than Europeans’. Anecdotally speaking, I’ve men a number of extremely intelligent gentile whites, but no Jewish person that I recall who intimidated me intellectually. Most Jews I’ve met are in the 120 range. My exposure comes frm having attended a very upper middle class high school, and working in a high-IQ industry.
In other words, genius likely appears at similar rates within both groups
Nope, genius appears at a dramatically higher rate among Jews too. Jewish people are disproportionately represented among geniuses in both the arts (except painting and sculpture) and the sciences. All of this is easily available in Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment.
Jewish people are disproportionately represented among geniuses in both the arts (except painting and sculpture)
Don’t have Murray’s book handy at he moment but I’m not sure about literature. Great Jewish writers I can think of at the moment: Arthur Koestler. Can’t come up with others at the moment. Meanwhile on the European gentile side we have pretty much teh entire English, French and Russian non-Jewish canon.
Also, music includes a few great Jewish composers, but on the other best classical music comes from getile Germans, French and Italians, and Slavs to a slightly lesser extent.
Off the top of my head major Jewish writers include: Samuel the Nagid, Judah Halevi, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Moses Ibn Ezra, St. John of the Cross (part), Theresa of Avila (part), Luis de Camoes (part), Luis de Gongora, Michel de Montaigne (part), Heinrich Heine, Hugo von Hoffmannsthal, Franz Kafka, Hermann Broch, Marcel Proust (part), Scholem Aleichem, Isaac Babel, Osip Mandelstam, Paul Celan, I.B. Singer, Nathaniel West, Philip Roth. Not to mention the countless minor literary geniuses.
Disproportionate Jewish genius is most apparent on the Spanish peninsula and in Germany. Among the Ashkenazi it mostly doesn’t appear until after 1850 or so.
Part-Jewish writers should also give gentiles a notch; the one-drop rule has no reason to apply.
I forgot about Kafka.
Roth: too contemporary to judge, similar to his gentile counterpart Tom Wolfe.
I.B. Singer: never ‘got’ him, though admittedly I only read his non-fiction work, in which, frankly, he comes off a bit like David Alexander.
Others are arguably minor figures, of which there are also tons of gentile counterparts.
Your list shows no Jewish writer of Shakespeare’s or Milton’s caliber, or arguably even Dostoyevsky’s.
While I’m not familiar with every writer on your list, I see no great poets there.
I’m not so much ‘keeping score’ on this subject, as I am reacting to your very confident–sounding statement that Jews have dominated Western artistic output, with the exception of plastic arts. You haven’t made the case for Jewish superiority in literature, and haven’t attempted to make one for music.
I see no great poets there.
Luis de Gongora – most influential poet in Spanish
Luis de Camoes – Portuguese national poet, equal of Spenser and Ariosto
Paul Celan – greatest German poet of the 20th century
Not to mention the great Hebrew poets Samuel the Nagid, Judah Halevi, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, Abraham Ibn Ezra, and Moses Ibn Ezra who have only recently been rediscovered and translated into English.
Your list shows no Jewish writer of Shakespeare’s or Milton’s caliber, or arguably even Dostoyevsky’s.
Proust is the best writer in the Western tradition aside from Shakespeare, Homer, and Dante. Montaigne is easily the equal of Milton or Dostoevsky.
***************************************
P.S. Stop digging.
Montaigne is easily the equal of Milton or Dostoevsky.
Montaigne is part-Jewish. And these writers are best known for different forms of writing so comparing Montaigne’s prose essays with Miltons’ major epics is apples and oranges. Not digging, just challenging your bold original claim. And still no comment from you on music.
I shouldn’t let my temper get the better of me. I can be kind of a dick about things like this, but when it comes to literature I know this shit backwards and forwards and I tend to be short on patience with those who don’t have anything close to the same knowledge.
The “if he’s such a great writer, how come I haven’t heard of him” response is particularly frustrating. To cite a non-Jewish example, not a lot of people in the English speaking world have heard of Tu Fu either, but he really is a poet to be compared with Milton, Goethe, Petrarch etc., the very best of the Western tradition.
I have no idea that your temper got up. I know your Thursday persona as being an HBD-professing, published lit scholar or something, and in my own case, I never claimed to being more than an off-the-cuff-style culture observer/generalist, albeit a very well-read one for not having formally studied lietrature.
You’re a likeable character but, well, I guess where my “temper” flares up is when commenters like you come across as intellectual but passionless, maybe in the interest of seeming objective and “above earthly loyalties.”. And that’s sort of how I picture you, which is why I challenged your comment on on Jewish domination of Western arts, a claim you haven’t, in my opinion, adequately defended, though which at this point I’m willing to leave alone.
David Alexander,
I want a drab, bland grey world, but that’s because I’m a black person that wants to live in a white country and have white friends without feeling like a third rate human.
At least you’re up front about it. When you get down to it, it’s what everyone wants, really. Only thing is it can’t really be done without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Or can it?
Since you’ve been up front, I’ll reciprocate. I am very prejudiced towards blacks, very, very prejudiced. I see television footage of African boats landing on European shores and my blood just boils. “Fucking worthless goddam fucking bloody niggers!” I think to myself. Straight up. I mean, take Greece (I am partly of Greek extraction). There was an incident there a few years ago where some Nigerian moolies decided to run riot because of one of their number died after jumping from a third-storey to evade capture by the cops. Fucking niggers. What the hell did Greeks ever do deserve a pack of wild fucking moolies running amock, disturbing the peace I thought to myself. Did they colonize Africans? Assuredly not. In fact, they were colonized themselves by a bunch of savage koranimals. So why should they now tolerate being colonized by a pack of possibly even more antagonistic and certainly worse behaved niggers? Follow me?
Now, the important point is this: nevertheless, despite feeling so strongly about the issue, I still tend to look at the world through a liberal prism. Given enough time, a certain proportion of those blacks will acculturate to Greek norms and perhaps even manage to positively modify Greek culture such that the people’s experience of such blacks will be a net positive, not a net negative. But we know from experience that a significant proportion of blacks will always form an underclass which no liberal approaches have ever succeeded in remedying, nor can they ever remedy, for they are based on faulty assumptions. This creates something of a quandary, as most people of the majority group are loath to betray the positive associations they have formed with some members of a minority group in order to implicate the entire minority group. Yet such a blanket implication is necessary if the majority group is to survive (in the long run) in any recognizable form (otherwise they will breed themselves out of existence). As we can see from the the comments of Pat Hannagan (who insists on assimilating into his group abos and dagos entirely for reasons of positive cultural association — though I am skeptical in the extreme that he’d actually live anywhere near a majority community of abos) it’s quite the quandary indeed.
Never fear, though: being the enterprising fellow I am, I have hit upon a solution that if accepted would be effective (it’d “work”) and remain amiable to all parties (it’s “fair”). Read on.
A majority group seeking to preserve itself is first tasked with defining itself. The attempt to establish a definition is so complicated that many come to consider it a functional impossibility and, I would wager, have gone on to come to regard the complexity involved itself as a reason to disavow majoritarianism in toto. Those who persevere will find that no matter how one draws the circle or where one draws the line inevitably some who should rightly be excluded find themselves included, and some who should rightly be included find themselves excluded. An example of some who should rightly be excluded are divisive anti-white Jews whose inclusion only results from some perceived necessity of including Jews in toto. An example of some who should rightly be included would be well-integrated members of groups whose inclusion was never a matter of serious contention — someone such as yourself (D. Alexander), for one example, or a “good, moderate Muslim,” like, (hmm, searching my brain here, been a while since I’ve thought in these terms…), I don’t know, Fouad Ajami.
The solution I propose for the inclusion of such cases is the following. Since it is only the racial qualities (not the cultural) of such cases that is in question, their inclusion on cultural grounds should rest on their cooperation in mitigating their impact on racial grounds. They should be required to forgo procreation and replace the theoretical majority member’s place they have taken by artificially procreating and raising a majority child.
There are two effects which arise from such a solution that I believe will garner support for it. They are:
(1) It solves the problem of the margins (which exists no matter how the circle is drawn). It no longer matters so much where the line is drawn because even those the most genetically distant from its epicenter will no longer shift the racial average away from it.
(2) Inclusion is transformed from a necessary evil to be tolerated by the majority includer, and a necessary tribulation to be endured by the minority includee, into a positive benefit for both. Using myself as an example, although I have admitted to being very negatively prejudiced towards blacks, if a black to were to participate in such a solution (on the understanding that life occasionally requires hardships of us but if all sides stand to gain they’re especially worth it) my feelings towards him would change immediately for the better; a real zero-to-hero transformation.
The obvious rejoinder is that it’s pie-in-the-sky, it’ll never happen. Well, be that as it may, it doesn’t appear to me any less ambitious than standard WN approaches. And because it alleviates so many of the traditional objections to racialism it would seem to me to be better positioned for a breakthrough than vowing to destroy the power structure and all its enablers, coupled always with an intransigence towards the racial other that makes the skin of a jaded racist (and racistee, ie on the receiving end) like me crawl.
Anyway, if anyone objects, I’d love to hear the grounds on which they do so. But think it through first. I certainly have.
Classical music: the big two are Mendelssohn and Mahler. Always ranked in the top 30 for a percentage of 6.66 percent of that group. Well above the Jewish proportion of the European population.
Other prominent Jewish classical composers:
Meyerbeer
Schoenberg (listen to his pre-serial pieces)
Offenbach
Gershwin
Copland
Bernstein
Johann Strauss (part)
Kurt Weill
Ernest Bloch
Darius Milhaud
Paul Dukas
Furthermore to gain some perspective look at the number of Russian composers (past 1800) comparable with Mendelssohn and Mahler. I’d say there are 8:
Tchaikovsky
Rimsky-Khorsakov
Mussorgsky
Borodin
Stravinsky
Prokofiev
Shostakovich
Rachmaninoff
How about the British (past 1800). I’d say 2:
Vaughan Williams
Britten
The French (past 1800). About 7:
Berlioz
Bizet
Saint-Saens
Debussy
Ravel
Faure
Franck
The Italians (again past 1800). I’d say maybe 4:
Rossini
Verdi
Puccini
Donizetti
Hell, even the mighty ethnic Germans (past 1800) has only 8, not counting Mahler and Mendelssohn, but including the partly Jewish J. Strauss:
Weber
Schubert
Schumann
Brahms
Bruckner
Hindemith
Richard Strauss
Johann Strauss II (but part Jewish)
Anyway, low n and the Jews are hardly dominant, but again considering their populations I’d say a definitely disproportionate success in music.
I don’t have Murray’s book at hand either. Going with back of the napkin comparison with data from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jewish_population_comparisons
Ferdinand is right that Jews were latecomers to liberalism. The following is a small list of liberal thinkers and movements that had nothing to do with “da Jews”:
John Locke, J.J. Rousseau, the philosophes, the French Revolutionists, Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians, Robert Owen and the British Socialists, English dissenters and their descendants like William Hazlitt, feminists like Mary Wolestonecraft, left wing poets like Percy Shelley, the Quakers, the American Abolitionists (e.g. John Brown), the American Trancendentalists, J.S. Mill, the Fabians, the Swedish socialists.
Furthermore, in my conversations with non-religious people, the reason they have turned away from traditional community and traditional Christianity is not that they have been brainwashed by the Jews, but that they want to have fun with their little bit of debauchery without fear of being judged by anyone. Genuine community involves obligations and no one wants those anymore.
Sorry, add Wagner to the last list. Also, Beethoven, though born in the 1770s, lived well past 1800 too, so one could include him too.
Brings the number up to 10 for non-Jewish ethnic Germans.
PA says The problem with accepting acculturated blacks is that there is no guarantee their children will continue to be allied with Whiteness. If fact, reality is pessimistic about this prospect. First generation Arab/Paki immigrants to the UK were very pro-English, as are many Carribean blacks n the USA. Subsequent generations steer anti-White.
Unfortunately for my argument you are right PA. What I am trying to get at with the white/White juxtaposition is that traditional White Nationalism doesn’t accept large groups of white skinned people like the Irish, Southern Italians, East Europeans and even Greeks. There has also been a religious divide between Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Atheists.
Yet the Jews could be similarly divided but they, on the whole, all act in the interests of “the Jews” regardless of their differences. Jewishness is therefore not solely a function of race, nor is it a solely a function of being a religious Jew, nor is it determined by living in Israel. It is the self identification of being a Jew. I want the same for Whites.
My concept of White nations does have a problem though when Blacks, Aborigines etc are included (they wouldn’t be considered White – but members of a White nation). But I believe in developing White consciousness and will worry about the details as you’ve correctly pointed out later if and when Whites assert their dominance again.
they, on the whole, all act in the interests of “the Jews†regardless of their differences.
The whole point of Ferdinand’s post is that this isn’t true anymore. Young American Jews have stopped caring about Jews in Israel. Liberalism is an universal acid and not even the Jews are immune to it.
Silver says: As we can see from the the comments of Pat Hannagan (who insists on assimilating into his group abos and dagos entirely for reasons of positive cultural association — though I am skeptical in the extreme that he’d actually live anywhere near a majority community of abos) it’s quite the quandary indeed.
Yep, I agree it is a quandary. Your remediation has some merit.
As I said before I think those who are pursuing White consciousness and nations should get on the front foot and show that we aren’t about destroying other races and cultures but affirming theirs and simultaneously ours.
We seek to create where multiculturalism seeks to destroy. This is just as true for us as it is for other races and cultures. We should point out that it is not race realism that they need fear but race denialism. Who are we to deny the Indians their own nation, or the Jews, or the Arabs etc and who are they to deny Whites their own nations.
The Nazi canard of White Nationalism can be overcome with this approach. There will be problems such as David Alexander above but that is the least of our problems now.
though I am skeptical in the extreme that he’d actually live anywhere near a majority community of abos I’d always choose to live with my own kind as I do now. I’m skeptical that full blood Aboriginals would actually live near half blood Aboriginals. As you would be aware Territory Aboriginals (being full blood) can’t stand white Aboriginals of the east coast variety.
It’s interesting that you mention dagos since the old Oz had big problems accepting Greeks into our nation. What are your thoughts on that? I believe you are of Greek and Serbian extraction and an Oz citizen so it must influence your thinking in this regard.
The whole point of Ferdinand’s post is that this isn’t true anymore.
Ferdinand’s post, as good and informative as it is, does not go anywhere near supporting what you say.
Even if I accept the findings of this post so what if young Jews have succumbed to liberalism? That may change the future but it doesn’t change the present. Further, it is unlikely to change the future since, as someone already pointed out above, the conservative, Zionist Jews are the ones breeding.
does not go anywhere near supporting what you say.
Is this the dodge of the day?
Further, it is unlikely to change the future since, as someone already pointed out above, the conservative, Zionist Jews are the ones breeding.
Nice goalpost moving. Yarmeluke wearing Hadisim off in their own little communities are never going to be a disproportionate influence in Hollywood, academia, or Wall Street. And that’s just in North America. The ones in Israel are going to be even less influential outside their own little world.
Is this the dodge of the day?
I fail to see how since I answered your question.
1) You quoted me saying “they, on the whole, all act in the interests of “the Jews†regardless of their differences.” and you rebutted with a) “The whole point of Ferdinand’s post is that this isn’t true anymore.” and b) “Young American Jews have stopped caring about Jews in Israel.”
2) I rebutted you by stating “Ferdinand’s post, as good and informative as it is, does not go anywhere near supporting what you say.”
This is not a “dodge” but addressing your rebuttal.
Ferdinand states, towards the end of his post, “the Schumers and Foxmans of the world will remain in charge for the time being.”
Read that again, “…will remain in charge for the time being.” Ferdinand’s post contradicts your statement that “”The whole point of Ferdinand’s post is that this isn’t true anymore.” See, Ferdinand says that whilst at the present the same old Jews remain in charge, the future may be different based upon a few sources he cites. Let’s hope his prediction for the future holds true.
Re. your comment Nice goalpost moving. where have I moved any goalposts? If the liberal Jews who don’t support Israel have taken the “poison pill” of liberalism then they will fail to breed. Those conservative/traditional Jews who do breed will necessarilly impart their views to future generations. This isn’t goalpost shifting but addressing the subject of how the Jews will act in the future. I may be *wrong* but I’m not goal post shifting.
I think you need to be a bit more thought into this topic Ferdinand.
If I have read you correctly, your thesis is that liberalism is opposed to Zionism and by failing to support Zionism, Jewish Liberals are turning their backs on Israel. it isn’t that simple. It all depends on what you mean by Zionism.
There seems quite a few interpretations of Zionism. The several Zionisms that I can see are:
1) Which recognises the legitimacy of Israel sans Occupied territories.
2) Which recognizes the legitmacy of Israel plus occupied territories(for defensive reasons)
3) A version of Zionism which is definitely Nationalist and Culturally exclusive, seeking a GrossIsrael with appropriate lebensraum for New settlers by annexation of the occupied territories with the eventual expulsion of Palestinians from them.
As commentator A Jew said:
Zionism isn’t “Jewish fascismâ€. It’s just the belief that Jews should have their own country, simple as that. And it’s not even analogous to White Nationalist’s dream of a whites-only country, because, from the beginning, Israel was perfectly fine with having a large (~20%) non-Jewish minority.
I imagine he belongs to category (1) whereas your average hard core Orthodox Jew probably belongs to (3).
This whole concept of “My country right or wrong” being conservative position is just as flawed as the Liberal’s “my country is always wrong” position. There are a wide variety of reasons(some of which you mention) as to why young Jews don’t uncritically support Israel, but is it because as people of good will they can’t in conscience support Israel uncritically. To a Zionist Fascist, this of course is treason.
A lot of what Israel is doing now is morally unjustifiable, even if perhaps militarily necessary, and aimed at achieving the goal of GrossIsrael. Perhaps moderate and sensible Jews are repulsed by what is going on. Every normal person knows that illegal settlements are wrong, Netenyahu’s thumbing of his nose at the demands of Obama to stop illegal settlements puts American Jews in a quandary. Do you support a moral wrong done by your cultural kin or a moral right proposed by a Goyim? Many Jews seem to support the latter. They are not liberals for doing so. Ehoud Barak, no left wing pansy, wanted to seek a negotiated deal with the Palestinians because even he could see that a country always at war becomes socially corrupted and eventually radicalized.
Whilelm Rhopke (Protestant) was one of the first targets of the Nazi’s. He was conservative German Patriot who could see that the Nazi’s were going to be disastrous for Germany. He was right. The good conservative man will lay the boot into his own country when it’s wrong, to the liberal however, it’s their cause no matter what.
Those conservative/traditional Jews who do breed will necessarilly impart their views to future generations.
That doesn’t mean their children will listen. As an example, you could probably safely say that since the sexual revolution, conservatives have had more children than liberals, but yet those under 30 are the most liberal on issues like gay marriage. In current cases, cultural forces are more powerful than upbringing. The old generation of liberal Jews certainly told their children how wonderful Israel was, but their children didn’t listen.
The only way the Jews could counter this would be to completely isolate themselves from the rest of society like the Amish, which would completely put to rest the “Jews control the world” meme. As it currently stands, Orthodox Jews would make up a majority of American Jews by 2050 but I think that’s assuming they don’t fall to the same trends of liberalism that other Jews have.
That doesn’t mean their children will listen.
But it does at the very least mean that they will have children, which some of whom may well listen. This is to be contrasted with the lib/suicidal Jews (and Whites for that matter) who don’t have children at all.
As one of my teachers at school loved to say “throw enough mud at a wall and some of it will stick.” People who don’t have kids are just throwing mud without breeding the walls for it to stick.
I know who my money’s on.
My White society would incorporate Blacks and Aborigines so long as they were allied with the White society’s history, culture, conventions etc.
Well, then your whole idea falls flat on its face! On the whole, more blacks and abos reject White society’s history, culture, conventions than do Jews. And yet for some reason you single out the Jews as a pernicious alien element.
I already stated above that I have no problem with Jews who abandon their exclusive group focus and take up White culture as their primary objective from being included in a White society.
As a practical matter, Jews are more of a net plus for white society than are blacks and abos. As a group, Jews are more productive, hard-working, and law abiding than blacks or abos, and they are more “allied” to white society in any meaningful sense than, for example, American blacks who hate whites and white society in equal measure.
The point of this argument about white and White is that just because someone has white skin doesn’t mean they will pursue White interests.
Even if one accepts this argument about Jews, what do you propose to do about non-Jewish whites who “do not pursue white interests”? The fact of the matter is that your political problem in constructing a “White” society is that white Leftists will oppose you with all their might and main. The fact that Jews side with the white Leftists is in fact relatively trivial, but you are so Jew-obsessed you don’t even see it. Upper class whites despise Bogans like you, and are happy to use Jews and minorities against you in order to crush you, but you are so dumb you fall for their diversionary tactic every time.
But take your own position in the past where you have exhibited an extreme dislike for the Irish.
I don’t have an extreme dislike for the Irish. Indeed, I am married to an Irish lass. My extreme dislike was for your factually incorrect, logically incoherent, and grossly stupid interpretation of Anglo-Irish history. Don’t confuse an attack on one particular idiot for a general dislike of the entire race!
Obviously having white skin is not enough to be accepted by someone like you.
I don’t care about skin. I care about political views and social behavior. I accept productive, hard-working, and law abiding people, and prefer to associate with conservatives, whether they are white, black, Jewish, Irish, or whatever.
White unification will rely on concepts far greater than race though they may be based in race, as you have amply demonstrated in the past.
“White unification” is a chimera that dolts like you are obsessed with because you do not see that your real enemy is not Jews or non-whites but white Leftists. If you defeat your white enemy, then the non-white problem is easily solved.
Oh and as I said to you once before, go and get fucked.
Dittos to you, imbecile.
That doesn’t mean their children will listen.
The personality traits that make one a religious conservative are to a large degree heritable. That means liberal propaganda aimed at the young is going to have diminishing returns.
Meyerbeer – Trash
Schoenberg (listen to his pre-serial pieces) – Decent
Offenbach – Decent
Gershwin – Trash
Copland – Trash
Bernstein – Offensive
Johann Strauss (part) – Good
Kurt Weill – Are you kidding? Trash
Ernest Bloch – almost good
Darius Milhaud – He’s a musician? The street noise outside my ground floor apartment in Manhattan sounds better than his crap.
Paul Dukas – Good
the majority of these Jews gained fame not because they were exceptional but but because Jews controlled the entertainment apparatus.
I’m 32 and have played the violin since I was six. I regularly play in Jew York City, and even the Jews here probably haven’t heard of half of these composers and most they would not consider serious music.
{ 3 trackbacks }