Anti-Semites Stink Up Another Discussion Thread
By • 10/22/08A discontented former Little Green Footballs fan recently discussed a purge of so-called “fascists” and “racists” at that website that began after one commenter defended my work and Lawrence Auster’s. I left a comment linking to my blog post on the incident and explaining why I’m not a fascist, hoping I might get a decent discussion of race realism going with the moderates who traffic the site. However, it was not to be: I was immediately set upon by a couple of professional anti-Semites named tanstaafl, who runs the blog Age of Treason, and Greg Polden. Due to my history of criticizing their crude, distorted worldview, such people seem to lie in wait to pounce on me wherever I turn. Tanstaafl and Polden’s comments were based on the usual Kevin MacDonald view of Jews as a conniving, “hyperethnocentric” lot working for the downfall of white Gentiles. The owner of the site dissociated himself from the discussion in disgust after reading their stuff.
I responded to this pair of gremlins that MacDonald’s theory of Jewish society had recently been discredited by David I. Lieberman. Lieberman’s article is no emotional denunciation, but a review of academic studies that finds that Jews are far from the clannish, authoritarian, hypocritical monsters of MacDonald’s fancy, as I have myself argued. Indeed, Lieberman proves that the grounding principles of MacDonald’s work have no basis in the relevant scholarly literature at all. Lieberman has shown elsewhere that MacDonald distorts the meaning of the sources that he uses.
Anti-Semitism is, however, like Freudianism, an obsessive interpretative system whose proponents see all criticism directed against them as proof that they are right. Thus, for Polden, the very fact that Lieberman and I had challenged MacDonald’s theory was further evidence that it was true. If you admit that you want to kill your father, then you’ve proven the existence of the Oedipus Complex, but if you deny you want to kill him, you’ve proven the complex is so terrifyingly potent that it needs to be repressed. Anti-Semitism works according to the same sort of logic.
Indeed, the analogies between anti-Semitism and Freudianism don’t end there. Both are early 20th century ideologies that have since been so effectively discredited that they are no longer able to do serious harm. (At least, in the West. Anti-Semitism in the Islamic world is a serious matter.) However, both of them have left behind pernicious stereotypes that discredit the work of legitimate intellectuals: serious psychologists, on the one hand, are plagued by the perception that their work is ridiculous Freudian psychobabble, and race realists are all supposed to be Nazis. Both ideologies also seem to inspire a madness for typing, resulting in floods of repetitive and mind-numbing verbiage. Speaking of that, see Tanstaafl’s post about the incident on his blog. You won’t read any commentary about Lieberman’s article, but you will find out what a duplicitous, cowardly, boot-licking traitor I am.
Reasoned criticism of obsessive interpretative systems has little impact on its champions. Consequently, they must be ignored, ridiculed, even purged. Though I don’t like the Little Green Footballs purge, I’m a big fan of purges whose victims are clearly idiots. Consequently, I will continue to purge my comment queue of all dire ruminations sent in by tanstaafl and his like. I might let one or two comment every once in a while just so my readers and I can slap them around a bit. It’s a shame though that other websites let anti-Semites stink up discussion threads, as this lazy tolerance prevents serious communication from taking place.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
Some words from one of tanstaafl’s comments on the LGF Banned and Blocked post are particularly revealing:
“[LGF site owner]Charles [Johnson] sees himself opposed on one side by evil, depraved, islamic nationalists, and on the other by evil, depraved, ethnic European nationalists. Meanwhile he champions good, noble jewish nationalists.”
Tanstaafl is referring to the fact that moderates like Johnson support Israel, but neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism. Since all that tanstaafl can see in politics is conflicts between different ethnic interests, or nationalisms, Johnson’s attitude seems completely nonsensical to him and can only be explained as a result of Jewish brainwashing.
However, once you go outside this absurdly narrow view of human motivations and realize that people’s political views are motivated by many different factors, then Johnson’s views make sense, even if you think they are mistaken. What matters most to moderates like Johnson is democratic, Western values. Since they think Israel exemplifies these values, they are pro-Israel. Since they think neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism are democratic ideologies, moderates are against them. Nationalism really has nothing to do with this preference; values explain them.
Bottom line: A person’s political outlook is rooted in many different factors, such as political ideology, ethnicity, class, and so forth. If you take a simplistic view of human motivations, the world makes no sense to you and leads you to make an ass of yourself in public.
“…MacDonald’s theory of Jewish society had recently been discredited by David I. Lieberman.”
Since when can, in academic discourse, a scholar’s work be “discredited” by only one other person? It’ certainly takes more than one scholar to “discredit” the entire work of another, yes? What about academic consensus?
And to be seemingly “discredited” by a person with ethnic Jewish roots (Lieberman) is quite suspect, a person who probably is not very scholarly/objective when it comes to Jewish studies/scholarship.
The vast majority of MacDonald’s work is rigorous social science and will withstand the test of time — the fact that it has been virtually ignored since it was released many years ago, along with the fact that no major/comprehensive rebuttals of MacDonald’s work have been offered aside from a few highly biased small articles here and there, proves that MacDonald is (on the whole) correct and that his work is of long-term value to Jewish studies scholars worldwide.
Objective Academic,
No, Lieberman’s article is a comprehensive rebuttal of part of MacDonald’s work. Have you even read it? If you think the academic consensus is on MacDonald’s side, I don’t know what planet you’re living on. As far as I know, all academic reviews of MacDonald have been negative.
I’ve been deleting a lot of pro-MacDonald comments because their authors show no sign of having read the Lieberman article and are thus incapable of expressing an informed opinion. Anti-Semites show their typical dogmatism by leaping to the defense of MacDonald before they even know what the argument against him is.
Ian, you’re deleting a lot of pro-MacDonald comments because the authors of those comments have read Lieberman’s (predictable) rebuttal and have you and your cohorts, your enablers, pegged. Maybe self-deception is “contagious” in some manner. If you could only see the big picture, if you only had an idea of what your benefactors think of you. But you can’t and you don’t. When you can find a scholarly rebuttal to MacDonald’s work, feel free to alert the media.
Ian,
What, exactly, do you think you achieve by attacking MacDonald and boosting this crude hatchet job by Lieberman? I, along with an awful lot of others, do not understand you. We want to. We try. Some of us wonder whether you have a Jewish wife and Jewish children. Otherwise, you simply do not make sense.
Your “message” requires that the many Jewish socio-political products that are so singularly damaging to the organic life of European peoples have absolutely no ethnic dimension. It’s all just a big accident, and nothing to do with what Nathan Abrams described in his famed JC porno article as “the tradition of subversion”. Not only are we supposed to believe that the said socio-political products, for example:-
Classical Marxism Revolutionary internationalism Critical Theory Postmodernism Freudianism Second-wave Feminism Second-Wave Libertarianism Gay Rights/LBGT Rights American Civil Rights Human Rights White Privilege/White Abolitionism Agitation for open borders and mass immigration Neoconservatism Academic race-denial Encouragement for white race-mixing Exploitation of the official holocaust narrative Israel Lobby Internet pornography Negative imagery of whites on film and TV Anti-white bias in media reporting
… have no genesis in Jewish ethnic interests, but Jews have no group interests at all beyond the interests of all humanity! Is that it, Ian? Is that all you have been able to construe from the last century or so of European-Jewry relations?
Not good enough. Jewish competitive ethnocentrism has to be identified or it cannot be restrained. For, it does not moderate itself in the absence of external restraint. In fact, the blood libel that is the exploitation of the holocaust, together with the promiscuous usage of the “anti-semite” trope, exists in large measure precisely to vitiate restraint, and to grant Jewish ethnocentrism free rein.
If you can’t acknowledge that, you are right back on Square One, chained to the spot. You are not a free-thinking man at all. You are what Richard Dawkins described as an “extended phenotype”. You have allowed yourself to become a vehicle for weakening and confusing the work of saving our people from dispossession and decline. (Lieberman, by the way, denies any such an exigency.)
Now, Ian, before you rush to apply to me the usual semitic soubriquet, it happens that I don’t hold the view that there is a Single Jewish Cause for our people’s woes. I’m the goddamned moderate that you claim to be. But I’m no Jewish extended phenotype. It’s plain to me that we cannot free our people from their suicidal torpor if we give in to fear on this Question and tell them lies. We cannot lie one minute to those we claim to love the next. That isn’t how it works.
Make up your mind who and what you are, Ian. You are needed. You are talented. Go to your duty. Jewish ethnocentrism will get on fine without you.
“Speaking of that, see Tanstaafl’s post about the incident on his blog.”
I’ll take a pass Ian. I put up with years of trying to counter their festering manure pile of purblind speed typed verbiage at you-know-where, only to be not posted. I’ve read it all before from this bunch. They have infested the once sound AR, basically leaving now only you and Auster as sane race realist sites. (Perhaps also VDARE, If Brimilow would restrain the ranting anti-Isreal lune Paul Craig Roberts.)
I’ve said it before, and for years, but it bears repeating. In post World War II America, anti-semitism is, thank God, hated.
NOTHING…NOTHING will come of any movement in America, intellectual or political, that is rooted in this old, discredited, satanic lie of blaming and hating the Jews.
DTF—
Yes, trying to convince the Age of Treason types to take a reasonable view of this issue is like trying to teach a monkey table manners. All you’ll get for your pains is faeces thrown at you.
Objective…—
Benefactors! Ha! I’m pretty much self-enabled. That raises a good question, though. If the House of Rothschild and the Mossad are paying as many people as you guys say they are, then where’s my money? What does an active collaborator in the great Zionist conspiracy have to do to get his thirty pieces of silver? You shouldn’t have gotten my hopes up!
Guessedworker’s comment deserves more serious, or perhaps only more lengthy, consideration. Since I just published a 1,900 word article, I’m not up for that right now, but I will try to write something over the weekend.
I have been following this discussion with great interest. Since it is impossible under the circumstances to state my objections to antisemitism on philosophic grounds—for it is a wide topic, as diverse in its ramifications as the crimes and abuses with which the Jews have been charged—I shall content myself with a brief description of its political consequences:
- It is divisive - witness the present discourse!
- It turns people away. People otherwise receptive to nationalism and race realism are repelled by its association with antisemitism;
- It makes coalition-building extremely difficult, if not impossible. If we ever reverse the tide of Third World immigration, it will be for a great plurality of reasons, not strictly racial. Nationalists will have to make their voices heard amongst the clamor of other interest groups, and align themselves, as much as possible without sacrificing their core principles, with mainstream forces whose interests overlap with their own.
- It diverts our attention from activities, more fruitful in their issue, with which the public are broadly sympathic. Examples include immigration restriction, opposition to affirmative action policies, and the promotion of white culture. It tarnishes those same activities by way of association.
Even if we grant the Jewish Question as it is treated by tanstaafl a certain academic interest, yet as an article of faith to be signed, as a doctrine to be professed, its consquences have been utterly disastrous for the pro-white movement.
http://raciometrics.blogspot.com/
Instead of relying on the theories of Kevin MacDonald, and instead of feeling compelled to defend even legitimate Jewish enemies (who I don’t think we should completely ignore), a good middle ground is to limit the criticism to individual Jews, while praising the “good Jews.” Nevertheless to strongly condemn the “bad jews.” That way you are neither ridiculously antisemitic nor ridiculously apologetic. You can’t be smeared as an anti-semite, yet still get the message across that you are not bound by the limitations of political correctness and not defending Jews because of a desire to appear more mainstream. And you get the message across that if the situation permits it, you are able to criticize Jewish behavior, but you don’t do it compulsively.
I believe going going in hyper defense mode, or in hyper attack mode, is more an attempt to maneuver around political opponents than intellectual honesty. Hopefully we’ll see more level-headed discussion on the Jewish issue in the future.
Guessedworker—
I criticize MacDonald because I simply don’t think what he’s saying is true. Granted that a lot of Jews have been seriously leukophobic and in other ways destructive, but I don’t think that’s because of a “hyperethnocentric” longing to achieve racial dominance. Rather, I think they seriously believe that a resurgence of Nazism is always possible. That leads to excessive and sometimes downright paranoid suspicions of whites, but racial dominance has nothing to do with it.
I also suspect that Jews have a deeply anti-authoritarian streak, which is why Jewish intellectuals today are so stridently critical of Israeli, as well as white American, nationalism. Of course, that fact is very much at odds with any theory of Jewish hyperethnocentrism.
As for Lieberman’s paper being a “crude hatchet job,” it’s nothing of the sort. Lieberman starts by examining whether MacDonald cites solid evidence in support of his claim that Jews are hyperethnocentric, hyperauthoritarian, and self-deceiving, and concludes that the evidence is very far from solid indeed. Then Lieberman examines the relevant scholarly literature, which MacDonald either didn’t read or disingenuously ignored, and finds that Jews don’t rank particularly high in any of these traits. Lieberman’s paper is careful, scholarly work. That you confuse it with a hatchet job is a sign of dogmatic attachment to your idol.
Of course, Lieberman’s findings don’t mean that leftist intellectuals haven’t been disproportionately Jewish, which is not in dispute. What it means is that we have to look for an entirely different explanation of this advocacy than MacDonald gives. I suspect my hypothesis that Jews are more anti-authoritarian than average is the right explanation.
If pro-whites are going to build a movement, they have to begin with a good theory of how leukophobia became so entrenched. And you and all your readers at MR are working with the wrong theory.
Yes, I read Lieberman’s article and it is amazingly biased and unscholarly, as is the Wikipedia link (since when is Wikipedia a scholarly source?) which lists a few selected academic critics of MacDonald’s work; not surprisingly, ALL of the people listed in that Wikipedia link are ethnic Jews and, as I said in my last post, they are in many respects unable to be objective when dealing with scholarly issues related Jews, Jewish history, Jewish sociology, and so forth.
The people listed in that Wikipedia section include: Steven Pinker (ethnic Jew: who admitted that he has not read MacDonald’s work); Sander Gilman (ethnic Jew: well known Jewish studies professor and Jewish activist); Eugen Schoenfeld (ethnic Jew: leftist sociology professor); Zev Garber (ethnic Jew: another leftist Jewish academic). And you expect these people to review MacDonald’s work objectively?
And again, you missed my entire point - that ethnically Jewish scholars have time and time again proven themselves unable to remain scholarly/objective when writing or speaking about Jewish studies topics. When reviewing a scholar who has written things deemed to be highly critical of Jews, Jewish history, and Judaism these ethnically Jewish academics do not even try to remain scholarly or objective…they let the invective and smears flow freely (another example - witness the recent treatment of Mearsheimer and Walt because of their book THE ISRAEL LOBBY). My other main point was that ONE denunciation (i.e., Lieberman’s) does not mean that a scholar’s work is entirely discredited - you simply cannot make a blanket statement like that because of one opinion, especially an inherently biased one.
Probably the most fair and objective assessment of MacDonald’s work was Prof. George Michael’s (an academic specializing in ‘right-wing extremism’) review of MacDonald’s entire Jewish trilogy in the “Journal of Church and State” back in 2006; read it at the following link: http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/JC&S48;-2006.pdf
“Rather, I think they seriously believe that a resurgence of Nazism is always possible.”
Now I must ask: have you ever read MacDonald’s entire trilogy? If you have, you would have realized that ethnic Jews have been persecuted because of their alleged “group evolutionary strategy” long before the rise of Nazism in the 1930s - Jews were persecuted in dozens of countries, regions, cities, and territories long before the Holocaust ever occurred, so to place the blame for their perceived anti-Western and/or leukophobic behavior solely on their being scared of a resurgent Nazi movement is disingenuous.
If pro-whites are going to build a movement, they have to begin with a good theory of how leukophobia became so entrenched. And you and all your readers at MR are working with the wrong theory.
It doesn’t need to be defined so theoretically, people make bad decisions all the time for a range of motives. That’s all that’s really needed as an explanation. Just like there are criminals, people who start unnecessary wars, homosexuals, prostitutes, and drug addicts, humanity has repeatedly shown itself capable of bad decisions. No “explanation” is needed for it other than the fact that people have the choice to do what they want. People who blame Jews seek an explanation when it isn’t needed. In this situation, people are thinking outside of the box, but the answer is inside the box. And yes, of course Jews are capable of bad decisions too, just like non-Jews who support the very same media.
I also suspect that Jews have a deeply anti-authoritarian streak, which is why Jewish intellectuals today are so stridently critical of Israeli, as well as white American, nationalism. Of course, that fact is very much at odds with any theory of Jewish hyperethnocentrism.
I think the motive for some Jews, and not just Jews, but hyper-capitalists in general, is simply pure banditry. It has nothing to do with hatred of gentiles or hyper-ethnocentrism, it only has to do with wanting to achieve positions of power and thinking that racism might stand in the way.
Ian,
I am quite keen to avoid a protracted and, eventually, damaging discussion about Jewish (actually Ashkenazic) motivation. It would be easy for me to pull your arguments apart. I could quote from Lawrence Auster’s excellent piece for Horowitz , “Why Jews Welcome Muslims”, to show that Christianity is the great bugbear, not authoritarianism. I could demonstrate the super-authoritarianism of Jews in the USSR, or in modern-day Europe where they push for Hate Speech laws. I could prove the contentious nature of Lieberman with a few quotes and one question: “Where is the Ashkenazic facility to experience collective guilt?” I could demonstrate the surviving ethnic particularism of even your most respected Jewish allies.
But you are a fellow nationalist and Englishman to boot, and I don’t want to bury you. I want to refine your attachment to the people you love. I want to bring you to question the present, really quite hobbling limitations on that love. In particular, I want you to ask yourself what you experience emotionally when you witness the doings of Brownshirt Bill, Alex “through the Jew” Linder and all the (alleged) lesser “anti-semites stinking-up” public discourse. I want you to dissect that emotion and uncover how it dictates your reason, and leads you away from a full and proper understanding of who you, your fellow nationalists and your own people, damn it, truly are.
Let me show you. You wrote:-
Tanstaafl is referring to the fact that moderates like Johnson support Israel, but neither Islamic fundamentalism nor white nationalism. Since all that tanstaafl can see in politics is conflicts between different ethnic interests, or nationalisms, Johnson’s attitude seems completely nonsensical to him and can only be explained as a result of Jewish brainwashing. However, once you go outside this absurdly narrow view of human motivations and realize that people’s political views are motivated by many different factors …
What Tan can see, and you can’t, is that there is an order to human motivations. Tan is asking Johnson and you to detach from your false cultural gods - not completely but just enough to recognise that kinship and love and Life’s interest in continuity trumps everything else. He is asking for you to wake up, to put it bluntly.
There is no “absurd narrowness” here. There is enlightenment. You cannot see what thousands of others can. You are not to be blamed for that. But now you have been told, and you have no more excuses.
Ian, don’t culturalise ethnic politics. Don’t use your good mind in the service of what I suspect is no more than a false if rather English moral sensibility. The British left had a saying which I am sure you recall: “No enemy to the left”. We nationalists, too, have no enemies to our palingenic right. Your misconception that we do drives you to make alliances in the wrong quarter, and thereby to abuse your readers and your position in our movement. It is important to you and all of us that you turn about.
Objective Academic provides an example of one of the key debating strategies of anti-Semites: no Jew can overcome his own ethnocentrism, so any Jewish criticism of anti-Semitism can be dismissed as a mere strategy for ethnic power, without seriously attempting to understand it. Anti-Semitism is, above all things, a lazy worldview that places its adherents beyond criticism. It’s also a non-disconfirmable theory, since, as I pointed out in the article, it casts all challenges to itself as proof of its own correctness. Consequently, no reasoned debate is possible with anti-Semites.
That’s why I normally don’t post comments by you guys, because I want reasoned debate on my site. I do the same thing with proponents of other non-disconfirmable theories, by the way—I’m perfectly fair in this matter. For example, I delete a lot of comments by liberals who cast any criticism of their views as “racism.” They too complain that I am censoring them, but the complaints are in bad faith because they were the first to reject the principle of reasoned debate.
Guessedworker plays the same game as Objective Academic, which is why he is incapable of giving the Lieberman article the consideration that it deserves. Indeed, since Guessedworker sees tanstaafl’s obsessive and impoverished understanding of human motives as “enlightenment,” he plainly believes that achieving ethnic power is the only legitimate goal of mankind. And he urges me, consequently, to be motivated by kinship above all other things. This, essentially, means that I should promote anti-Semitic propaganda without any regard for truth, the way people do over at Majority Rights.
Well, I’m sorry, I can’t do that, not just because lying is wrong, but because I refuse to lead the impoverished, one-dimensional existence that Guessedworker sees as enlightenment. I insist on my right to be a complex, multi-faceted human being, animated by many different forces, with love of kin being only one of them. The desire to know the truth is another one, so I’m not going to devote my life to promoting mindless propaganda, and I will continue respect writers who have something serious to say.
Guessedworker reminds me of nothing more than a Jehovah’s Witness-type I once met who tried to tempt me to accept a simple-minded Christian dogmatism as a salvation from the messy complexity of reality. Like Guessedworker, he spoke to me with the starry-eyed evangelical zeal of someone who has discovered the one true meaning of life. Anti-Semitism has the appeal of all cults, but I prefer reality, however frustrating it may be.
“Anti-Semitism” is a Jewish ethnic strategy, Ian, not a condition of the Western mind. The anger at Jews which so angers you is a reactive phenomenon.
The question is: why do you attempt to run over “Anti-Semites” in your reconditioned rental of the beaten-up 1950s Adornian sedan? An analyst would say the answer is that you are rejecting your own violent impulse take out the sleek MacDonald in your driveway and run over a few Jews. But I am going to give you the Freudian benefit of the doubt and conclude, in my English opinion, that your very English disconcertion at the rude nature of American white nationalism is the problem. Given a choice between reforming the unreformable - Jewish ethno-aggression - and reforming your own inconvenient kinfolk, you choose the former.
Then you proceed to claim complexity as your excuse. But you are not complex in that regard. And your politics is not complex at all. You are not a philosophical nationalist, white or otherwise. You are at best an activist for race-realism. But race-realism is totally silent on the liberal question. It is only a thin stripe of white protest.
Making a purpose for your life out of race-realism might well qualify as obsession. I urge you to be careful how you employ the “o” word. It can hardly be applied to the life-value which underpins all love of kind and of country, and which you fail to distinguish from altruism towards Jews.
And what is a man of your intelligence doing reaching so egregiously for the reductio ad absurdum. When you invent a demand by us that you relinquish your “complexity“, can you not see that it serves to dehumanise us as mono-dimensional beings? What on earth makes you think that you are a more complex individual than Tan, me or anyone else, for that matter.
In any case, no one is asking you to narrow your range of life interests. We are asking you to accept that not all interests are equal. There is one which is higher than the rest - I assume you’ve read Salter.
You will not “know the truth”, Ian, until you free yourself from being an extended phenotype and reconnected with the ethnic interests if your own people. If you can find a way to do that you will be content and you will be useful. Otherwise, you will waste your talents and achieve nothing - or worse, you will do harm.
That is why I ask you to look at yourself, and realise what the rest of the nationalist blogosphere can see only too plainly.
Interesting discussion. I haven’t read Dr. MacDonald’s work, or Dr. Lieberman’s analysis, but the topic interests me, because I’m racially half Jewish (and half European white) and while I do feel some Jewish (and white, but that isn’t the issue here) racial pride I also feel some racial shame for what some of what has been done.
Guessedworker gives a list of bad things which he thinks are caused by Jews looking out for their ethnic interests, but the list is exaggerated.
- Classical Marxism Revolutionary internationalism
Marx wanted Jews to cease being Jews (do you really need the quotes from Marx? If so, ask.) and if anything, would have been, like Trotsky, Chomsky, Zinn, and others, classed as something of a self hating Jew.
Critical Theory Postmodernism Freudianism Second-wave Feminism Second-Wave Libertarianism Gay Rights/LBGT Rights
- American Civil Rights Human Rights
- White Privilege/White Abolitionism
- Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
I’ll grant that these can easily be argued to have their Jewish support due to some Jewish ethnic interests. Do you understand why that might be due to a not wholly unjustified Jewish paranoia?
- Neoconservatism
- Israel Lobby
Also true. Jews like Israel, and feel some attachment to it. White Christians like White Christian nations. I fail to see anything objectionable.
- Academic race-denial
Like Richard Herrnstein, Michael Levin, Michael Hart, and others?
I assume you are referring to Boas, Montague, and others? I’ve read David Duke’s argument that these and others are part of a Jewish conspiracy using divide and conquer to ensure the power of Jews, but this makes little sense, since none of these are “hyper ethnic” Jews. I bet all of them favor intermarriage, and oppose Israel (Chomsky, Gould, Zinn, and others sure do/did) so it seems more likely that they’re just very smart guys (did I mention that Ash. Jews are smarter on average?) who want race mixing and the end of Judaism, America, capitalism, and the rest.
- Encouragement for white race-mixing
I recall a lot of those same Jews encouraging race mixing encourage Jewish race mixing too (remember Bridgitte Loves Bernie on TV? I date myself here) which runs contrary to Jewish genetic self interests.
- Exploitation of the official holocaust narrative
OK. Not sure what you’re driving at with this one.
- Internet pornography
This helps Jews how? By lowering America into a pit of filth?
- Negative imagery of whites on film and TV
- Anti-white bias in media reporting
Jews are about 2% of the US population, so even though we (I presume, since my Jewish ancestors are paternal, and I know I’m not then Jewish according to Orthodox Jews) are overrepresented in just about any field that requires brains, we cannot be the source of the majority of all anti White bias. Are you telling me Harriet Beecher Stowe was a Jew or a Jew lackey?
Ian Jobling writes:
“Of course, Lieberman’s findings don’t mean that leftist intellectuals haven’t been disproportionately Jewish, which is not in dispute. What it means is that we have to look for an entirely different explanation of this advocacy than MacDonald gives. I suspect my hypothesis that Jews are more anti-authoritarian than average is the right explanation.”
One could argue that intellectuals are disproportionately (Ashkenazi) Jewish, including mathematicians, physicists, and engineers. This isn’t surprising at all, seeing as the average Ashkenazi IQ is something like 115.
As I said, I didn’t read Macdonald, but if the idea is that this Jewish self interest is genetic, then it smacks of group selection, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection, and isn’t very compelling, unless that whole idea somehow gets resurrected. Also, how does Dr. Macdonald explain the currently greater than 50% intermarriage rate for Jews in the US, which has happened IMO because of the lack of antisemitism. That suggests that he has put the cart before the horse, and that Jewish tribalism and ethnocentrism is largely the result of Gentile antisemitism, not the other way around.
Ian does point out a real problem for Macdonald supporters, in
that any Jew who criticizes the theory will be accused of
being misleading because that’s what they’d be expected to do
on account of their genes, even if they’re self hating Jews.
No way to get of that circle! It’s like debating a believer
in a religion who uses his own religion to validate itself.
“The Koran/Torah/Evangel must be true because it says so in
the Koran/Torah/Evangel”. So, feel free to ignore me if you’re
a Macdonald believer, that’s what I expect you to do! 
There are certainly a lot of good reasons to criticize negative aspects of Jewish culture, and Jews are overrepresented in intellectual fields, but I’m not convinced that there’s a genetic Gentile hostility phenomena occurring. Those smart Ashkenazi Jews are all White. Recent gene studies suggest that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Jewish merchants from the Middle East who took European Gentile wives and then later began the assortative mating process which led to higher average IQs.
Half Jew,
If you wish to debate the list of Jewish political gifts (+ Hate Speech law - I forgot that one), ot might be more convenient for you to come over to MR where you will be accorded due respect.
Now … let’s get the terms of the discussion straight.
MacDonald is peripheral to my interest here, which is to confront Ian with his ceasura from his own ethnic interests - a condition caused by his intense dislike of American racialism, which he views through a Jewish lens.
Of course, that’s not unusual. The view through the Jewish lens itself is so internalised by Europeans living in the West (but not by those in the former Soviet bloc) that you, for example, can blithely suggest, without any sign of shame or embarrassment, that:-
Jewish tribalism and ethnocentrism is largely the result of Gentile antisemitism
and, of immigration …
Do you understand why that might be due to a not wholly unjustified Jewish paranoia?
… as if its holy writ that everything begins with the goy, and no Jew bears responsibility even for the most inexcusable actions against him (which, actually, it is, as you will well know).
But Jews were more free in America than at any time in their 3,000 year history. There was no reason for extreme ethnocentrism or paranoia. Why, then, didn’t they simply settle down to a beautiful life on the West coast, living well and leaving their European-American neighbours in peace? Why did they seek instead, and in so many ways, to visit destruction upon America’s progenerative people?
Because, my friend, extreme ethnocentrism and paranoia is the Jewish reality, the first cause in the tragic history of our two peoples. It isn’t my people who are “Anti-semitic” or authoritarian, or haters. These are merely what’s squawked at us when the aggressivity is finally returned, as it always is. Such charges are not worthy of serious attention by any free-thinking man, and should never, never be repeated by any self-proclaimed white American activist.
Ian repeats them. In a fatally conflicted world he is working for Jewish ethnic interests. That’s the whole problem, and it needs to stop. He should understand how he is perceived by his own brothers, and he should look for the fault not in them, as he does now, but in himself.
That said, I’ll give the guy a break now. He has been very good to accept this unheralded level of criticism on his blog.
Incidentally, I wish a few of those smart Ashkenazics you mentioned would stop by at MR and give a better account of Jewish intellectualism than the dumb ones who spam us with interracial porn.
Guessedworker, Perhaps you didn’t understand my comment here
“Jewish tribalism and ethnocentrism is largely the result of
Gentile antisemitism”
which was not made blithely, but came right after the statement that the out marriage percentage for Jews is over 50%, in modern, fairly antisemitism free America. I don’t have the figures at my fingertip, but I think that is up from 2% in the early 20th century, a much more antisemitic time. So, without the external pressure of antisemitism, Jewish out marriage has steadily increased until now it is slightly more common than in-marriage, and that trend shows no sign of slowing. This suggests
” “Do you understand why that might be due to a not
wholly unjustified Jewish paranoia?”
… as if its holy writ that everything begins with the goy,
and no Jew bears responsibility even for the most
inexcusable actions against him (which, actually, it is,
as you will well know).”
You have an amazing ability to ignore what’s written, and go off writing sentences that mean little in English, which I thought was your native language. A “most inexcusable” action, committed against a Jew, is inexcusable, so, yes, if some Cossack or Nazi murders some arbitrary Jew the Jew bears no responsibility. That would be true for lynching a Black fellow for a rape he didn’t commit, even if Blacks are disproportionately represented amongst rapists. Are you sure that’s what you meant to write? If so, there’s not much for us to talk about.
If you meant that I am suggesting Jews bear no responsibility at all, I’d say wipe off your glasses and read that sentence again. Are you familiar with the concept of “good faith”, and how it might apply to a discussion? If you are, you aren’t showing it here. I meant to point out that that paranoia is not wholly unjustified, in the SAME WAY THAT YOUR SUSPICION OF JEWS IS NOT WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED.
“But Jews were more free in America than at any time in their 3,000 year history. There was no reason for extreme ethnocentrism or paranoia. ”
Changes in people and cultures don’t take place immediately, but rather over several generations. Viewing those intermarriage statistics, it appears that, in the absence of antisemitism, Jewish tribalism is (sadly, IMO) vanishing. In fact, many of those Jews doing the damage to Gentile culture are atheistic anti-Jewish Jews, who’s rejection of things Jewish is so extreme that they have universalized their disdain for ethnocentrism so that it is now conceived of as a great evil. But you would consider them (Marx, Chomsky, Zinn and others) as exemplars of Judaism!
If you look thoroughly ver the whole of US history, you’ll notice that the first Jewish immigrants were Sephardic (fleeing the antisemitic Portugese), and the second wave I believe was from Germany, not fleeing antisemitism. I don’t think these Jews were leaders in any of the anti-Gentile movements you mentioned; Sephardic Jew Judah Benjamin had some positions of power in the CSA during the Civil War.
The Jews responsible for most of what you wrote are my people, Eastern European Jews, from Poland, Lithuania, Russia, and the like. They fled on account of anti-semitism, and many of them were Communist or sympathetic to the Communists for various reasons, like antipathy for the Czars. Jews did not have access to weaponry at these times, so the violence was pretty much one sided.
“Because, my friend, extreme ethnocentrism and paranoia is the Jewish reality, the first cause in the tragic history of our two peoples.”
Sorry, my friend, but because you say it, does not make it so. You’ve claimed that you can shred all of Ian’s arguments and Lieberman’s, but so far, while you’ve produced a few amusing rhetorical flourishes, you haven’t argued anything. It’s been like Ian said, a discussion with a religious person who can’t step outside of his religion.
” Ian repeats them. In a fatally conflicted world he is working for Jewish ethnic interests. ”
I don’t Ian as working for Jewish interests at all, rather for White interests, where White includes English, French, German, Greeks, and, yes, Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews. Imagine if the traditional hatred between English and French, or English and Irish, were still strong. A person like Ian, who is pro-White, would be telling English, French and Irish race realists to put aside their differences and think of themselves as White. So Ian is like an anti Tim Wise, who, humorously enough, is also a racial half Jew (*). If kin relationships trump all, then White Nationalism makes no sense. Russian Jews likely have more Russian genes than Englishmen do. And all Jews likely have a mix of Greek and Italian on account of their contact with Greeks and Romans. Barack Obama probably is closer kin to you than the average Russian, Greek, or Italian, through his mother.
I also see this as largely a reaction, in the same way that much of Jewish tribalism is a reaction to antisemitism. For the most part, American Whites wouldn’t care about Blacks and Hispanics if it weren’t for forced mixing, anti white discrimination and the open borders policy. That a large number of Jews are involved in these atrocities is not something I’ll argue, as it is obviously true. What I’ll argue is that it isn’t part of Jewish genetics (group selection is problematic) or religion, though it is seeping into the spiritually weaker denominations of Judaism, like Reform. There’s certainly an argument to be made that non religious Jewish culture is dominated by leftists, but that dominance is not as strong as it was even 20 years ago, and is fading, though far too slowly for my tastes.
(*) Ian, that’s how I see your work, if I misrepresent it, my
apologies, and please elaborate.
Guessed Worker and Objective Academic have described the work of Lieberman as biased, unscholarly, and a ‘crude hatchet job’. So far they have failed to impeach Lieberman’s methodology with specific examples of biases, inaccuracies, and poor scholarship. They have also failed to demonstrate that (a) Jewish influence, however disproprtionate, has been decisive in the promotion of subversive equalitarian movements; and that (b) Jewish participation within said movements has been motivated by ethnocentric considerations. Unless Guessed Worker and Objective Academic can demonstrate both (a) and (b), their conclusions are worthless. And even if (a) and (b) turn out to be true, which is unlikely, it does not follow that all Jews, or even the majority of Jews, are ‘hyperethnocentric’.
Mr Jobling:
The author of a blog called Western Biopolitics has been following this discussion and has asked you the following question:
“Can Jobling name any prominent member of [the Jewish community] who overtly supports a strict white ethnostate - even if by ‘white’ we explicitly include Jews?”
To which I responded:
Unhappily, people with racialist sympathies, Jewish or Gentile, rarely ascend to positions of great prominence in our society, except for contributions made prior to enunciating their beliefs about race (e.g. William Shockley); the forces working against them in politics, the press, and the communications media being too powerful. But there are many Jews who have attained some prominence within their own narrow spheres, individuals with whom all advocates of a white ethnostate should have a sympathic regard. Rabbi Mayer Schiller, Michael Hart, Lawrence Auster, Michael Levin, and Robert Weissberg may be given as examples. In an enlightened community, liberated from the fetters of white guilt, these men would be nationally syndicated columnists, best selling authors, frequent guests on national news and public affairs programmes, and I know not what else; in a society dominated by liberals and equalitarians, such thinkers will remain relatively obscure. And then there are those, though not open advocates of a white ethnostate, whose scientific work, if well meditated and followed to its logical implications, provides a scientific justification for the same. I have in mind Arthur Jensen [a Jew on his maternal side; see page 8 of Frank Miele’s Conversions with Arthur Jensen for confirmation], Richard Hernnstein [coauthor of The Bell Curve], Hans Eynseck [author of The Inequality of Man, among other works critical of race equality], and several others. But I say this parenthically because these writers are primarily interested in the scientific aspect of the race question, not its political implications.
The white ethnostate is something which is only politically feasible in the U.S., a nation in which whites of diverse origins have had to define themselves in contrast to the Amerindid and Negrid races. In Amerca I favour the establishment of a white ethnostate (though with an Anglo-Saxon cultural core), whereas in Europe I believe that smaller, less inclusive ethnostates are preferable.
(I signed as Observer in my previous entry by force of habit. It’s a name I often use in blogging communities, not usually here though.)
http://israeliwhitenationalism.blogspot.com/
“As far as I know, all academic reviews of MacDonald have been negative.”
So Laurence Loeb of the University of Utah isn’t/wasn’t an “academic”? I’m sure that would surprise him and his employer.
Writing in the Jewish Folklore and Ethnology Review, Loeb called MacDonald’s first book a “tour-de-force” and a “watershed contribution to the understanding of Judaism and Jewish life” based on a “cautious, careful assembling of evidence.” The first book, by the way, is the one in which MacDonald lays out his theory.
As far as I know, the Loeb review is the ONLY academic review of MacDonald’s work (and your Wikipedia link didn’t show any others), which means that all the academic reviews have been POSITIVE.
ben tillman—
Thanks for making me aware of the Loeb review, which I hadn’t heard of and which unfortunately does not seem to be online. However, you’re kidding yourself when you say there are no negative academic reviews mentioned at the the Wikipedia link.
There’s been a lot of excellent, interesting commentary on this thread, particularly from HalfJew. Hopefully, I’ll get around to responding to it.
HalfJew mentions the Jewish intermarriage rate of over P in defending against the notion of Jewish ethnocentrism. This figure comes from the Jewish Population Survey of 1990. After correcting for what were seen as flawed sampling techniques in the 1990 survey, a later survey, done in 2000, actually cites lower intermarriage figures, but only slightly lower. The 2000 report cites a 47% intermarriage rate for Jews marrying since 1995 (http://www.ujc.org/local_includes/downloads/3905.pdf). However, as in the 1990 survey, the report does not count couples wherein one of the spouses was non-Jewish at birth and later converted. Such a couple is NOT considered intermarried, nor should it be according to Jewish law. This is a fairly common occurence and though the couple is not intermarried, the fact that one of the spouses is a convert certainly further strengthens the case against Jewish ethnocentrism. I would also mention that, anecdotally, I’ve know many Jewish couples who have adopted ethnically non-Jewish children, be they White, Asian or Black.
I will concede, however, that Jews do “stick to their own” far more than the various White Gentile ethnic groups. Greeks, perhaps, come in a distant second. Why? Many Jews, even if not Orthodox, have some religious inclinations and wish to pass these on to their children, or at the very least, not have children who worship Jesus. There are also cultural aspects of Judaism that bind Jews together. And, as HalfJew points out, there is still lingering paranoia among Jews that any given Gentile might reveal himself or herself to be an anti-semite. Still, the intermarriage rate is far higher than in the past, and as Lieberman rightly argues, this is hardly consistent with the notion that Jews have been selectively breeding for ethnocentrism. The current generation should be the most Jewish of all time, and clearly, this isn’t the case. It would be a bizarre genetic trait that allowed the exceptions to swamp the rule.
“And to be seemingly “discredited” by a person with ethnic Jewish roots (Lieberman) is quite suspect, a person who probably is not very scholarly/objective when it comes to Jewish studies/scholarship.”
“Not good enough. Jewish competitive ethnocentrism has to be identified or it cannot be restrained.”
“ALL of the people listed in that Wikipedia link are ethnic Jews and, as I said in my last post, they are in many respects unable to be objective when dealing with scholarly issues related Jews, Jewish history, Jewish sociology, and so forth.”
“Because, my friend, extreme ethnocentrism and paranoia is the Jewish reality, the first cause in the tragic history of our two peoples.”
All of the above by Guessedworker
This guy’s got it bad, and that ain’t good.
1) According to this person, Jews lack the intellectual quality to be objective vis a vis Jewish history, culture, sociology, religion, etc. — a mental defect.
2) Jewish ethnocentrism must be restrained. This statement itself is a restrained and pseudo polite modern variation of the Third Reich mantra that the Jews were a vermin-like people spreading disease, a baccilus to be eradicated.
3) Extreme ethnocentrism and paranoia — also traits of a mentally defective people.
Wholesale prejudices all.
This is one reason why I often don’t log on to this website every night like I used to. I find these people and their ilk to be extremely tiresome and their convoluted reasoning couched in high falutin language to be pretentious and boring.
All this guy has done in this thread is to attack you, Ian, your characater (there must be some primal Jewish defect in you since you defend Jews and denounce anti-Semitism since no rational gentile would ever do so),your objectivity, and your ability to reason.
Yet he has not offered one rejoinder to your arguments.
I’ve often said that you cannot reason with people like these because they possess no reason. This person is the perfect example.
Do not bother with the fellow from Western Biopolitics. He is a total drama queen. He wrote around 30 posts directed at me personally, just because we disagreed over issues of anthropology and the categorization of Caucasoid subtypes.
We can argue forever about whether the Jews did it, or how ethnocentric we are, and if that’s good or bad…The main thing I’ve learned from these endless discussions is that some white people, okay I’ll spell it White people, don’t like Jews. They have their reasons. Some of their reasons are sensible enough, others aren’t, being based on lies. Whatever…If some people don’t like Jews, that’s their right. What if everyone who is interested in this subject got together and agreed that people have the right to go their separate ways, and they don’t need an excuse. Instead of Jews, even race-realist Jews, insisting on their innocence of whatever anti-semites accuse them of, what if we just accepted everything anti-semites say as a statement that they don’t like us and want to separate from us.
That would save a lot of time and energy. Then some people on both sides of this issue could get together and say, okay, we need to separate, how can we accomplish this? There should be a White ethno-state, a separate White Jewish ethno-state, a mixed White ethno-state, etc. Like the Balkans, but more conscious and therefore less violent.
At this point, what does it really matter whether Kevin MacDonald is right about this or that? What matters is that a lot of people agree with him, they have their reasons, and race realist Jews and their allies should agree to separate peacefully from those who would rather not be around us. Once we all agree to work together, we are more likely to get what we want.
I have challenged the commentators of MR.com to impeach Lieberman’s research with specific examples of biases, inaccuracies, and poor scholarship. No one has given any such examples. I have asked them to show how Jewish influence has been the decisive factor in the equalitarian subversion of Western society; so far we have witnessed numerous reiterations of this assertion, but not a single attempt to subsantiate it. Finally, I have requested evidence of Jewish ethnocentrism as the motivating influence in Jewish adherence to equalitarian ideologies. (Even if we accept Silver’s argument that Jewish motivations are irrelevant, the same premiss still underlies many of the arguments which have been presented, and therefore requires substantiation.) Until each of these assertions is demonstrated as true, there is nothing else to be said here.
I agree Anti-Semitism is hurting our movement, and entails negative associations. I also fear, if anti-Semitism is adopted, great harm will be done to American Jews. Even White Gentiles who look like they migh be part-Jewish will be attacked. But I think White Americans are and will remain more moderate, regarding most of White Continetnial Europe, especially the rest of the non-Asian population groups. The non-Whites and Muslims are usually more anti-Semitic than White Gentiles are.
Here is an excert from American Lighthouse, a blog on blogspot:
It would also be risky showing Irish women and White women who could be mistaken for Jews, and even White women in generally mixing with non-Whites. By doing so, more Jewish women will likely follow suit. Contrary to popular belief, the Jewish women still consider themselves White, and will be brainwashed to race-mix no less than a blonde Swede. The White anti-Semites will say what they will; but the Jews are not consciously commiting racial suicide. Likewise for self-hating Whites. If we must get rid of the racially aware Jews and ‘liberal’ Jews, than what about the ‘liberal’ White Gentiles? {snip}
What drives them, is the Holocaust and persecutions which occur at this time. Orthodox Rabbis are attacked for the actions of (pro-race mixing) Jewish Hollywood executives*; it makes sense for the Jews to be upset when the wrong people are punished for offenses.
http://americanlighthouse.blogspot.com/
As mentioned above, the Jews would risk encouraging race-mixing on their own kind, whenever they show a White woman with a non-White, in a provactive manner.
It’s also true that the Jews are afraid of another Holocaust! There is a possibility that I could actually be part Jewish. I haven’t confirmed it, but it’s still possible. At least four people have told me I look Jewish; two even called me “Jewboy.” I don’t know if I am part Jewish, but that is irrelevant. I know I could be mistaken for a Jew, even if I am pure Gentile. And, thinking in the context that I could be part Jewish, or at least be mistaken therefore, I have felt paranoid at times. In the wrong situtation, I could have been picked by the nazi’s during WW2, just for my appearance. Thinking in this context, I can understand why and how one who is undeniably Jewish would feel by such a threat.
Regarding punishing people who did our race no wrong, I am sure David Duke would likely mention a Jew attacking a Gentile for the actions of anti-Semites. But, what about Gentiles who attack Orthodox Jewsish rabbis, for the actions of others?
Note: The excerpt’s full article above entails an asterisk. Thereby, the note reveals the author does not condone violence and/or violating laws. And the hyperlink above links directly to the complete article.
Note 2: I typed the near identical post, with the name EA. I pressed the wrong button, and entered. I re-entered the post, for clarification of my identity, to make my post more relevant.
WJP
Only this quote was mine:-
“Because, my friend, extreme ethnocentrism and paranoia is the Jewish reality, the first cause in the tragic history of our two peoples.”
And, of course, since it begins with a conjunction, you do really have to quote the preceeding sentences, which included a couple of questions. Here they are, in context:-
But Jews were more free in America than at any time in their 3,000 year history. There was no reason for extreme ethnocentrism or paranoia. Why, then, didn’t they simply settle down to a beautiful life on the West coast, living well and leaving their European-American neighbours in peace? Why did they seek instead, and in so many ways, to visit destruction upon America’s progenerative people?
Well, here’s the bottom line. Either Jews author socio-politics expressing a deep, ethno-aggressive paranoia, or Europeans are, as Lieberman/Adorno vilely claims, inately “authoritarian”, “anti-semitic”, etc. There can only be one first cause.
I’m English and I know perfectly well that, like my American relatives, the English accorded Jews all the honour and freedom they could realistically desire as a people living in someone else’s house. Did it make any difference? Did it hell. We have the Holocaust Educational Trust. We have the Community Security Trust. We have Searchlight. We have the massive funding of all three mainstream political parties. We have the EU trying to promulgate Hate Speech Law across the Union. We have the same, boring, pointless squawks of “racist this” and “anti-semite that” everytime some new piece of chutspah gets punctured in public.
No, sorry, that’s not normal. That’s not how the Irish minority behaves. It’s not how blacks behave. That’s not how the English behave in expat communities.
The force driving it needs to be named. I say it’s hyper-ethnocentrism and paranoia. You say its English authoritarianism and anti-semitism. There’s nothing in between. It’s either/or - a straightforward choice.
I’d love to know which the readers of this blog believe.
Do not bother with the fellow from Western Biopolitics. He is a total drama queen.
The problem isn’t his being a drama queen nearly as much as it is his unwillingness to debate and his penchant for underhandedly poisoning the well of competing views.
He wrote around 30 posts directed at me personally, just because we disagreed over issues of anthropology and the categorization of Caucasoid subtypes.
He’s subjected me to far worse. Granted, some things I’ve said have warranted a roasting. But reasonable men hoping to distance themselves from the hopping-mad-nazi faction — which is essential for any meangingful progress — reach accomodations and allow bygones to remain such. He is no reasonable man.
Guessedworker—
Oh, sure. Jews are Britain’s only problem minority. The Irish, the blacks, and the Muslims behave like model citizens and never make irresponsible accusations against the English.
I told myself I wasn’t going to post your comments in the future, but I have to take a swing when you toss big, fat pitch like that. Now go back to MR where people will apparently believe absolutely any nonsense you spout.
It is true that many unassimilated white minorities have been significantly overrepresented in subversive equalitarian movements. In his The Dispossessed Majority, Wilmot Robertson documents the special role played by unassimilated white minorities in the subversion and cultural degeneration of America. The Irish, the Italians, French Canadians, and the Jews are subjected to criticism, some of it merited. In my opinion, if one group must be singled out for especial criticism, it would be due to the decisiveness of its influence in the equalitarian subversion of the West. But no group has been especially decisive.
The question of whether or not Jews are ‘white’ has been raised in this discussion. I don’t subscribe to the idea that all Caucaoids are ‘white’. But it is also true that Europeans and Near Easterners cannot be distinguished from one another as belonging to altogether different races; only a different distribution of subraces are represented in Europe and the Near East. Jews are derived from a subtype in the Near East which of all non-European populations most closely approximates the European type; Syrians and the Lebanese may be given as other examples, also originating in the same general region. And the Jews, even before settling in Europe, were subjected to selective influences favouring intelligence, distinguishing them from neighbouring peoples. They subsequently migrated to Europe where they were subjected to further selective pressures. They also practiced a certain amount of outbreeding, low in frequency but significant in its accumulated genetic effects. The result is a group of people virtually indistinguishible from other Europeans when matched by IQ. (The magnitude of the IQ difference between European Jews and European Gentiles is comparable to that between, say, Bulgaria and Germany.)
http://israeliwhitenationalism.blogspot.com/
Guessedworker wrote, “Either Jews author socio-politics expressing a deep, ethno-aggressive paranoia, or Europeans are, as Lieberman/Adorno vilely claims, innately ‘authoritarian’, ‘anti-semitic.’”
Lieberman never takes any position on Europeans’ authoritarianism or anti-Semitism. His purpose is just to criticize MacDonald’s characterization of Jews. I sometimes wonder whether anti-Semites are capable of reading!
I agree with you, JRR, although I personally believe in types rather than subraces. Someone with a good nationalist philosophy doesn’t need to label all middle easterners non-white just to find a justification for limiting their immigration. You merely need to argue that they are non-indigenous, and that is sufficient. Just like a Polish nationalist would not argue for immigration of Irish people into Poland. It doesn’t matter that both are considered white by most people. They still wouldn’t want it. Calling them types rather than subraces implies that the difference in looks is more due to recent environmental pressure than due to parallel evolution. In other words, everybody is mixed and nobody evolved entirely separately, but recent pressures in the environment have selected for certain traits. The desert selected for a Mediterranean phenotype, and Indian/Iranian environment selected for an upper Paleolithic phenotype. What we have in Europe is just mixture between upper Paleolithic (originally south Asian) and Mediterranean, on a northwest / southeast axis. The Nordic type, exclusive to Europe, is just a case of depigmentation along this axis, with features that are closer to meds than to alpines. Cases of depigementation often occur on alpinoids too, but their bone structure is variant. My view is that Sephardic Jews are pure Mediterraneans, and Ashkenazi Jews are part Mediterranean on the founding father’s side and Part local population (usually eastern Europe) on the founding mother’s side. But I know I am boring most readers to tears, so I will stop with my typological categorization.
Ian - Don’t you think it’s odd to call someone like Charles Johnson a “moderate”? His hysterical reaction to any form of race consciousness on the part of whites (or cultural consciousness, even) is not moderate. I’d say he is an absolutely fanatical liberal, who can’t even conceive of the possibility of a non-liberal position. And his liberalism is not even considered. It’s just reflex and emotion.
What would it mean for someone like that care about “democratic, Western values”? He goes into a hysterical rage over any expression of actual Western ethnic identities and interests, even if what is being expressed is felt by large majorities of Western people - e.g., wanting fewer non-white and culturally alien immigrants. What he really cares about is the perversion of democratic Western values that has been used by the new elites to destroy both democracy and the actual nations and cultures of the West. (That is: modern liberalism.)
I suppose he could be called “moderate” in a certain sense, in this context: he doesn’t support Islamic radicalism or white nationalism. That still seems misleading to me, since those two things are not poles on some single continuum, so that a neither/nor position would fall in between them. By analogy, a guy who is, say, a Muslim fundamentalist may for that reason be neither a devout Baptist nor a devout Trotskyite. But it would be weird to say that he’s therefore a “moderate” even in this specific context.
And even if there is some sense in which white nationalism and Muslim radicalism are poles on a single continuum, a person’s reasons for rejecting both matter to the question of whether that person is a “moderate”. If you reject both because you can see some valuable things in each and others that, on reflection, you’re not so sure about, that would be a moderate position. But Johnson’s reasons are not moderate in this contextual sense: he rejects both because of his own unthinking and emotion driven attachment to liberalism, which is itself a very radical and crazy position. Johnson may have some useful things to say once in a while about the very narrowly defined issue of Muslim terrorism, but overall he’s an ass.
Ian Jobling, I appreciate your articles and they have been valuable, e.g. those dealing with managerial revolution /elite, altruism competition and Richard Florida’s mistakes.
Latte island wrote, I adjusted the text: “What if everyone who is interested in this subject got together and agreed that people have the right to go their separate ways, and they don’t need an excuse. … That would save a lot of time and energy. … Once we all agree to work together, we are more likely to get what we want.”
That is a good suggestion. Clearly some European-Americans need to be separate from outsiders to feel safe and to get the necessary security. When we are separate and express this clearly in our policies, we can observe each other from more secure positions, and then the outsiders look a lot less threatening.
We have many things and goals in common. It would be natural to co-operate, but I understand there are obstacles that must be removed.
It could go something like this.
Separation policies
Calm and intelligent members from both parties talk.
The interests are disentangled from surface positions and their compatibility and harmonizing possibilities are studied.
Policies are needed to reduce the felt threat without making attainment of goals more difficult. E.g. how we can influence the liberalism in Jewish culture without creating fears? Average liberal and Jewish liberals have often different reasons for their policies, so they don’t respond to the same influences in the same way. How the Jews can alleviate the fears, and thus hostility, they cause (maybe inadvertently) among pro-European-Americans?
Defining our most important common reciprocal goal, sustainable environment to our groups, and how to attain it.
Other forms of co-operation.
Expanding the shared interests.
This is my humble suggestion. I hope the pro-European-Americans and Jews can create mutually beneficial permanent co-operation.
P.s. I have written now and then in Majority Rights, and in my opinion the comments there would need reasonable moderation. Now trolls and provocateurs, like leftist Silver, and people far from matter of fact expression can comment almost freely.
Also, I don’t agree with every writer or article published there.
I don’t understand your defense of Charles Johnson. I know you anre Lawrence Auster have strongly critisized many David Duke and others for their obsesion with Jewish conpiracies while forming aliances with Muslims anti-semites but … Read Morethis Johnson’s fellows hypocracy only enforces that by demonizing both Muslims and European Nationalist while supporting the most extreme nationalism within the Zionist movement. He goes as far as accuses respectable conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchan as anti-semites and closet Nazi’s. I don’t understand why this man has such a large fan base.
Robert,
Well, Johnson did attack me, and I’m responding to that attack, so I don’t really think I can be said to be defending him—I’m defending myself! If Johnson calls Buchanan and Paul Nazis, then that’s rant. However, I believe both of those men have made irresponsible statements about Israel and American Jews.
(I wrote this post over at MAJORITY RIGHTS rather quickly and breathlessly, but I think the central thrust is correct: the Racial Right should avoid obssessional anti-Semitism, and welcome Jewish Occidentalists, but that does not mean we are required to disregard the prominent Jewish role in the cultural and political onslaught against the West. If we are to be honest about the horrors of the Holocaust, Jews must likewise tolerate open discussion of their role in communism, liberalism, etc, without trying to silence their critics, like the brilliant Kevin MacDonald, with the tired and dessicated labels of “Nazi” or “anti-Semite”.)
I’m new to the site, and have probably missed the relevant discussion, but … why are you so hostile to Jews (I’m struck by the tone of some of the preceeding comments)? (No, I am not Jewish: Lutheran/Catholic, German/French/Dutch with a spot of English - pure white, unto the generations.) I have written elsewhere that this is a mistake, which in essence is this: why not try to convert (ideologically) Jews to white racial nationalism (or at least preservationism), instead of driving them away with hostility? I have read Kevin MacDonald’s now-famous sociobiological trilogy, which for me was merely the intellectual capstone to decades of critically observing the Jews, from Jewish family friends growing up, to Jewish college friends (my elite school was over a quarter “chosen”, as are most of the Ivies; ditto grad school), professional colleagues and competitors, and finally, the various worlds we all touch indirectly, those of scholarship, media, finance, law, entertainment, etc.
No discerning man can fail to note the preponderance of Jews at the professional apexes of American life (it’s not quite the same now in Europe, is it?), nor to admit the ideo-politico-culturally malign role that Jews have played in Western, and especially, Anglospheric life since WW2, and before (we all remember that the anti-FDR Right routinely spoke of the “communist Jew-Deal” - and, of course, Jews were heavily involved both in promoting mass-immigration to the US before WW2, and throughout the whole sordid history of communism until the last years of Stalin’s life). No “white” ethnic group has more relentlessly pushed white deracination, minority rights, immigration, discarding of white cultural memory, endless white racial guilt, interracial wealth transfers, anti-traditionalism, and all of the other features of modern political and cultural life so alienating to any sane and racially healthy white man. Finally, 81% of Jews voted for Obama! A majority of all other white American groups except gays voted Republican (I voted third party, as always, this time prompted by the traitor McCain’s rancid immigration amnesty advocacy).
So, yes, the Jews have given Eurofolkish patriots plenty of justifiable reasons to hate them. I know this story.
But there is another side, which I shall just briefly touch upon. Bluntly, I’ve known many wonderful Jews in my life (how many of us can honestly say that about, say, blacks?). More broadly, we must all admit that Jews do make genuine positive contributions to American life, at least in the sciences and business (most Americans would also add entertainment to the list, though perhaps not bloggers here), as well as philanthropy to non-Judeo-specific causes. Without Jews, America would probably be a better place, but the calculus is not nearly so one-sided as with blacks or Hispanics. Unless you hew to the notion, plausible but by no means definitive or proven, that Jews (like blacks) are ethically inferior to whites (I believe that assertion to be true, but only slightly; I would like to see the comparison made controlling for IQ, smart people being shrewder competitors than more mediocre types, with such shrewdness sometimes stirring up unwarranted animosity), then it would seem that Jews exist in a deontologically different space from other minorities. That is, we object to Jews because their liberal politics puts us in proximity to and therefore at risk from the truly morally inferior groups.
Put more concisely, Jews are objectionable because of their politics, which is a function of thought and therefore at least theoretically amendable; blacks/Hispanics/Arabs/aboriginals are objectionable because of their behavior, which derives from inherited traits and instincts, which are not amendable. Thus, if Jews could be persuaded NOT to be race-liberals, then what would be wrong with them? Would they still warrant nationalist hostility?
All of which brings me to my real point. I think white nationalist anti-Semitism is a huge mistake. It may have had a place in the struggle against Bolshevism (though there were always some Jews who were strongly opposed to communism, from economist Ludwig von Mises to Hollywood studio head Louis B. Mayer). But in the desperate but still largely unrecognized struggle today to save the West from racial suicide through demographic inundation, Jews have no real reason to continue to push leftism. The Jew is hated by the increasingly multicultural Left, hated by Muslims, hated by American blacks (a delicious irony of history, given how much the Jews helped these Negroid ingrates in their hallowed “civil rights struggle”). The Jews will not survive apart from whites. If the West goes down, or merely if increasing numbers of non-whites lead to Western indifference towards Israel, it will not benefit the Jews. Far from it. From Wall Street to Gaza [LH: I meant “the Gaza conflict”], their entire mode of existence is dependent upon a beneficent “white superstructure”. On an increasingly non-white as well as mostly dysgenic planet, Jews, like whites, will be ‘sitting ducks’ - only more so, given their still smaller numbers, yet proportionately much greater wealth. No, Jews will not like non-white rule at all. And given their high intelligence, and hence educability, this is an opening …
For the sake of argument, let’s grant that Jewish influence has been decisive in the promotion of multiculturalism and equalitarianism. What is the purpose of charging the Jews with instigating the Civil Rights movement when it is regarded as one of the great achievements of American history? What is the point of telling Howard Stern fans or Jerry Seinfeld fans that these individuals are Jews; something everyone knows? Why should white people care about the machinations of the Jews unless they already have an awareness of themselves as a race with its own interests?
First whites must accept the fact that race is the foundation on which our social, cultural, and intellectual life is built. Any profound shift in the racial foundation of society will lead inevitably to the transformation of the immense sociocultural superstructure that we call Western civilisation. So long as whites accept the notion that culture may be divorced from its organic foundation, they have no reason to oppose anything that the Jews are allegedly plotting.
If antisemites truly cared about the white race, they would focus more on promoting race realism than inciting antisemitism. As it stand, they perform a great service to the liberal-minority coalition by lending credence to the false notion that pro-whites are a bunch of cranks and neo-Nazis.