Bigoted Antisemitic Crap


Recommended Posts

Here is a recent article from the NYT on the "unethical" practices of lending agencies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/business/economy/pension-loans-drive-retirees-into-more-debt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Is this the sort of thing you would condone in your libertarian Utopia?

I know it's not directly on topic, but if we're going to discuss the above story in terms of emotional leanings, I have a profoundly difficult time feeling sorry for the Greatest/Boomer generations who enjoyed a relatively higher standard of living than my generation can ever hope to have.

I'm glad you acknowledge this doesn't directly address my question, but I do agree with you. My generation and your generation are eating a shit sandwich, no doubt. But apart from your questionable invocation of the internet as the solution to information asymmetry, would you care to expound at greater length on the topic, by say, reading the article I posted as having nothing to do with public pensions?

Jewish economists like Rothbard and von Mises founded the Austrian (free market) school of economics that is the sole major opponent of Keynesianism today. Milton Friedman, another Jewish economist, was perhaps the most influentional advocate of markets and small-government in the 20th century. David Ricardo, yet another Jewish economist, was laying the foundation of laissez faire capitalism back in the 1700's before neoclassical economics were even on the radar. Two contemporary thinkers who have greatly influenced me are Russell Roberts, host of libertarian EconTalk, and Jonah Goldberg, conservative author of Liberal Fascism, which examines the historical foundation of modern progressivism. Both are Jewish. I could continue...

I genuinely appreciate your list of Righteous Jews, but I'm afraid your effort is wasted in light of the fact that you yourself admitted that Jews skew leftist/liberal in the vast majority of cases. Do we see that sort of skew among the gentile population? Nope.

Why do we see this pattern among Jews? There are several theories, but one in particular which I favor is that high intelligence is associated with the psychological trait of novelty seeking. Such an impulse can be a source of Good, but it can just as often (if not more often) be a source of disruption and chaos. As you said in another post:

I don't deny Birdman seems like an intelligent chap. However, some of the craziest lunatics I encountered in my chess tournament days were Mensa members. The relationship between intelligence and utility may not in fact be linear, but instead more of a bell-shaped curve with the maximum lying somewhere around 130.

I agree. There is no necessary connection between high IQ and Good Sense. The Birdman has characterized Mensa as "High IQ/Low Morals." It seems this would apply to our ruling class as well. Here is a good discussion on the topic:

The Stupidity of Intelligence

But I'm more interested in something else you wrote. If you'll recall, you originally said this:

He is correct that Jews have successfully established a high-trust culture among themselves (or should I say "ourselves," since many would place me ethnically within that group). He is also correct that Jews are doing a good job of out-competing most other cultural/ethnic groups because of said culture. Lastly, he is correct in concluding that this should be the end goal of other cultures that may not be performing as well.

But when I raised the possibility of fostering White "racial-consciousness" as a way of competing with the ethnocentrism of out-groups, you then changed your tune:

I agree that ethnocentricism (what I call racial clansmanship) is a huge cultural problem - especially if you're the one being excluded from it - but my approach is the opposite of yours and Birdman's. I want all ethnocentricism equally shamed and shunned as violative of modern notions of fairness and opportunity.

This reads like standard Objectivist boilerplate. At the risk of stretching an idea too far, I would submit that your about-face is an example of what "anti-semitic" professor of psychology Kevin McDonald has termed "jewish crypsis." That is to say, there are certain ideas promulgated by Jewish intellectuals which seem salutory at face value, but work in practice to undermine and deactivate the gentile immune system in the face of foreign threats, while at the same time serving Jewish interests:

Throughout his book, but particularly in Chapter 6, MacDonald deals with Jewish "strategies" concerned with responding to anti-Semitism in its various evolved forms. These seem to "cover the waterfront." Outright denial of Judaism ("crypsis"), Zionism, anti-Zionist assimilationism, adherence to Orthodox usages, appeals to universalism, individualism, and pluralism--all have been and are forms which Jews can and will assume to assure the existence of a group which, "since the Enlightenment remains fundamentally in search of a convincing rationale" (p. 275). This is not a religion; rather, a kind of organism, guided by tropisms necessary for survival and advancement.

For MacDonald, "the Jew" is indeed what Richard Wagner described such an entity as being, "the plastic demon." Moreover, as MacDonald sees it, Jews, while certainly isolated in some ways, never have been "marginalized." Indeed, due to their eugenically determined intelligence, their wealth, at least in the United States, has become extraordinary, their domination in certain fields, such as the film industry, indisputable, and their abilities as wire-pullers, unparalleled. This most racist of all peoples, at least in the Western world (following the somewhat questionable argument of J.L. Rather, who has written on Richard Wagner, Professor MacDonald sees Benjamin Disraeli as the father of modern European racism), will be able to assume a variety of strategies, defending pluralism being a crucial one. All the while, of course, Jews will be advancing their own interests.

It should be no surprise then that Ayn Rand nee Rosenbaum and Nathaniel Branden nee Blumenthal advocated for a species of extreme individualism which sought to strip away the warp and weft of personality tied into organic folkways developed over time.

Daunce (Carol) asked some time ago how U.S. immigration policy differs from that of Canada. Canada utilizes a form of means-testing in which immigrants are evaluated according to certain criteria. What she didn't know is that we have no such criteria in the U.S. And why is that? Because the minute anyone deigns to enforce standards as to who is "in" and who is "out", such an individual is immediately met with howls of execration from the usual (jewish) quarters, along with accusations of "racism" and "xenopobia" and how the individual in question is but a hair's breadth away from being a HitlerWhoWantsToGasSixMillionJews.

So, for example, we encounter this subconcious Jewish hypocrisy when they, almost to a man, advocate for a pluralistic society including intermarriage while at the same time ensuring their genetic cohesion through websites like JDate.

Or, we see Jews frequently in favor of open borders and unlimited immigration in the U.S. until the topic of Israel comes up -- then they are all of a sudden in favor of strong borders and exclusion.

The holocaust is inconvenient to his position, so he just pretends it never happened despite the evidence.

Not quite. Holocaust revisionists don't claim the Holocaust "never happened", but rather that it has been highly exaggerated due to wartime propaganda.

Growing up, I was educated with the Orthodox version of events: Hitler was a horned Devil wearing a black hat while twirling his mustache and who held an irrational hatred of Jews. On this version, Hitler was no different than someone who had arachnophobia and who lashed out in spastic fear upon encountering the objects of his hatred.

The truth is a bit more complex. Hitler had a fascistic concern for his people and his nation. He subscribed to a form of paterfamilas for his people and sought to elevate the country as a whole. The Jews, who traditionally never assimilated to their host nations, felt no common cause with him. In fact, they often economically supported his enemies. They were in effect a subversive element in his country.

For example, if I were starting a rock band, and the girlfriend of the roadie was secretly taping our jam sessions and leaking them to a competing band, it would not be "hatred" for me to exclude her from our jam sessions.

From my admittedly limited perusal of the revisionist literature, the main takeaway points appear to be this:

- the six million number is a myth. It is closer to 1 million, if not less

- Jews were not uniquely targeted during the war. Many other ethnies died as well

- there was never any executive order to "exterminate" Jews. Any talk of the "Jewish Question" was in regard to how to isolate them and reduce their influence.

- the Germans were desperate for labor, and the camps were forced-labor camps. There were courts set up to adjudicate disputes over the mistreatment of prisoners. The photos we see of emaciated bodies are those who died from starvation after Allied bombing destroyed supply routes to the camps

-- the so called "gas chambers" were simply delousing chambers meant to disinfect new prisoners. Zyklon B was not used to kill people, but to reduce the spread of typhus (which many prisoners died from)

I'm no historian, but these points seem reasonable. Why do I raise the issue? Apart from my taste for taboo subjects, I find it useful to demystify one of the biggest bugaboos in recent history. Disregarding for a moment the guilt-tripping and shakedowns to garner more money for yet another Holocaust museum ("there's no business like Shoah business"), the Holocaust has served as a "get out of jail free" card for the Jewish community for far too long. It is understandable that victimology is a fine way to deflect criticism from one's group. I believe this is the impetus for so much Holocaust hyperpole. But Gentiles are FAR too sensitive and good-natured. The moment they even _suspect_ Jewish malfeasance, a cybernetic program in their minds sweeps it under the rug in the service of "sensitivity" towards the historical travails Jews have suffered. I believe the time has come to pull that curtain back to allow the Jewish community to be just as subject to criticism as the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The six million number came from the records the Nazis kept. Deutsche Ordnung.

The Nazis made themselves very clear from the beginning. They set out to make Germany and any territories conquered and seized by German "Juden rein" free of Jews. Ethnic cleansing and genocide. And even if the number killed were "only a million" the Nazis and their active allies still damned themselves for eternity.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SB,

I detect an antisemitic tone to your argument.

I'm not talking about this particular thing or that, but the impression gained from a thousand small cuts.

It's OK to push the envelope, but OL is not for bigots.

If you want to do that, there are other places better suited to your collectivist notions and nudges.

Your methodology is about as Progressive as it gets. Nudge nudge nudge nudge nudge, then back off when the nudge goes too far. Wait a little, then nudge some more.

I'm not buying that crap as reason.

(Apologies to Ginny and Bob for moving your posts to the Garbage Pile, but you were commenting on garbage and your posts made no sense on the original thread.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I see behind the troll. I see a person disconnected from reality--and I mean that in a literal sense.

Look at his posts. Everything is about drugs and electronic media and parsing what others say. He's trying to use his mind, but he's in an alternate reality like World of Warcraft, albeit one of his own choosing based on the mood of the moment.

I haven't seen any direct reality in anything he has written.

And I see him constantly baiting others so he can make snide comments about their reactions. He likes it when someone gets outraged at something he says. This habit reminds me of a person pinching himself to see if he is awake.

I call this kind of mentality a remote control mind. If you don't like one reality, push the button on the remote control and change the channel. That works so long as the person is connected to the info-grid and has his drug dealer on speed-dial. Others carry his weight. He'll always eat and have shelter and a doctor to go to with a magic pill to make the boo-boo go away (until the magic pills stop working, of course).

I actually feel sorry for a person like this. When the shit hits the fan for real and someone comes booming into his house to bust his head wide open--for real, not for intellectual masturbation--he's lost.

Deer in the headlights.

This guy writes words like "Holocaust" and "Nazi" and "Jew" and so on, but it's all floating abstractions based on trying to use a mind (and an apparently intelligent one) disconnected from reality. He has no idea what watching someone die by murder is like. I don't think he's ever smelled a rotting corpse. All he's got is electronic media and he can change the channel on that when it gets boring. Or he has the accounts of others in abstract books and discussions he can turn on and off at will.

That's all he's ever known. I can't say that for certain because I don't know his history, but judging from his presentation, my evaluation is a real safe bet.

I haven't given up on him, yet.

But my pity is turning into something else.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even as someone SB considers "Jewish" (although I don't personally identify as such), I don't have any fundamental problem with discussing anti-semitism, race-based social movements, or related topics here. There are certain insights to be found in what SB has to say - such as the value of a high-trust culture - but much of the core anti-semitic reasoning does fall into the category of "bigoted crap" that isn't worthy of serious consideration. I've noticed that blatant logical fallacies and tautologies (e.g., "All Jews are bad, except those who aren't" -type arguments) are tolerated by the practicioners of such ideologies based on what appears to be little more than the radical appeal of an outside-the-mainstream viewpoint. It isn't logically possible to argue against such tautologies, where every "bad Jew" is chalked up as confirmation and every "good Jew" is an exception, so the value of the conversation will be inherently limited by that framework.

Rules are necessary to some degree, and censorship can be justified provided that the moderator is up-front with expectations and consistent in enforcement. I'm a bit sensitive on the issue because I was labeled a "troll" on the progressive blog where I used to comment (simply for disagreeing with them), then later banned on the basis that I had "libeled" a local teacher's union that just happened to be a major advertiser on the blog (the "libel" consisted of a widely reported criminal conviction of a union leader). In light of that experience, I'm perhaps more hesitant than most to urge banning of "trolls" or censorship of "offensive" content. But this is something MSK can sort out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RB,

It takes a lot for me to ban.

I don't blame you for sticking up for your bud.

The dude's way out of his mental capacity range on this one, though.

And if we are going to start playing propaganda games, I'm not a master yet, but I'm good enough to keep the crap out of the good thing we have going here on OL.

Ideas are good, even way out ones.

Propaganda presented as ideas is not good. And I know a lot of the techniques. If you ever become interested in this, I can suggest a butt-load of material--and it's all easy to learn.

Propaganda is not reason.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

As most students of "religious" prejudice eventually perceive, there is an undercurrent of God has a plan for us.

The Calvinists opine about those predestined for elevation to salvation*. In Judaism there is the concept of the "chosen people**."

Can anyone rationally defend these positions?

A...

* Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/predestination.htm

**

In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covernant with G-d. Most Jews hold that being the "Chosen People" means that they have been place[d sic] on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. Traditional proof for Jewish "chosenness" is found in the Torah, the Jewish bible, in the Book of Deuteronomy (chapter 14) where it says: "For you are a holy people to Hashem your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth." In the Book of Genesis (chapter 17) it also written: "And I [G-d] will establish My covenant between Me and you [the Jewish people] and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you."

This tradition of "chosenness," though, has often provoked antagonism from non-Jews.

In the 1930s, as the Nazis were tightening the noose around the necks of German Jews, George Bernard Shaw remarked that if the Nazis would only realize how Jewish their notion of Aryan superiority was, they would drop it immediately. In 1973, in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, Yakov Malik, the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, said: "The Zionists have come forward with the theory of the Chosen People, an absurd ideology. That is religious racism." Indeed, the most damaging antisemitic document in history, the forgery known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is based on the idea of an international conspiracy to rule the world by the "Chosen People."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/chosen_people.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

As most students of "religious" prejudice eventually perceive, there is an undercurrent of God has a plan for us.

The Calvinists opine about those predestined for elevation to salvation*. In Judaism there is the concept of the "chosen people**."

Can anyone rationally defend these positions?

A...

* Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects) who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.

http://www.calvinistcorner.com/predestination.htm

**

In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covernant with G-d. Most Jews hold that being the "Chosen People" means that they have been place[d sic] on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. Traditional proof for Jewish "chosenness" is found in the Torah, the Jewish bible, in the Book of Deuteronomy (chapter 14) where it says: "For you are a holy people to Hashem your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth." In the Book of Genesis (chapter 17) it also written: "And I [G-d] will establish My covenant between Me and you [the Jewish people] and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you."

This tradition of "chosenness," though, has often provoked antagonism from non-Jews.

In the 1930s, as the Nazis were tightening the noose around the necks of German Jews, George Bernard Shaw remarked that if the Nazis would only realize how Jewish their notion of Aryan superiority was, they would drop it immediately. In 1973, in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, Yakov Malik, the Soviet ambassador to the United Nations, said: "The Zionists have come forward with the theory of the Chosen People, an absurd ideology. That is religious racism." Indeed, the most damaging antisemitic document in history, the forgery known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is based on the idea of an international conspiracy to rule the world by the "Chosen People."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/chosen_people.html

It turns out that the Jews for "chosen" to fulfill a teaching assignment. Specifically it was their job to convince the rest of Mankind to obey the seven Laws of Noah which are a subset of the 613 commandment G-D set for the Jews. They are the basic laws necessary for living peacefully in societies.

From the wiki article:

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are:[6]

  1. The prohibition of Idolatry.
  2. The prohibition of Murder.
  3. The prohibition of Theft.
  4. The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
  5. The prohibition of Blasphemy.
  6. The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
  7. The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are:[6]

  1. The prohibition of Idolatry.
  2. The prohibition of Murder.
  3. The prohibition of Theft.
  4. The prohibition of Sexual immorality.
  5. The prohibition of Blasphemy.
  6. The prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.
  7. The requirement of maintaining courts to provide legal recourse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob:

1, 4 and 5 are no one's business in a free society, and, it does not answer my question. You merely provided some of the justifying voices in the echo chamber.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.