[PLEASUREMAN]

At the start of John Derbyshire's 2003 review of The Culture of Critique, he tells about hearing of a fellow conservative who got "the Jew thing" and was banished from society. Practically the only item of note in a very glib review, the anecdote stands out for its incuriosity. Derbyshire seems to shrug his shoulders and go with it: some guys just have a thing about Jews, guess I'll watch my step.

Left out of his anecdote and his review are conservatism's long history with "the Jew thing", including the prominent roles played by Jewish conservatives in defining it as a political mania (common on the Right) which they are obliged to exorcise. Modern conservatism is worried about a great many manias. When The Bell Curve was published, National Review filled most of an issue with responses to "the IQ thing" and "the race thing". If someone talked too much about over-extension of the military, that was "the protectionist thing". After the immigration rallies earlier this decade raised the profile of that subject, certain conservatives began to murmer about "the nativist thing" (or as Bill Kristol put it, "the yahoo thing"). And Republicans have long been convinced (bizarrely) that, if they can just get a handle on "the black thing", it's electoral victories from here until the heat death of the sun.

Modern conservatism, plainly, is watching what it says.

Of course the upshot of always watching what you say, and particularly watching for the expression of politically forbidden ideas, is that you stop saying anything very interesting. The party of ideas, as it hubristically fashioned itself in the 90s, is today not just the party of "no" but often the party of "no comment". If modern conservatism has a solution to anything, it's about time to speak up.

This isn't a review of MacDonald's book, because I haven't read it yet--I've only read the preface (which is enough for me to conclude that Derbyshire never got that far). As far as I have gotten, I can mainly only say that MacDonald believes that Jews, in contrast to Europeans, pursue a collectivist or endogamous group strategy, which may or may not be influenced by genetic phenotype, and which has caused them to dominate Western countries which, pursuing an individualist or exogamous group strategy, are specifically vulnerable to this form of domination. Culture of Critique is supposed to present several recent historical movements affiliated with Jews and describe how they fit into this concept of conflicting group strategies.

I expect it to be an interesting read, but I'm more interested in how we've gotten past the events of the 20th century without a serious body of scholarship critically examining the dominant role that Jews have played throughout. I'm interested in how we got to the point where, in 21st century America, mild criticism of Jewish culture is career-imperiling--particularly when at the same time Jews themselves hold disproportionate power in politics and media (contrast them with, say, Asians or high IQ WASPs).

I express these questions as one who, at the start of his adult life, could fairly be called philo-Semitic, but who eventually became disillusioned by the way certain guardians of Judaism have comported themselves on the field of argument. It's not just that it's unsporting to get people fired by way of a whispering campaign for criticizing Israel. Or that it's bad form to badger ISPs into blocking websites that say unkind things about your ethnicity. (This being a kind of Talmudic stance on the first amendment: since we're a private group we have no legal responsibility to uphold the value of freedom of speech, and what is legally permissible is therefore morally permissible.) Or that, under normal circumstances, observing a field in which a majority of important positions are held by an ethnic group that makes up 3% of the general population might raise concern about ethnocentric nepotism. It's the great cloak of silence over the question of Jewish influence, the regarding of it as a refuge for malcontents despite it's obvious reality, which in itself confirms that this influence is not a net plus. Because, strange as it may seem, you rarely have to pressure people into behaving in their own interests.

It's also an interesting subject in that certain Jews (I do not claim they are representative) are jealous of their influence to an extent that jeopardizes it, by virtue of their bullying tactics. As we look forward to a period of certain upheaval in the coming years, the risk seems all the greater to an endogamous ingroup that has amassed a great deal of wealth and power--that is what the pitchfork mobs usually turn up for.

[PLEASUREMAN]

"That thing you Jew"...I kill myself

[nicotine stain]

PLEASUREMAN:

As we look forward to a period of certain upheaval in the coming years, the risk seems all the greater to an endogamous ingroup that has amassed a great deal of wealth and power--that is what the pitchfork mobs usually turn up for.

Long before conditions in America get that bad the ingroup will have exercised its right of return to Israel. Chosen People don't lose sleep over peasant mobs that are on another continent.

[antistoic]

nicotine stain, 14 October 2009 - 04:31 PM:

PLEASUREMAN:

As we look forward to a period of certain upheaval in the coming years, the risk seems all the greater to an endogamous ingroup that has amassed a great deal of wealth and power--that is what the pitchfork mobs usually turn up for.

Long before conditions in America get that bad the ingroup will have exercised its right of return to Israel. Chosen People don't lose sleep over peasant mobs that are on another continent.

If that point ever comes we could always just withhold the two billion dollars in financial assistance we hand them every year and see what happens. My bet is once their military is no longer the beneficiary of American taxpayer largesse and they don't have us to cover their asses during every major diplomatic crisis they'll be absolutely destroyed by their Muslim neighbors - truly a cause for celebration!

This post has been edited by mlad: 14 October 2009 - 06:41 PM

[PLEASUREMAN]

I think if you count aid for their socialist economy it rises to $2.5 billion, but I'm actually surprised it's that low. Anyway, I don't think Jews want to flee America, which accounts for about the same portion of the world's Jews as Israel does (40%), because this is their country, as in "the country that they have acquired".

By the way, behind Israel and the US in 3rd place is France with...4%. So basically it's Israel, US, and Miscellaneous. The option for them all to return to the mothership is not really an option.

I think one of the best things that conservatives could advocate is a rapprochement with Middle Eastern countries like Iran, which is not just smart foreign policy but could result in conservatism returning to a point where it is capable of being conservative (the Jewish influence has ostracized paleoconservatives and neutered social conservatives).

[Lookwell!]

PLEASUREMAN, 14 October 2009 - 07:01 PM:

I think one of the best things that conservatives could advocate is a rapprochement with Middle Eastern countries like Iran, which is not just smart foreign policy but could result in conservatism returning to a point where it is capable of being conservative (the Jewish influence has ostracized paleoconservatives and neutered social conservatives).

Can you expand on this?

[PLEASUREMAN]

Lookwell!, 17 October 2009 - 03:51 PM:

PLEASUREMAN, 14 October 2009 - 07:01 PM:

I think one of the best things that conservatives could advocate is a rapprochement with Middle Eastern countries like Iran, which is not just smart foreign policy but could result in conservatism returning to a point where it is capable of being conservative (the Jewish influence has ostracized paleoconservatives and neutered social conservatives).

Can you expand on this?

I'm not sure which part you mean, but it seems to me that post-Cold War our strategic interests are not in any way aligned with Israel's...we should be pursuing detente with Iran and developing closer relationships with other major oil-producing nations (for the short term, 30-50 years, our oil dependence will not be changing). Israel is not the only impediment there, but it is a big one.

And Israel has been an enormous impediment for American conservativism; as liberals turned dovish, American Jews naturally began to influence foreign policy on the Right, where their audience was more inclined to hawkish action. They also found natural allies in evangelicals. Once they settled in they began to de-conservative conservatism by advocating liberal free market ideas and neutering conservative social policy, slowly taking over the brain of their host. Most likely the only thing that will get them to leave will be a break with Israel-first foreign policy and the rapprochement I mentioned with countries that Zionists just can't tolerate. This will hopefully act to drive them back to the Democratic Party, which is their natural home. The Right, in this idealized scenario, can then focus on traditionalism and return to a skeptical attitude toward both government and market-based progressivism.

Unlike mlad, I think a capitalist economy is the only sensible type of economy, and I absolutely reject socialism and command economy solutions, however simply trusting that business interests will naturally and happily coincide with the interests of citizens and the country as a whole is not the mark of a sane, honest person. There is no reason why untrammeled capitalism could not injure traditionalist values, as of course is quite easy to demonstrate in today's world.

[George Hannibal Peppard]

PLEASUREMAN, 14 October 2009 - 08:01 PM:

I think one of the best things that conservatives could advocate is a rapprochement with Middle Eastern countries like Iran, which is not just smart foreign policy but could result in conservatism returning to a point where it is capable of being conservative (the Jewish influence has ostracized paleoconservatives and neutered social conservatives).

That would be a fantastic long term plan, unfortunately our allies in the region right now are the Saudis and if we cozied up to Iran too much they would have no qualms about kicking us out and then we would have no significant presence in the region (unless we wanted to occupy Iraq forever of course which is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons). Anyway, there's too much bad blood and culture difference and there is likely to be more for some time since we (rightfully) don't want Iran to have nukes and they are hellbent on acquiring them. Maybe in 20 years if Iran starts becoming more democratic and capitalist and the standards of living increase to the point where we can be a cultural influence on them.

[PLEASUREMAN]

George Hannibal Peppard, 19 October 2009 - 10:15 AM:

PLEASUREMAN, 14 October 2009 - 08:01 PM:

I think one of the best things that conservatives could advocate is a rapprochement with Middle Eastern countries like Iran, which is not just smart foreign policy but could result in conservatism returning to a point where it is capable of being conservative (the Jewish influence has ostracized paleoconservatives and neutered social conservatives).

That would be a fantastic long term plan, unfortunately our allies in the region right now are the Saudis and if we cozied up to Iran too much they would have no qualms about kicking us out and then we would have no significant presence in the region (unless we wanted to occupy Iraq forever of course which is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons). Anyway, there's too much bad blood and culture difference and there is likely to be more for some time since we (rightfully) don't want Iran to have nukes and they are hellbent on acquiring them. Maybe in 20 years if Iran starts becoming more democratic and capitalist and the standards of living increase to the point where we can be a cultural influence on them.

Iran is going to get nukes, that horse has left the barn.

Question is, are we going to let Israel talk us into a pointless staredown that we will lose? (There is more than one way to lose, and no way to win.) Iran isn't any more culturally different than India or Saudia Arabia are, plus there's a difference between thinking they can be stalwart blood brother allies and going into a cooldown detente phase--detente is better than making them implacable adversaries for no reason other than Jews get worked up about Achmadinejad. Also why exactly do we need a significant presence in that region, excepting our presence in Iraq which is due to expire not too far into the future anyway?

[George Hannibal Peppard]

PLEASUREMAN, 19 October 2009 - 02:00 PM:

George Hannibal Peppard, 19 October 2009 - 10:15 AM:

PLEASUREMAN, 14 October 2009 - 08:01 PM:

I think one of the best things that conservatives could advocate is a rapprochement with Middle Eastern countries like Iran, which is not just smart foreign policy but could result in conservatism returning to a point where it is capable of being conservative (the Jewish influence has ostracized paleoconservatives and neutered social conservatives).

That would be a fantastic long term plan, unfortunately our allies in the region right now are the Saudis and if we cozied up to Iran too much they would have no qualms about kicking us out and then we would have no significant presence in the region (unless we wanted to occupy Iraq forever of course which is a bad idea for all sorts of reasons). Anyway, there's too much bad blood and culture difference and there is likely to be more for some time since we (rightfully) don't want Iran to have nukes and they are hellbent on acquiring them. Maybe in 20 years if Iran starts becoming more democratic and capitalist and the standards of living increase to the point where we can be a cultural influence on them.

Iran is going to get nukes, that horse has left the barn.

Question is, are we going to let Israel talk us into a pointless staredown that we will lose? (There is more than one way to lose, and no way to win.) Iran isn't any more culturally different than India or Saudia Arabia are, plus there's a difference between thinking they can be stalwart blood brother allies and going into a cooldown detente phase--detente is better than making them implacable adversaries for no reason other than Jews get worked up about Achmadinejad. Also why exactly do we need a significant presence in that region, excepting our presence in Iraq which is due to expire not too far into the future anyway?

Iran is hugely different culturally than Saudi Arabia. Iran has an educational system, a nationalist industry base and an economy that is not singularly based off oil. The Saudis are a monarchy kept in place by petroleum sales. We just happen to be allies of the Saudis from some event that probably happened a long time ago, we're much more like Iran although really we're not that close to either. We have lots of bases in Saudi Arabia and our relationship is close pretty much only because it has utility for both countries, they get our support for their hugely outdated government model and they are the most receptive to us putting shit there. It's not "blood brother" shit, it's that they have no real reason to betray us. If we seek better relations with Iran, at least for the time being, they might.

It's nice to have a presence in the region because the Middle East countries are inherently unstable left to their own devices and an impromptu war because Salid fucked Al-Asami's holy camel would significantly raise oil prices worldwide and that would be especially bad right now. It was pretty fucking good that we had one back in 1991 when Saddam invaded Kuwait anyway, if we had to build entire bases of operations while the Iraqis were entrenching and mass murdering cities it would have been ten times harder to get them out, if we could have even done that through conventional means by then.

[PLEASUREMAN]

I could be wrong, but I thought the Iraq war was the point at which we established a presence in Saudia Arabia, which led to Osama melting down about it and targeting the USA as enemy #1 from that point forward. I was under the impression at the time that we had to massively build up bases etc. in that area to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

I can see relations with Iran being very cordial in 30-40 years if we stop listening to the Likudniks. Our foreign policy could certainly use a lighter touch in that region.

[George Hannibal Peppard]

PLEASUREMAN, 19 October 2009 - 06:37 PM:

I could be wrong, but I thought the Iraq war was the point at which we established a presence in Saudia Arabia, which led to Osama melting down about it and targeting the USA as enemy #1 from that point forward. I was under the impression at the time that we had to massively build up bases etc. in that area to push Iraq out of Kuwait.

I can see relations with Iran being very cordial in 30-40 years if we stop listening to the Likudniks. Our foreign policy could certainly use a lighter touch in that region.

We probably started a more massive buildup in '91 but per Wikipedia:

Quote

In 1951, under a mutual defense agreement, the U.S. established a permanent U.S. Military Training Mission in the kingdom and agreed to provide training support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. This agreement formed the basis of what grew into a longstanding security relationship.

So we had a presence there already and the most important parts of what we needed to house and ready troops, e.g. airfields, barracks etc.

I don't know that "lighter touch" is exactly the wording I'd use because even the civilized nations are full of crazies and extremists but yes, it would be good to try to get the few more advanced countries as closer allies for the long haul. Provided of course they wouldn't be using us as crutches and getting us into their wars since they have the support of the BMOC.

[Hank Heffner]

Couple points on your recent post.

You mentioned that it was 2 to 2.5 billion sent to Israel every year. It's actually around 15 to 20 billion.

See this interview of James Traficant starting around 4:40 (the whole interview is worth watching):

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0scNGzWfv8A

Also, you asked "how we've gotten past the events of the 20th century without a serious body of scholarship critically examining the dominant role that Jews have played throughout" and you're absolutely right in asking about this. Aside from MacDonald, there's been really nothing on this subject. One of the few non-MacDonald works on this is an excellent book called "The Jewish Century" (i.e. the 20th century) by the Russian-Jew historian Yuri Slezkine of Berkeley.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Yuri_Slezkine

Interview with Slezkine:
http://www.alumni.be...ri_Slezkine.asp

There is also the book "Two Hundred Years Together" by the late, great Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It was published in 2001-2002 (in Russian), but it still hasn't been translated into English because, well, it's "controversial," or at least the publishing houses and media circles have deemed it so.

http://en.wikipedia...._Years_Together

[PLEASUREMAN]

I think you hurt your credibility by using James Traficant as a source for anything.

[Hank Heffner]

PLEASUREMAN, 29 October 2009 - 09:24 AM:

I think you hurt your credibility by using James Traficant as a source for anything.

James Traficant for President.

[Probably Not]

Hank Heffner, 29 October 2009 - 01:41 PM:

PLEASUREMAN, 29 October 2009 - 09:24 AM:

I think you hurt your credibility by using James Traficant as a source for anything.

James Traficant for President.

[PRCalDude]

PLEASUREMAN, 12 October 2009 - 10:09 AM:

I express these questions as one who, at the start of his adult life, could fairly be called philo-Semitic, but who eventually became disillusioned by the way certain guardians of Judaism have comported themselves on the field of argument. It's not just that it's unsporting to get people fired by way of a whispering campaign for criticizing Israel. Or that it's bad form to badger ISPs into blocking websites that say unkind things about your ethnicity. (This being a kind of Talmudic stance on the first amendment: since we're a private group we have no legal responsibility to uphold the value of freedom of speech, and what is legally permissible is therefore morally permissible.) Or that, under normal circumstances, observing a field in which a majority of important positions are held by an ethnic group that makes up 3% of the general population might raise concern about ethnocentric nepotism. It's the great cloak of silence over the question of Jewish influence, the regarding of it as a refuge for malcontents despite it's obvious reality, which in itself confirms that this influence is not a net plus. Because, strange as it may seem, you rarely have to pressure people into behaving in their own interests.

It's also an interesting subject in that certain Jews (I do not claim they are representative) are jealous of their influence to an extent that jeopardizes it, by virtue of their bullying tactics. As we look forward to a period of certain upheaval in the coming years, the risk seems all the greater to an endogamous ingroup that has amassed a great deal of wealth and power--that is what the pitchfork mobs usually turn up for.

This is basically how I feel as well.

My original philo-semitism ran aground on the shoals of reality after I began interacting quite a bit with Jews and began actually paying attention to the sheer volumes of Jews associated with certain things (ie neoconservatism and immigration) and with certain fields (esp. punditry, banking and Hollywood).

Once one begins to pay attention to the ethnicity of people making certain statements, there's really no turning back. For example, I have another gentile friend who writes music for show business. He has been flat-out asked if he was Jewish prior to being offered jobs working for Jews. He now works for a talent agency owned by Ari Emmanuel. About 90% of the directors of that agency are Jewish. He even sent me a flier circulated internally in the company that announced a speaking event featuring a former IDF general on Israel.

I've noticed that criticism of MacDonald amounts to a swarm attack by Jewish pundits and academics. That, itself, does not disqualify the criticism, but it certainly makes it suspect. Combined with the fact that even Solzenitsyn couldn't find an English publisher for "200 Years Together" means that it's high time that I actually read MacDonald to further understand what I see with my lying eyes living in a heavily Jewish area.