Bruce Charlton, who is usually wise except when his religion gets in the way of reality, argues that the origins of the left are not in Christianity, but rather in secularism, that Christianity became corrupted into leftism by becoming secular, rather than secular because corrupted into leftism.
He is wrong. Christianity really is to blame. First Christians became leftists, then, being leftists, became secularists.
Christianity became corrupted, then became secular because corrupted. It did not become corrupted because secular. It was corrupt when it opposed New Testament style marriage, slavery, and supported the emancipation of women.
To argue that secularism caused the rot, you have to put the rot beginning around 1950, just as to argue that Jews caused the rot, you have to put the rot beginning around 1950, but the problem set in much earlier.  Bruce Charlton wants to argue that secularism set in many centuries ago. It did not. In the early twentieth century, the ruling anglosphere left was still Christian.
Even back in the beginning Christianity was always a little bit leftist relative to the egoistic morality of Aristotle (who argued virtue is cultivation of one’s own excellence) and Xenophon (who took for granted that virtue is to be honest and peaceable to those who are willing to be honest and peaceable, and virtue is to rob, rape, and slaughter in a courageous and manly manner those otherwise inclined)
Thus, when Christians pursued power through being holier than thou, they promptly proceeded to become lefter than thou.
The Puritans, from the execution of the Charles the first to the restoration of Charles the second were Christian, their major defect being that they were holier than thou. They were also leftists and the precursors of twenty first century leftism.
During that period they raised the age of consent, made divorce easier, and prohibited marriage as a sacrament. Marriage became completely secular, resulting in brief and symmetric marriage vows. No more did the wife promise to love, honor, and obey, and the husband promise to love, honor, and cherish. No more was marriage accompanied by a long lecture on the New Testament definition of marriage, presented in the presence of all the relatives and friends, including numerous patriarchs and alpha males willing and able to enforce that doctrine. (All this was reversed in the restoration).
The puritans did not like the New Testament doctrine that marriage was an irrevocable commitment to, among other things, sexually gratify one’s spouse regardless of whether you felt like it or not. They did not like people having fun, and particularly did not like males having fun, hence did not want a license for men to have fun to be a sacrament, did not want it provided with social enforcement by the congregation and spiritual enforcement by the priest. Puritans wanted to emancipate women because they were never very happy with men humping women.
The puritans were and are leftists, undermining society, killing the King, suppressing the display of excessive wealth, undermining marriage, and being general uptight killjoys who get offended by just about everything. Being offended is a power play. They are holier than me so supposedly I have to do what they say.
The puritans are what you get when people compete for power by competing to be holier than thou.
When priests get the upper hand over nobles and soldiers, they promptly start competing to be holier than thou, and in the process they pervert and corrupt their religion.
Christianity did not become corrupted by secularism. It became secular due to corruption – they pursued supposedly noble goals that were incompatible with the New Testament, in particular the suppression of slavery and the emancipation of women – noble goals that somehow wound up advancing their political power.
Abolishing slavery with fire and sword is arguably a noble cause. Defenses of slavery and justifications of slavery fail in practice to apply to all slaves, though they apply to some slaves. But it is a cause entirely incompatible with the New Testament, which mildly encourages Christians to free their own slaves, and to look the other way when runaway slaves pass by, but forbids slaves to run away, and forbids Christians to interfere with the property of slave owners, even if they do not have to too actively assist in enforcing the property rights of slave owners. The Old Testament prohibits wrongful enslavement, but implies that debt slavery and the enslavement of defeated populations that stubbornly and incorrigibly refuse to surrender is OK.
When Christians adopted the cause of forcibly ending slavery, it was entirely predictable that they would soon demote Christ the Redeemer to Jesus the community organizer. A more martial religion could have adopted the cause of forcibly ending slavery, and still remained true to itself. Christianity could not.
“So the secular Right regard Christianity as a cause of Leftism and seek a cure of leftism by means of a non-religious social system; while the Christian Right see Leftism as a consequence of atheism, of secularism, of the abandonment of Christianity – and Christians seek a cure of Leftism as a consequence of, on the other side of, their number one social priority which is evangelism, mission, a Great Awakening, a religious Revival.”
Bruce’s statement here is interesting. I don’t see many on the right saying that the system can be cured at all. I certainly don’t see any advocating the removal of religion. Most of the right understand that religious nature is part of human nature even if a good chunk of the secular right is atheist. The only way Bruce could be coming to this conclusion is wants rule by his priests instead of rule by the progressive priests we see today.
The christens of the middle ages where quite smart to move away from the idea that Christianity could change human nature towards the idea that Christianity saves souls and puts forth the proper way to live, and that human nature needed to be managed. Both the eastern and western churches adopted this model and it worked quite well. Bruce sounds like he wants to repeat the disasters of the western Roman empire and progressive empire with his own set of priests in charge.
In the past I have argued with him that his favored theocracy (Constantinople) produced good results only because the King was on top of the priests. This limited the tendency of official religion to suffer from holier-than-thou disease, since it was a bad career move to be holier than the King. He, on the other hand, argued it produced good results because the religion was true.
But their social policies, their position on this worldly issues, was far to the right of his current church’s position. So if Constantinople’s religion produced good results because true, his current church must be false.
“to argue that Jews caused the rot, you have to put the rot beginning around 1950”
Basura. Shall we argue about the actual causes of the Spanish Inquisition?
Jews were locked out of the progressive anglosphere ruling elite until 1950, so were in no position to screw things up. Until 1950, the regnant left was explicitly Christian. Just as today you need to adequately pretend to be a leftist, back then you had to adequately pretend be a protestant.
What if Jews started the rot by infiltrating the totalitarian church?
There were no sinister Jews manipulating or otherwise influencing Cromwell’s puritans.
Outside the anglosphere, one can plausibly blame Jews, or “The Jews”, for all sorts of stuff, for example the Bolshevik revolution. But in the progressive anglosphere establishment, where were these Jews? One can observe harmful Jewish influence on protestant progressives, but the protestant progressives had the power and these Jews did not.
Everything bad that the communists did started with Jews doing it, but everything bad that the progressives are doing in the anglosphere started with protestants – and can be traced all the way back to Cromwell’s puritans.
“When Christians adopted the cause of forcibly ending slavery, it was entirely predictable that they would soon demote Christ the Redeemer to Jesus the community organizer.”
And this is why I still love you.
[…] A. Donald said: A more martial religion could have adopted the cause of forcibly ending slavery, and still […]
Always a good job right here. Keep rollnig on through.
Let’s be fair to the Puritans. They MOST assuredly did like men humping women, but only those who were actually married. They liked it SO much, that they had one of the world’s highest TFRs—in the ballpark of 10—until they devolved from Puritans to universalists. Universalists were basically Puritans minus most of their virtues but with even more self-righteousness.
The high TFR was characteristic of the american pioneers, not all of whom were puritan. The english puritans did not have a high TFR. The puritans made marriage no longer a sacrament – which meant that there was no longer a preacher preaching to the couple, in front of all the friends and relatives, that the spouses had an obligation to gratify each other. This substantially reduced social support for sex in marriage. Saint Paul argued, obviously correctly, that social support for sex in marriage was necessary to reduce sex outside marriage. Human nature being what it is, if the wife is not getting any, or the husband is not getting any, there is a good chance he or she will get it somewhere else.
A more martial religion might turn the tables.
[…] Origins of Leftism « Jim’s Blog /* ') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); document.write('') document.write(''); […]
Sorry, but you’re wrong. It’s the Jews.
Always was, always will be. They can’t help themselves. Subversive treasonous parasitic Jews. It’s kind of boring in a way, because it makes history so annoyingly simple, and yet it’s true.
Jews.
Look no further.
There were no Jews in Cromwell’s England and yet the puritans made war on Christmas, undermined marriage, undermined the male headship of the household, introduced easier divorce, higher age of consent, and denigrated the display of wealth. The Jews were not allowed into the regnant left until 1950.
Jim, are you an anti-Semite, and if not, why do you think your blog attracts openly anti-Semitic individuals? I firmly believe that the Jews have made enormously positive and disproportionate contributions to human development, and I would be amazed if someone as intelligent as you actually agrees that the Holocaust was a myth or that the self-flagellating Jews are all united, every one, in a vast conspiracy to enslave Gentiles.
The jews have done more harm than good overall, but this does not mean they are responsible for every evil as Bumpkin says.
Your implied assertion that Jim believes the holocaust is a hoax just because the blog gets a few anti-semitic comments is patently ridiculous.
My post implied nothing of the sort. I do not believe Jim denies the Holocaust; however, I assume people like Bumpkin must deny the Holocaust. Do you disagree?
While your misreading of my post is of little consequence, the broader question you raised is worthy of discussion: “Have the Jews done more harm than good?” I am genuinely interested in hearing Jim’s response, regardless of what it might be; I would not read his blog otherwise.
Overall, the intellectuals have done far more harm than good, and the intellectuals have been disproportionately Jewish, but the Jewish contribution was no more evil than that of other intellectuals.
When Jews promoted Marxism, they were trying to hop onto a bandwagon (socialism) directly created and pushed along by Puritans
One of the first socialist utopias was the Puritan settlement in North America, which predictably resulted in large numbers of Puritans starving to death. We are apt to forget that the first thanksgiving gave thanks for the economic consequences of abandoning socialism and reverting to capitalism
In a society in decay, the intellectuals will undermine the ancient wisdom accrued by experience, forgetfulness being a major cause and symptom of decay
Not a misreading, you knew exactly what you were doing. As to the question, I agree with everything Jim has already said.
Oh yes it did and you know it. You deliberately antagonised and then played dumb when called out on it. Indeed, “the jew cries out in pain as he strikes you” is quite apt in your instance.
Oh please leave, no one will miss you.
My blog attracts anti semites because here we are free to say the unsayable and think the unthinkable.
The Nazis are right wing relative to leftism after 1944, left wing relative to leftism before 1933. If it looks to you that everything before 1950 was too far right, and everything after 1950 was too far left, then it is rational to believe that the Jews did it since that is about the same time as Jews were allowed into the anglosphere ruling elite.
If, however, you think that Social Security is a dreadful scam, and women should not have been given the vote, then it does not look like the Jews did it. Rather, it looks like the Puritans and their successors did it.
Your kikery betrays you.
So, is it possible (and worthwhile) to quantitatively or qualitatively compare the good and bad things Jews have done, and what would be the result of such an inquiry?
Jews appear to be what they historically in Europe: good managers and handlers for the ruling class with no loyalty to gentile population. As such in general they act as exploiters of the general population on behalf of their masters or in their own interests. Jews especially excel in propaganda, fiscal exploitation, and taking the blame for the ruling classes policies.
When everything falls apart, our elites will toss the Jews to the mob to cover their own asses.
As elites have done before time and time again.
Hitler was elected in large part because Germans blamed, and still blame, Jews for the hyperinflation and ensuing hardship.
There’s a big time gap between the hyperinflation and Hitler taking power. It’s hardly a new theory, but E. Michael Jones says that AH mainly used the Bolshevik card against Jews. Likely the average German had no idea who was in charge in the USSR aside from Stalin, but Jones points out that Jews led the Bavarian Soviet Republic and the Soviet Republic that took power briefly in nearby Hungary. With the coming of the Comintern’s ultramilitant “Third Period” (1928-35) and then the Great Depression, Communism was again on the march and AH could point to the familiar figures from the last revolutionary outburst. Jones claims that the KPD of the time was heavily Jewish, but provides no citation.
You’re both wrong. Hitler was not elected because of his comments about the Jews. To most Germans, they were a side issue. The idea that Hitler’s program included the systematic extermination of “inferior” races did not occur to anyone.
German rhetoric about “living space” and national “self-determination” predates Hitler and the Nazis. Indeed, German leaders used comparable language to justify their aggression in WW1. All Germans accepted these basic ideas, and all Germans felt cheated by their loss in WW1. Moreover, all German intellectuals, from Kant to Marx to Nietzsche, promoted an irrational code of ethics that led to Germany developing the most extensive welfare state in Europe; and all German intellectuals, such as Martin Heidegger, supported Hitler. (In fact, intellectuals the world over either loved the Nazis or were unable to seriously contest the moral force of their propaganda.) Hitler was elected because he was the most eloquent, consistent, outspoken, and fanatical proponent of the radical nationalism and socialism all Germans believed was true–and because Germany was not humiliated and occupied after WW1 (thanks mainly to President Wilson). Germany was not a particularly anti-Semitic country, and Hitler’s obsession with killing Jews seems to have been a personal idiosyncrasy. Without Hitler, it’s doubtful there would have been a Holocaust.
Read The Eternal Nazi If Germans were not under the thumb of progressives, they would finish the job.
Similarly “the Tin Drum”, in which poor innocent Germans are brutally attacked by vicious Americans for no very clear reason, apart, perhaps, from having some good clean fun breaking windows.
American schoolchildren are taught that America is the most evil nation in the world, and German schoolchildren are also taught that America is the most evil nation in the world.
Have you actually ever been to Germany? This whole “eternal nazi” thing is so off-base, it’s off its rocker.
In addidtion, this Mr. Grim seems to be no stranger to a deranged hatred of a people whom he paranoically perceives to uniformally and permanently be his extended relations’ mortal enemy. Quite ironic, really.
The thing about intellectuals is that they think too much, and if they are of the paranoid type, they always sooner or later end up in an æsop about frogs and scorpions. Then they become scorpions more and more as they dig themselves into fearful fantasies of being the “eternal frog”.
The safe bet, as always, is that people are stupid and amoral and that the other amoral retards see that as evil in others and as innocence in themselves and their own.
The spectacle of humanity is best viewed with a mild disgust and ironic detachment, not with elaborate fantasies about the eternal plots everyone is always hatching against poor old innocent me.
I have watched “The Tin Drumâ€, which was written by and for Germans, by and for Nazis, and by and for the Waffen SS. In “The Tin Drumâ€, Kristallnacht is good clean fun. The viewpoint character Oscar personally embodies Germany, Germans, and the Waffen SS, embodies a confused and confusing mixture of guilt, innocence, and madness – with an improbably large proportion of supposed innocence. The US, however, is wholly satanic. In depicting German complicity in Nazism, his palette goes all the way from ivory white to very light gray. Subtle tones, however, are not required for the USA.
There is, of course, no trace of antisemitism in “The Tin Drumâ€. There does not need to be, since everyone watching sees the USA aggress horribly against Germany, and knows without needing to be told that this is because the USA is run by Jews.
Dang it. We defeated them. If the victors write history we should make them say, and teach their children, that we are the good guys. Arguing with Germans on the internet, it is obvious that in Germany it is entirely uncontroversial that the USA are the bad guys and Germans the good guys, though doubtless it would be highly controversial to say out loud in so many words “because the US is run by Jewsâ€
With respect, this interpretation is almost certainly wrong (in that it would require quite an incredible level of ketman in Günther Grass).
Grass, for his whole adult life, was a man of the new left, a member in good standing of the Sozialdemokraten. The SPD is an economic “third way” and, since the 60s, deeply cultural Marxist party. It is the leftist-burgeois managerial party; in short, it is the German Democrats.
As far as they are anti-semitic, they are not so much anti-semitic as they are anti-Israeli, and they are anti-Israeli because they are pro-Palestinians. They are pro-Palestinian because they are right-thinking Europeans who always favor the most revoltingly antinomian savages they can find. All right-thinking Europeans love antinomians because Foggy Bottom loves antinomians, and Europe is Foggy Bottom’s territory.
As much as I agree with your critiques of his proposed remedies, Moldbuggian analysis is so right on these points that wrong is not even visible from there.
The Tin Drum was written by a German for Germans, yes, but to show them what horrible monsters they are, and how much they need to go to the Frankfurt school to learn how to be human.
It was not written by a Nazi in any sense except that it was written by somebody who was drafted into institutions of a totalitarian party since he was a citizen of a totalitarian state. It was not written for Nazis, period. There is no real organized Nazi voice anywhere in Germany so far, no matter how hard the EU seems to try to prove to the Germans (by sheer bureaucratic emergent insanity and ineptitude) that they are the Ãœbermenschen who carry the world. If a militantly nationalist movement reemerges in Germany, it’s not because Germans are eternal Nazis, but because the whole of political Europe treats them as wallets who must bend over without complaint.
It was written by the Waffen SS in the sense that Grass was drafted into the Waffen SS as a boy towards the end of the war, and for the Waffen SS in the sense that a lot of Germans of his generation had the same happen to them.
Yes, but it’s a narrative viewpoint that is openly despicable. Oscar does stand in for Germans, certainly, but it’s to tear down Germans, to shell them into submission for reeducation. It’s much the same thing as the novels taught in American universities, where Americans that are not utter SWPLs are invariably evil. Oscar is the first-person narrator, but he is not at all a sympathetic character.
As for innocence, maybe the translation of the film was weak, but in German, Oscar is a sociopathic little wretch; a Peter Pan who refuses to grow up no matter what he has to do to others to achieve it. If anything, he transparently plays at youthful innocence to get his way.
In a way, he’s a very ’68er character, but fascination with the revolting and self-revulsion is not exactly a strange theme to (especially, new) leftists!
Frankly, I have no idea how you would arrive at that interpretation of either the film or the book.
Well, your New Dealers defeated them, and they taught German children to feel about America just about how the new leftists who came in the wake of the New Deal administrators who defeated them felt about America.
And now you wonder why they’re anti-American. “Are you for real?”, as the kids say these days.
The official German opinion is quite anti-German, by the way. Look at how they treated Sarrazin for saying true things about 3rd world immigration. The popular opinion is quite different, of course. Now tell me – how does that differ from the situation in the US, again?
Saying that America is evil because it is controlled by Jews, BTW, would not be “controversial” in Germany, it would be your immediate exit from polite society on any level, not just the anti-German elites. Outside the elites, you can doubt whether it’s a great idea to import barely-literate Turks who breed like rabbits on the German dole, but you really shouldn’t mention anything negative about Jews if you want to have people to talk to over there.
Errata:
Should end with a period.
“The official German opinion…”
Something completely different: Some of the comments on your blog posts don’t show a reply link. Posts can still be replied to by pasting a reply link and exchanging the comment ID in the URL, but it’s somewhat annoying. Happens for me in FF16 and mobile Safari in iOS 5; haven’t tried others. Which posts start having no links is not immediately apparent to me, but everything downstream from them in a thread seems to be affected.
Grass was in the Waffen SS, which primarily engaged in use of political force, for example running Dresden.
You seem to presuppose that there is a significant difference between the new left and Nazism. They are much the same thing, as Hitler alternately acknowledged and denied. Look at the ACLU. They are New Leftists and Nazis both.
That progressives are frequently Nazis is an open secret, like the fact that all our recent presidents have taken illegal recreational drugs.
Grass was not only a man of the new left his whole adult life. He was also member of Hitler’s Waffen SS, and it shows. It was obvious to me watching the movie that he was a mainstream Nazi. The movie said as much, in that its obviously autobiographical viewpoint character was a mainstream Nazi.
And like a great many Germans, he still is a Nazi. Since Nazism is pretty much the same thing as progressivism, it is easy for Nazis to pass, even though Nazism is absolutely forbidden, and progressivism is mandatory. It is similar to the way in which Mexican Indians pass as Roman Catholic Christians, despite a tendency to depict the saints on the walls of their churches as having tentacles and eating people.
His depiction of the allies in World War II as the bad guys is as obvious a tell as the cannibalistic Cthulhu looking saints in Mexican churches. Real progressives think the allies were the good guys, just as real Roman Catholics think their saints were gentle, humble, and humanoid, rather than cannibals with tentacles.
Nazism is illegal. Openly admitting that your progressivism is in fact Nazism would be your immediate exit from polite society on any level – because polite German society knows full well that their progressivism is in fact highly illegal Nazism – and so does the ACLU.
To show what monsters they are, Oscar should be smashing windows belonging to real people who get hurt, rather than windows belonging to faceless evil anti german capitalists. In the movie, it is only the allies that hurt real people – which in turn implies that Jews are not real people.
The standard progressive trope is to depict the in group as non people, and the outgroup, such as the underclass, as real people, so that the reader is encouraged to identify with people who are not like himself, and refrain from identifying with people who are in fact like himself. Thus Oliver Twist is a completely middle class child despite underclass background, while Fagan is completely underclass despite being prosperous, thrifty, and industrious. Thus the middle class reader of “Oliver Twist” identifies with the underclass against the middle class.
In the Tin Drum, Germans are depicted as real people, and the people whose windows get smashed on Krystalnacht as unreal people. This is exactly the opposite of progressivism.
But Oscar, which is to say German Nazis, is a real person, whereas the people whose windows he breaks (Jews) are not real people.
This is absolutely backwards from the progressive approach, which from Oliver Twist onwards wanted middle class people to identify with the underclass, and not with the middle class.
We identify with the sociopathic Oscar. We don’t identify with the Americans or Jews. In this, the Tin Drum echoes the methods, intention, and effect of Nazi propaganda, rather than progressive propaganda. In so far as “The Tin Drum” is progressive propaganda, it reveals the commonality between progressivism and Nazism. Smashing Jewish windows is fun, and no one real gets hurt. But when the Americans viciously attack the poor Germans, real people do get hurt. You have doubtless seen much the same perception when Palestinians rocket Jews – but in “the Tin Drum”, Nazis, not Palestinians, are getting the treatment progressives award savages.
Perhaps the Germans were worried about the consequences of the Communist takeover. By 1932, the Ukrainian famine was underway and perhaps the details were available in Germany.
Read Belloc’s the Jews. In 1922, he predicted great trouble looming up for Jews arising from the identification of Jew and the Commissar in European mind.
One thing I don’t see ever addressed is the the view of Jewish press in Central Europe towards the Bolshevik excesses in 20’s and 30’s.
If so, then attacking Poland, an enemy of communism, allied to enemies of communism was a seriously bad idea.
In retrospect, when Germany attacked Russia, we should have assisted whichever side was losing, as we did in the Iran Iraq war. But the reason we did not do that is that Hitler attacked us first. If he was scared of communism, should not have done so.
exploiters, not explorers.
fixed
Who are these elites? Do you think WASP blue bloods are still in charge?
This is a very good question. It looks to most people and to me as if the Masons (or, more colloquially, the WASPs) are no longer in charge of the US. Whether they are exactly in charge or not, the Jews are more powerful in the US than they have ever been before among Europeans.
As Red points out, Ashkenazi Jewish culture and genes are evolved for a particular niche: exploiters of the European proletariat/bourgeoisie/petty nobility in the service of the European greater nobility. They are not in that niche now, and it is questionable whether they have the right stuff for their current role.
He wouldn’t agree with this characterization, of course, but over at Mark Kleiman’s blog, this question has been a bit of a theme: What do we do without an Establishment? Viewed through this filter, he spends a lot of time wondering out loud what “us guys” are supposed to be doing in the absence of a greater nobility. Of course, he sees himself and “the good guys” more generally as horribly victimized by the fact that the US’s greater nobility has displaced itself. Or something.
Before the civil war and the Mormon war there was no US establishment. There were state establishments in each state, some of them progressive, of puritan descended religions, some of them not.
In the Civil War and the Mormon war the puritan descended establishment conquered all the others by armed force, and proceeded to forcibly convert everyone to puritanism, emptying out the content of non puritan religions and replacing it with puritan content. Observe, for example, how each and every nominally Christian religion drastically reinterprets Christ forbidding men to covet other men’s wives, as Jesus forbidding men to look at sexy girls. Shredding the New Testament and turning it arse over tit in favor of feminism and against male sexuality is a classic puritan heresy that was imposed at gunpoint on all America in the civil war, and subsequently, after World War II, on the entire nominally Christian world. Similarly they raised the age of consent in the entire Christian world, though in practice only for whites, and many countries only pretend to go along with this.
So from the civil war to 1950, the establishment was puritan, and any secularists were furtive infiltrators. Around 1950, it went secular, and thus allowed Jews in. But it did not go all that secular. Instead of rewriting the words of Jesus, they issued sexual harassment laws – another puritan heresy that goes all the way back to Cromwell.
Age of consent, destruction of marriage, and war on male sexuality are characteristic puritan, not masonic nor Jewish, causes.
After the civil war, but before 1950, the establishment pursued a policy of emptying out Christian religions of their original content, and replacing them with puritan content, Jesus the puritan. After 1950, the establishment pursued a policy of emptying out religions of their original content, and replacing them with secular content – Jesus the community organizer.
Before the civil war and the Mormon war there was no US establishment. There were state establishments in each state, some of them progressive, of puritan descended religions, some of them not.
In a sense this is certainly right. In a sense it is not. Power “lived” at the state level prior to the Civil War, so each state had its own court. But, these state elites did not have that much trouble cooperating to disposses England of the Colonies, and they did not have that much trouble cooperating to create the Constitution. The state elites and the military in particular were full of Masons. They were kind of like the European elites after WWII, separate but not all that separate—they had lots of common interests and beliefs and Freemasonry was the vehicle for expressing and propagating them.
The Masons and the Puritans were not particularly hostile to one another, and the Puritans did not always get their way—witness that the Masons replaced the system of heterogeneous established religions with religious freedeom, first de facto and then de jure and contra the desires of the Puritans.
Age of consent, destruction of marriage, and war on male sexuality are characteristic puritan, not masonic nor Jewish, causes.
Religious freedom, “meritocracy,” and “sticks and stones …” are characteristic Masonic and Jewish causes, however. Furthermore, there are glaringly obvious exceptions to the changes you point out for Jews. Hollywood is crawling with kiddie diddlers as are Orthodox Jewish communities; everyone knows this; and persistently nothing is done. Orthodox Jews retain relatively sane marriages, and the wider culture is curiously incurous about it. What the rules are exactly for guys like the Bushes I don’t know, since it is harder to see, but it seems likely they have similar exceptions. It’s hard to say, though.
It is permissible to criticize WASPs in public. You don’t go to prison or lose your career for criticizing Masons, though you do get to be a crank. For criticizing Jews, however, you risk career and potentially prison. So, it’s possible that Masons are really on the outs at this point. Puritans, though, are clearly fair game. “Puritan” is an insult. Even the post-Puritans are mostly fair game. Calling people PC enforcers is an insult, and one you can get away with. It does not carry anything like the stigma of being an anti-semite or even a Masonic conspiracy-monger.
I don’t know whether this asymmetry represents Jews’ feeling insecure in power, mere stylistic differences betweeen Jews, Masons, and Puritans, or actually greater power for Jews.
In the Civil War and the Mormon war the puritan descended establishment conquered all the others by armed force
I keep being annoyed by the fact that I can’t lay my hand on the source, but the US military, foreign policy establishment, and East Coast Establishment were dominated by Masons as late as the 20s. We were big fans of the openly Masonic government of Mexico during the Cristero War for this reason. There was no conquest of the Masons by armed force—I know you are not claiming this, rather you are claiming that non-Yankee state governments were conquered, which is clearly true.
Did they?
Is a system where you can belong to any church you like, and speak any religious doctrine you like, but you cannot really have influence and a position in government, nor the right connections necessary for many business and social activities, unless you adhere to the official religion, and in practice the unofficial religions trim their sails to the prevailing wind, religious freedom either de-facto or de-jure? Recall that was the system of restoration England, which everyone viewed as an established religion and unity of church and state, and also the system of the USA, which was supposedly one of religious freedom.
Seems to me that in the US we had heterogeneous state by state official religions, until the War between the States and the Mormon war, and thereafter we had one federal official religion, which, embarrassed by such a flagrant and blatant violation of the constitution, shed its Christian character, without shedding its theocratic and religious character, that the difference between Anglican established religion and US established religion was never very large. Anglican unity of Church and state allowed freedom outside the state, US separation of Church and state was in practice never separated. Before the civil war, the US had established religion at the state level, after the civil war, it somewhat furtively had established religion at the federal level, and still does.
But we don’t have religious freedom. Not sure what you mean by “sticks and stones …†As for “meritocracyâ€, that Jews and Masons are now allowed in, post 1950, implies that they tried to keep them out, pre 1950. Masons and Jews were systematically excluded from the circles of power – hence the furtive character of Masonic infiltration. The Masons were necessarily conspiratorial, and where they were successful, for example most architectural departments of most universities, they were an anti progressive conspiracy. If your university department is Masonic, it is marked less progressive.
To illustrate “religious freedomâ€:
That every religion trims its sails to the wind shows that there is less religious freedom in the US than there has ever been.
Tell that to Reverend Wright, or our officially moderate Muslim Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf Some anti semites are more equal than others.
You face imprisonment for nazism, not anti semitism. There is nothing anti semitic about the EDL, yet they get the standard treatment for Nazis – imprisonment, beatings, confiscation of property. Anti semitism is neither necessary requirement to be deemed Nazi and get the treatment, nor a sufficient requirement.
If dominated, would not have had the war between the states.
Masons were influential, and were and are neither puritans nor progressives – but puritans/progressives have had the upper hand.
Masons and Jews were systematically excluded from the circles of power
Masons were systematically excluded? The US was Masonstan for at least its first century and a half. What influence they still have I don’t know.
If Masons had the upper hand, why the civil war?
The Masons were, and are, conspiratorial. If someone in power systematically conceals the fact he is a member of X, we can conclude that there is some substantial and substantially effective effort to remove members of X from power and prevent them from getting into power. When masonic signs were made public, they were immediately changed, and systematically varied between one lodge and the next. In contrast, communist shibboleths have never been very secret, and were never changed. When I was in the left, I could pretty quickly tell who was on the Soviet payroll, but it is mighty hard to tell a Mason.
Therefore, efforts to keep Masons out of the establishment were and are a lot more vigorous than efforts to keep people on the Soviet payroll out.
No, we can conclude that the conspirators believe that if their conspiracy were to be made public then they would encounter trouble. That’s different from saying that there is an active effort to stop them.
The Masons are only semi-secret. Like the Bilderbergers. They are least secretive in the US, where there are tons of them and where the US officially embraces their world view pretty comprehensively.
I’m not sure how you thing the Civil War fits in to this. Are you saying the Masons are or were pro-slavery? I think not.
Masons were not, and indeed are not, particularly anti slavery.
Masons are a lot more secret than the Bilderbergers. You can find out who is a Bilderberger. You cannot find out who is a Mason. Indeed, they were and are a lot more secret that the Soviet system of agents, which was oddly unsecret.
If we ignore Jewish intellectuals, who are not worse than other intellectuals, the positive impact of Jews on human civilization is incontestable.
http://www.chron.com/life/article/Landers-Jewish-contributions-to-the-world-are-2065711.php
“It’s a free world. You don’t have to like Jews if you don’t want to, but if you are going to be an anti-Semite, you should be consistent and turn your back on the medical advances that Jews have made possible.
I am talking about the vaccine for hepatitis discovered by Baruch Blumberg, the Wasserman test for syphilis developed by August Von Wasserman, and the first effective drug to fight syphilis developed by Paul Ehrlich. Bela Schick developed the diagnostic skin test for diphtheria. Insulin would not have been discovered if Oskar Minkowski had not demonstrated the link between diabetes and the pancreas.
It was Burrill Crohn who identified the disease that bears his name. Alfred Hess discovered that vitamin C could cure scurvy. Casimir Funk was the first to use vitamin B to treat beriberi. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine. Later, Albert Sabin developed the oral version.
The anti-Semites who don’t want to accept these gifts can go ahead and turn them down, but I’m warning you, you aren’t going to feel so good.”
Before calling for a second Holocaust, read the following:
http://www.jinfo.org/Biomedical_Research.html
http://www.jinfo.org/Chemistry.html
http://www.jinfo.org/Mathematics.html
http://www.jinfo.org/Computer_Info_Science.html
Without Jews, there might be no Internet or computers, 40% of the global population might be unable to feed itself, water might not be chlorinated, and cancer treatment would be severely set back. Jewish contributions to physics, mathematics, and music are also hugely disproportionate. Perhaps the rest of humanity would, eventually, have stumbled along Jewish inventions or co-inventions, perhaps not.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/jewish-genius/
Jews have an unusually high IQ. The enormous benefits they bring to the countries that tolerate them–most recently the United States–are almost enough to make me believe there is something to the claim that they are God’s chosen people.
I’d add that although Marx was a Jew, he never killed anyone. Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin were not Jewish.
“Germany was not a particularly anti-Semitic country, and Hitler’s obsession with killing Jews seems to have been a personal idiosyncrasy. Without Hitler, it’s doubtful there would have been a Holocaust.”
Germany and all of eastern Europe hated the Jews. Every political party in Germany blamed the Jews for every problem all through out the democratic years before Hitler. Sometimes the Germans would conqueror an eastern European village only to find all Jews dead by the hands of the villagers. In Poland Jews where not allowed to join resistant groups because of hundreds of years of Jewish overseers oppressing the peasants of Poland through debt slavery and exploitation. In America Jews were the driving force behind the civil rights movement that has resulted in the destruction of many major US cities. Take a look at Detroit and tell me that was a good act by the jews.
Jews have done many wonderful things and many evil things, but that has nothing to do with why Jews are often hated and why they often hate gentiles. They’re never going to be loved by the gentiles because they do not view themselves as part of the local population and they act as such. When you don’t view the people you’re dealing with as your own you are going to prey upon the majority and mostly do what’s right for your group – screw the cost to the gentile population. That’s simply human nature and the cost of not integrating.
It’s not a unique function of middle man minority groups. Read the book “World on fire” by Amy Chua. You’ll see similar good things and very evil acts by other middle man minorities such as the Chinese in the Philippines. Jews are not some kind of totally unique phenomenon. They’re simply one of the more successful middle man minority group in history. Mormon’s might be middle man minorities as well. That might make an interesting study.
“If we ignore Jewish intellectuals”
How convenient.
While it is incontestable that the Jews have done far more good than harm if you ignore intellectuals, I believe this would still hold true if you count intellectuals. Jewish intellectuals are influenced by other intellectuals and vice-versa, but Jews are too small a part of the population for their intellectual ideas to universally mislead humanity unless humanity is eager and willing to be misled.
If we look at the current of bad ideas, there is nothing specifically Jewish about it, even though there a lot of Jews in that current: Bad ideas are passed from gentiles to Jews and from Jews to gentiles. Kant begat Marx, and Marx begat Pol Pot.
If the jews disappeared the modern west would be fine. If the modern west disappeared the jews would be fucked.
If the modern west disappeared, Israel could convert any Arabs that gave them grief into biodiesel.
I doubt it, but even if that were true the modern west would still be fine if the jews disappeared. Possibly even better off.
Because Hitler excluded Jews, and indeed “Jewish Science” he did not get the bomb. So he was not fine or better off.
His belief that Jews were disloyal to Germany was not correct, as demonstrated by the number of Jews decorated in the Great War. Had he instead believed that Jews tended to be disloyal, and merely subjected Jewish scientists to greater scrutiny, he might well have succeeded in his war aims.
Beliefs about groups are true on average, true of the typical member. On average an X is Y, a typical X is Y. Sometimes, given that it is hard to directly observe Y, it is efficient to assume all Xs are Y. The contributions of Jews have been so great that it is inefficient to assume all Jews are disloyal.
No. The Nazis would have lost either way. Hitler bit off way more than he could chew.
Ann Landers ?
The Jews didn’t do this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2222512/The-100-year-mystery-suffragette-Emily-Davison-threw-kings-horse.html
Neither Christianity nor Puritanism sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus. Christianity descended from Judaism, and the decision to cut the line of causation at “Christianity” rather than at “Judaism” is obviously arbitrary. In fact, some internet Nazis argue in exactly this way, argue that Christianity is just an epiphenomenon of Judaism and that the Jews should really get the blame. That is a much more reasonable argument than Jim’s, since Christianity really is descended from Judaism and is much closer to it than to leftism.
Cutting the line at Puritanism (as a way of absolving Jews of blame) is worse, since Puritanism was quite self-consciously Jewish. They explicitly identified themselves with the Jews and Israel. Furthermore, the continental center of this strain of Protestantism was in the Netherlands, where Jews were quite free, rich, and powerful once the Spanish were kicked out in 16th C. It’s not a coincidence that the Pilgrims fled first to Amsterdam. As a wise man once said:
The puritans did not like the New Testament 😉
The following is really wrong:
To argue that secularism caused the rot, you have to put the rot beginning around 1950
Secularism dates from much earlier than 1950 and was a feature of the European elite long before then. It’s not clear exactly when the modern Masons were founded or what percentage of the European elite were members or fellow-travellers at exactly which times (because is it a secret society which has never been pried open). But it predates 1950 by centuries. The US elite was not especially Christian at its founding. Those guys mostly had the sense to fake it, though. The European elite was transformed from mostly Christian to mostly not over the course of the long 19th C, though it had started evolving away from 100% Christian well before that.
Masons, Puritans, and Jews as agents of the left (or proto-left if you prefer) are not pry-apartable until sometime in the 20th C. Their interests were sufficiently aligned that there is little point in distinguishing them. They started to squabble after they had finished killing Christendom in 1918. Jews (or, more accurately, secularist post-Jews) went big for the USSR and central planning socialism in general. Masons did not. Post-Puritans were divided, with the ones retaining some of their Christianity not liking the USSR at all.
Monomania is not conducive to thinking about history well. It wasn’t all the Jews. It wasn’t all the Puritans. It wasn’t all the secularist secret societies.
Even back in the beginning Christianity was always a little bit leftist relative to the egoistic morality of Aristotle (who argued virtue is cultivation of one’s own excellence)
St Thomas argues same thing. Natural law is rightist. Utilitarianism is leftist.
There have always been Jewish leftists, and plenty of them. But until 1950, there were no Jewish members of the ruling anglosphere left.
Before 1950, Jews were just flatly excluded from the anglosphere ruling elite. Margaret Mead had sex with Bendedict to advance her career, not Boaz, which shows you protestants had the power, not Jews. Consider, for example, the antisemitic quotas at elite universities. Back before 1950, you could not go to an elite university if Jewish, now you cannot go to an elite university if not progressive.
There have always been leftists and rightists, and quite a lot of those leftists have been Jews. The question is, which leftists had the power, which leftists have been moving society steadily left since 1830? And the answer is faiths directly descended from Puritanism, who admired and sought to emulate the puritans that ruled after Charles the first and before Charles the second, who pursued the same left wing causes, such as war on Christmas, as those puritans pursued. That is not 100% of leftists, but it is 100% of leftists with the power to engage in social engineering and make their enemies afraid. Reading ninenteenth century conservatives, it is evident that they were afraid, and from time to time they would specifically identify those who they feared. British conservatives feared the power of “Exeter Hall”, a specifically and explicitly Christian organization.
There have always been Jewish leftists, and plenty of them. But until 1950, there were no Jewish members of the ruling anglosphere left.
I roughly agree, though I think “no” is too strong, and 1950 is too late, and “ruling” is being used narrowly.
But this does not mean Jews were not influential. After the Templars were suppressed, finance eventially came to have a heavy, wealthy Jewish representation. This position was parlayed into political power in the usual way. Because of the nature of the business, financiers have to have a special interest in politics. They are especially dependent on contract enforcement, and rulers inevitably are important clients. This gives financiers influence wildly out of proportion to population representation.
Another channel was through Protestantism. For theological reasons, Protestants have a tendency to philosemitism, and Jews have had lots of influence on Protestantism, especially its crazier variants. And to see the problem with counting heads, consider a statement like “There are no Jews among Protestant ministers; therefore, Jews are not influential in Protestantism.” That would be crazy-talk. Dispensationalism is hugely influential in Anglo-Protestantism and is an important marker and cause of Jewish influence.
Yes, sinister bankers were disproportionately Jewish, and always have been and in this way disproportionately influential. But when one looks at a major financial disaster, whether pre 1950 or post 1950, the Jews are not the big players: The Irish disaster was Irish, the Icelandic disaster was Icelandic, and the recent US disaster was Countrywide (“Hispanic”), Washington Mutual (the usual well connected suspects), and, of course, Freddie, Fannie, and HUD. People focus on Goldman Sach, but that is not where the money was pissed away.
What were the Jews doing in relation to Countrywide? They were managing the transfer of wealth from Americans to Hispanics under the supervision of hispanics. They were menials, then as now. Well paid menials doing other’s bidding.
What particular identifiable Jews influenced dispensationalism?
Seems to me that dispensationalism is a plausible and rational interpretation of the bible, not a response to pressure and influence.
They were menials, then as now. Well paid menials doing other’s bidding.
That’s crazy. As a description of Jews in most of Europe before the 19th C, it’s true. As a description today, totally nuts.
We see Jews in the reserve bank, and Jews at Goldman and Sach, but where was the money pissed away?
It was in substantial part pissed away at Countrywide and Washington Mutual, where Jews, if there were Jews, were underlings.
Crown Heights pogrom: Jews in the establishment respond by hastily demonstrating their loyalty to progressivism, rather than progressives hastily demonstrating their anti anti semitism. When anti anti semitism was actually needed, suddenly there was not any.
I’m not sure what you are getting at with the mortgage meltdown. The shareholders and most of the employees at the various big originating banks were losers in the meltdowns. A few high level executives were winners. The biggest winner was definitely Goldman Sachs. They had one competitor, Lehman, destroyed in an already pretty concentrated industry. They made boatloads of money packaging loans. There is no serious doubt that they committed securities fraud as packagers. They were protected from loss by the AIG bailout. They did not lose money, and pretty much all of their employees and shareholders did well. They won. And it surely is not a coincidence that their guys were running Treasury at the time.
One Jew was killed during the Crown Heights riot, right at the very beginning. Police response was significant, not noticeably weaker than police response to any other riot since the sixties. I don’t get what you are on about. There was nothing anti-semitic about the response to the Crown Heights riot. For myself, I’d have preferred a much more violent response both to that riot and to a number of others of similar vintage, but so what?
Mozillo personally and individually made a couple of hundred million from affirmative action mortgages. The regulators were in his pocket because he bribed them, because he was Hispanic, because he zealously preached and practiced the one true faith, and, most of all, because his loans were politically correct. Who is the Jewish equivalent?
A lot of Jews beaten up while police sat around like potted palms. The guys who murdered Yankel Rosenbaum were treated as heroes, and never punished, and the politically correct response to the riot, which response most Jews fearfully pretended to go along with, was that the Jews were equally to blame.
While other riots and rioters were also indulged, this riot was indulged to an extraordinary extent. That some people in the progressive establishment are quietly anti semitic is no secret, but that they are quiet could be interpreted as demonstration of Jewish power. That the guys who murdered Yankel Rosenbaum got off, and progressive Jews bit their tongues and remained silent, shows Jewish powerlessness.
If Jews had power, Lemrick Nelson, who very publicly murdered a Jew out of loudly declared anti semitism, and was then very publicly endorsed with various anti semitic statements, such as “Hitler did not finish the job”, would have received one hundred times the treatment that Zimmerman is getting.
> In fact, some internet Nazis argue in exactly this way, argue that Christianity is just an epiphenomenon of Judaism and that the Jews should really get the blame.
Yes the biggest one is “88nietzsche69”, who proposes that Saul/Paul and others were subconsciously motivated to attack the Roman Empire. –No wait, that was the actual Prof. Friedrich W. Nietzsche, b. 1844, excuse me.
Mencken or anyway the young Mencken considered this notion ridiculous.
Others read N’s antichristianity as almost exclusively a function of his judeoskepticism, or vice versa, but these takes are untenable prima facie.
> Monomania is not conducive to thinking about history well. It wasn’t all the Jews. It wasn’t all the Puritans. It wasn’t all the secularist secret societies.
Much agreed. Things were kind of bad. They got a lot worse. They could have just stayed bad. –They didn’t.
Okham ‘was right’. –But that doesn’t mean one has to be a super-occamist.
I’m sure the Krauts have their defects… they also produced The Most, IMHO. The highest and greatest achievements in universal history. I am hardly belittling other achievements, of which there exist kind of a lot.
> until 1950, there were no Jewish members of the ruling anglosphere left.
Greg Johnson and the like will tell you that they had plenty of power round Wilson, plenty. Not sure what MacDonald will assert. I don’t claim to know. –But I am in vague sympathy with the /spirit/ of your assertion that there was a pretty big change sometime after the second war.
Johnson will go on to tell you Ashkenazim are highly organized for power. This isn’t very true, Ashkenazim are in a pretty seriously decadent position, though not quite as bad as Europeans.
> I’d add that although Marx was a Jew, he never killed anyone. Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin were not Jewish.
Yet Jews present on the scene (not Marx) were very important to starting the Russian civil war and the USSR. You are under-genuous or under-informed.
Astonishing or not, the fact that Jews did tons of cool shit is uncontested by lots of people generally skeptical of them. I’m not even really that ‘skeptical’ — all I can say is, “we’ve got problems”, and we risk being left with not much that’s highly valued by either one of us.
Also, I’m pretty near sure that Marx explicitly called for uninhibited ‘political terror’.
Now, my own quasi-hero Nietzsche did the same — beyond any doubt.
And, once in power, proceeded to purge each other. Russian communism was antisemitic because it was largely Jewish. The left hates itself.
> Back before 1950, you could not go to an elite university if Jewish, now you cannot go to an elite university if not progressive.
A /bit/ hyperbolic… though since you refer to the quotas, I don’t think you actually mean to misrepresent the truth at all.
I am fairly sure, not certain, that the quotas were ‘generous’ to the extent that they didn’t depress the Jewish fraction of Harvard/Ivies below, nor super-close-to, the Jewish fraction of the population.
Yes, the quotas were above population representation. Of course, today, Ivies wring their hands publicly if their classes are less than 25% Jewish. But, to be sure, the Masons have their legacies and their secret societies on campus. And, being a wacky post-Puritan is good for your chances to get in. The people who don’t get in are sane whites from fly-over country. It is just stunning how underrepresented this group is.
> sexual harassment laws – another puritan heresy that goes all the way back to Cromwell.
And Hafiz was a lush and alluded nostalgically to the Zoroastrian fire temple in 14th C Persia. And there was a spectrum of sex-positive and sexually uptight gnostic groups in the 300s. Where Heraclitus considered the sexual solemnities of pagan Ephesus shameful in 500 BC. To me these are (mostly) just various eruptions of the great human Persona, though I do not deny some interlinkage.
Moreover, you can’t paint the modern Anglosphere as flatly anti-sexual. Who could deny that it’s hypersexual at the same time: you yourself bring up Mead and the determined assault on traditional sexuality in this very string. Both extremes are represented, but really, liberality and absurd cultural de-repression of sexual energy predominate.
Puritans were pro sexual at the same time as they were anti sexual: For example easier divorce (though still restrictive by modern standards)
More sex for top males, less sex for regular males – pretty much the same as progressives and muslims.
Anti-semite?!?
I’m not an anti-semite. Not in the least. Not at all.
But as Hamlet once said, I can tell a hawk from a hand-saw.
Ah but Bumpbkin you dared to criticize the chosen ones! It’s no surprise then that people like Jake get emotional in response.
Bumpkin claimed Jews are responsible for every bad thing that happens, everywhere, all the time. That is self-evidently absurd and anti-Semitic.
“Bumpkin claimed Jews are responsible for every bad thing that happens, everywhere, all the time.”
No I didn’t.* I said that the treacherous, poisonous, subversive, treasonous nature of Jews makes a great deal of history boringly easy to explain. That is not anywhere near claiming what you said I claimed.
There is a great, great, vast deal of historical evidence to illustrate that with respect to the Christian West (which is all I am concerned with), Jews are naturally venomous, poisonous, spiteful, envious, destructive, hateful, devious, scheming, toxic, subversive, and treacherous.
Prove me wrong.
btw, you’re pretty quick on the reply there. The ADL must cut you a nice check.
* — You see? You’re a lying Jew. You can’t help yourself, can you.
By the way, even after what I said, I repeat and I insist, I am not an anti-semite. Never was, ain’t now, never will be.
I’m just a student of natural history, observing creatures as they behave in their natural habitat. You don’t put cats and tweety-birds in the same cage and leave them alone together for a month, then come back and scratch your head in wonderment why the tweety-birds are all gone. Gee, I can’t possibly figure out an explanation.
There’s nothing remotely anti-semitic, not in the least, about what I’m saying. I’m perfectly serious.
The Jews that you complain about are progressive Jews. And progressive Jews hate Jews just as progressive males hate males and progressive whites hate whites.
If I were to accurately describe the feeding and breeding processes of a tapeworm, would that make me “anti-tapeworm”?
No, of course not. Insofar as my descriptions were accurate (and like anything else, they are subject to cross-checking), they would merely be contributions to the literature concerning a parasite which is not evil in itself on its own terms, merely harmful to humans. And insofar as humans care about their own well-being more than they care about the well-being of tapeworms, they would take the study under advisement according to their lights.
> I roughly agree, though I think “no†is too strong, and 1950 is too late, and “ruling†is being used narrowly. &&But this does not mean Jews were not influential. After the Templars were suppressed, finance eventially came to have a heavy, wealthy Jewish representation. This position was parlayed into political power in the usual way.
Right, and according to Benjamin Ginsburg this was going on pretty early in the British Empire. Major Jewish power in England (and honorary Anglosphere member France) may considerably antedate that in the USA.
Eric Kaufman (Jewish I believe) is someone I’ve often cited on the ~1924(?) immigration reform — and the several-year fight leading up to its enactment. He claims it was widely understood to be, at the high level, a battle of Jews vs right-Anglos.
Indeed it seems pretty obvious to me, from a few unsystematic whiffs, that the law itself was mostly /about/ excluding Jews. The complaint was that they were too different, having undesirable traits and a rather weak nature on balance, and were unassimilable ; the real message was that they were too powerful in nature and unassimilable.
Bumpkin accused me of being a Jew, even though I am not, which is something only an anti-Semitic Nazi like Bumpkin would do. He is right, however, to acknowledge that I am wasting my time by responding to his rants. Yes, the ADL really cares what you post in the comments section of this blog, so much so that they pay me to respond.
The cat and tweet-bird analogy is more logically a defense of Zionism.
“Bumpkin accused me of being a Jew, even though I am not”
No particular reason to believe you, champstein.
“which is something only an anti-Semitic Nazi like Bumpkin would do.”
What a broad and unthinking and ill-considered generalization. Why, it’s almost as if you had a material interest in saying it. Or an ethnic one. Oh wait, I forgot, you ruled that out by simply saying so, so now I’m obliged to believe you.
Nazi, my ass. It’s what you want people to think. Anti-semite, my ass, it’s also what you want people to think.
Let me ask you: within the depths of your ostensibly non-grasping, non-venomous, non-Asiatic mind, can you possibly conceive of a situation where a person would say seemingly unpleasant but yet truthful things about Jews, and yet have no ill-will towards them at all?
Does a nurse who administers flu vaccine have a pathological, irrational, deep-seatedly crazy HATRED of the flu virus? On a personal level? Or does she simply wish to not see people die of the flu this winter?
Your questions are weighted, and likening Jews to a parasitic virus is anti-Semitic, as well as profoundly ahistorical. But you insist you are innocent.
Conspiracy theorists refuse to acknowledge that they are conspiracy theorists. Genocide deniers reject the term. Like you, they are ashamed of their own position.
Your words speak for themselves.
Why does it matter if something is anti-Teutonic, or anti-Semitic? Oh, it offends various minds alright, or affects — often not the same minds. But so what?
It is wrong, in my judgment, because the Jews are hated for their virtue: For being an incredibly small part of the population that consistently outperforms larger groups despite genocide and persecution.
However, if Bumpkin really believes what he has written, then he should embrace the “anti-Semitic” label as a badge of honor.
It is wrong, in my judgment, because the Jews are hated for their virtue: For being an incredibly small part of the population that consistently outperforms larger groups despite genocide and persecution.
Anti-semitism is old—it goes all the way back to classical antiquity. It long predates over-representation of Jews in science, medicine, and etc. So, no, it’s not envy of their virtue which was not in any great evidence prior to the 19th C.
In Classical antiquity, Judaism was Old Testament Judaism, apt to be disturbingly homicidal, revolutionary, and warlike.
In classic times, was repressed for old Testament violence. Romans were pissed at Jews because they kept stubbornly revolting, neighbors were pissed because they kept ethnically cleansing. Talmudic Judaism is more peaceful and willing to coexist than old testament Judaism.
In medieval times, Talmudic Judaism was repressed as part of general religious repression. Everyone was supposed to subscribe to the official religion. That the Jews tended to be wealthy was considered a point in their favor. The view was that they might be heretics, but they create prosperity. That Jews got rich was assumed to make their neighbors rich, rather than making their neighbors poor. Back then, people generally did not believe in zero sum economics.
With the rise of leftism, then we get zero sum economics, and Jews are then blamed for being rich.
Yes, in classical antiquity Jews were disliked both for sharp dealing and for being violent crazies. In the Middle Ages, it was just for the sharp dealing.
Elites in the Middle Ages liked the Jews because they were good at extracting from the non-elites. Their wealth was desirable because it could be extracted via involuntary loans as necessary. I have no idea whether people believed in zero-sum economics back then, but it was a lot truer back then than it is now.
There was not religious repression of Jews, at least not as a general feature. The Church taught explicitly that they should not be messed with or forced to convert. Judaism got the same preferential treatment in the Middle Ages that it got in the Roman Empire. Both the Romans and the Christians demanded conversion more-or-less, except from Jews.
I see no mention of sharp dealing in classical antiquity, only that they were violent crazies.
In the middle ages, the only sharp dealing criticized is usury. To the extent that Jewish wealth came from other sources, notably estate management, it was fine.
“It is wrong, in my judgment, because the Jews are hated for their virtue: For being an incredibly small part of the population that consistently outperforms larger groups despite genocide and persecution.”
That is not the reason that Westerners have a problem with Jews. The reason is that Jews define their interests differently, and at odds with, the Westerners in whose lands they reside, and direct their considerable energies towards pursuing these ends which Westerners find detrimental. The secondary reason is that Westerners, being the rightful proprietors of Western lands (by definition as it were), mostly wish to simply live at ease within their homelands; but the constant agitation of the Jews towards ends destructive of Western static goals makes it impossible for Westerners to simply be at home, within their home.
Imagine what the Israelis would think if 30 million Chinese were endlessly agitating to gain entrance to Israel, and if every time a few thousand Chinese succeeded, they immediately began undermining Israeli interests and promoting their own. Imagine further than the difference between Israeli interests and Chinese interests was glaring, and a hundred miles wide.
As usual, pro-Jewish apologists are completely dishonest on this score. Why am I not surprised.
As for the rest of your tedium, I’ll repeat that I am not an anti-semite and certainly not a Nazi and don’t wish anybody any harm; and if Jews do not like being compared to parasites, then maybe they should consider that they should cease and desist from the behaviors which invite the comparison.
For a final bit, I’ll also point out that my perceived vehemence is simply a theatrical way of “exagerrating to make a point”. If honest discussion of these issues were more prevalent in the mainstream forums of American thought (which is absurdly, as usual, dominated by a loud and overbearing Jewish obsession with Jewish interests), then it wouldn’t be necessary to go to such rhetorical extremes. You’d find I am a reasonable man who doesn’t wish any trouble on anybody and who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Imagine, if you can be honest for a moment, what it took to push me to use inflammatory language like this.
I’d ask you to be honest about it, but I am already certain that you won’t be.
And I’m the prejudiced one.
Heh.
You attribute to Jews social cohesion that is not in fact observed. State Department policy is fundamentally hostile to Israel.
The elite is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews, entirely white, and hates whites, mostly anglophone, and hates anglophones, mostly American, and hates Americans and America.
Observe that progressive Jews, meaning most Jews except orthodox Jews, love blacks, even though blacks conspicuously fail to love Jews, and really really love Muslims, even though Muslims hate Jews. Observe the Jewish reaction to the Crown Heights Pogrom. Jews promptly blamed Jews. This is not the behavior of people who secretly rule the world, but of people desperately groveling at the door of progressivism begging to be allowed in.
Jews are incredibly eager to assimilate to the “mainstream” and have no loyalty to their fellow Jews. As the (Jewish) Henry Kissinger once remarked: “If they start sending Jews to gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern.”
Exactly so. It is not the Jews corrupting our Christian elite, our post Christian elite is corrupting the Jews.
> German rhetoric about “living space†and national “self-determination†predates Hitler and the Nazis. Indeed, German leaders used comparable language to justify their aggression in WW1. All Germans accepted these basic ideas, and all Germans felt cheated by their loss in WW1.
I believe Germans probably were aggressive in WWI. However, ‘living space’ was also a big concept in Polish nationalism.
The fact is German lands were full. France had a lot of unused agricultural land even in the metropole, but it also had an empire. The US, England, and Russia had vast empires with infinite natural resources of all kinds. Germany was positioned in the middle of all of the above, exposed to invasion, and I believe it is fairly poor in iron and coal, and certainly in oil.
Incidentally, these large empires were also acquired by ‘aggression’. The Turkics, Apaches, Zulus, Filipinos etc did not actually volunteer to get killed and/or dispossessed and/or subordinated — though I acknowledge that what happened was sometimes good, /by and large/, for the majorities of /some/ of those populations.
Germany then faced the endorsement of USSR by Wilson. It also faced the (mildly inchoate) Atlantic alliance. USSR became a sort of slave society and built a truly enormous collection of tanks. Presumably Germany could have supplicated to the Atlantics for protection against USSR, but the Atlantic kingpin, USA, seemed mysteriously down with USSR (whereas the good old boy types of West Europe wanted to invade and depose USSR, but lacked the funds to do so in the wake of WWI). Gosh, I wonder why that mysterious DC-Kremlin sympathy could possibly exist — well, there is more than one reason.
In short, Germany’s situation was not that enviable.
Now, I don’t wish to deny that the Kaiser imported V. I. Lenin into Russia, because that happened and I am not much of a liar.
Aggression in WWI? WTF are you guys talking about?
Germany attacked a bunch of countries minding their own business, in particular Belgium. Looks like aggression to me.
The proximate cause of World War I is that Austria/Germany issued an ultimatum to Serbia demanding all sorts of outrageous things on pain of invasion. Serbia agreed to concede those things, but Austria/Germany would not take yes for an answer and invaded anyway. Looks like aggression to me.
> What were the Jews doing in relation to Countrywide? They were managing the transfer of wealth from Americans to Hispanics under the supervision of hispanics. They were menials, then as now. Well paid menials doing other’s bidding.
You say one group served another despite a 30+ IQ difference.
The trans-Rio Grande swim team bears no guns, katana swords, tranq darts, full-body latex Anglo or Korean suits, stink bombs, Mossad-quality fake passports, ghost shirts, or cacti on mesquite poles. They infiltrate under brahmin mind-ray air cover. They also autographed some of the world’s most hilarious pieces of paper under mind-ray cover, having zero ability to make Countrywide offer these contracts. Countrywide was both covered and mindfucked by the same rayz… since their school dayze… from the third grade. That’s when we first held Intelligent debates in my own /cursus honorium/, and in the fifth grade they started us on the CNN ‘news’.
All this is solely the work of smart people, not the no-hablos and semi-hablos I used to work with, who are cool guys and all but
Most of these smart people are very six-impossibles-before-breakfast. A few are rather the opposite. The question is what value these few see in the overall direction and long-term tendency of our affairs. Peter Thiel doesn’t see much value, but most of the few apparently do. I think even most of these few believe a few impossible things — e.g. that ‘leftist Jews hate Jews’. A fair fraction are very cool to Israel, that I grant, though few hate it.
Nor do SWPLs hate SWPLs, they like them. They hate anti-utopian Whites for obstructing the birth of utopia.
Of course not all elite Whites are SWPLs. Far from it. But they lack the capacity for a radical rejection of the leftism confronting them. There’s probably a few reasons for this.
The Duke University Lacrosse Team were SWPLs, and were condemned as rapists by SWPLs because they were SWPLs.
Indeed, that one of the ways you can tell a progressive from a Nazi passing as a progressive. Nazis do like SWPLs.
They were jocks, jim.
Not just jocks. Lacrosse players.
Lacrosse players are SWPLs, and indeed much of the attack on them was that Lacrosse players are SWPLs, therefore racists.
We must be using SWPL differently. My SWPLs are uber-progressive.
SWPLs imitate the high status people. Progressivism is high status, affluence is high status. Lacrosse players were high status people, who were, for the most part, affluent and highly progressive. SWPLs imitate affluence and imitate progressivism. Recall me ridiculing Charles Murray for eating barra in Washington, and eating spaghetti with homeopathic quantities of truffle in it.
We are in a theocracy, not a meritocracy. Holiness beats brains. In fact, since the ruling religion is ridiculous and nonsensical, excessive brains are apt to be viewed with suspicion.
The really smart people pissed away a gigantic amount of money on illiterate mestizos. Who then was serving whom?
Of course, those dispensing other people’s money to the poor naturally got to keep some of it, indeed keep quite a lot of it, but again, the number one sticky fingered villain was the not at all Jewish Angelo Mozillo, whose alleged racial background made him holy, and whose quite genuine beliefs made him holy.
If memory serves, Germany’s initial plan (I think this was before the first war) was to become a major sea power. This would let it have access to overseas resources without that access being basically at the sufferance of UK and US. Fairly plausible plan I guess.
Well, they failed. England, because of her long existence as a sea power, had her naval r&d goin’ on. The German fleet was completed or half-completed at major expenditure but was considerably obsolete at birth or a few years later. This particular avenue for Germany to maintain her parity/autonomy was thus frustrated. Which was no doubt frustrating. At least that’s what I recall learning from online lectures of some Berkeley professorin.
I guess Germany was fairly respectable at sea in WWII, perhaps there was greater parity in research and tech at that time. But I’m talking about a time decades before that.
Let’s see. Germany was nigh-completely surrounded by land powers who (rightly, it turns out) feared and hated them. England was completely surrounded by water. England had a vast overseas empire it to communicate with. Germany had a colony in Namibia.
In WWI their naval plans were “break out and target shipping.” They failed to break out, but targeted shipping pretty well with U-boats. Given this, their interwar plan to build a surface fleet was a fantasy.
> surrounded by land powers who (rightly, it turns out) feared and hated them
And they had no reason to hate or fear /them/? 1600s ring a bell? Then there’s Uncle Joe’s LARGE tank collection, aforementioned, built on high-tech serfdom.
The British sunk the Bismark, and thereafter the German surface navy hid in port. U-boats were suicide missions. They went out, but seldom returned.
Interesting. They certainly had working, thinking, and organizing ability, so it’s interesting they were never able to catch up with the British r&d (and perhaps the British economics of scale and raw materials imeperium).
I guess it sucks to be a land power with other land powers right up on you on every side, and mega sea power facing you.
Britain had technological supremacy. The Bismark was the biggest and fastest battleship that ever sailed the seas. It had guns that could outrange any other battleship. The British, however, had aircraft carriers, rendering battleships of limited value. The Bismark could not outrun, nor outrange, a plane. Similarly, against U boats, the British had radar that could be carried in a plane. U boats had to breath air frequently, so were visible to radar.
The British gained scientific and technological supremacy over mainland Europe in the late seventeenth century, and retained supremacy until shortly after World War II.
> Lacrosse players are SWPLs, and indeed much of the attack on them was that Lacrosse players are SWPLs, therefore racists.
Lacrosse players are soldiers, SWPLs are priests. Lacrosse is Pentagon, not State. (Though they do all intersect and overlap at the margins.)
At the same time lacrosse seems pretty (gentile) White and that may be a factor too. But the knight/priest thing is probably more important.
Much truth in that, but Lacrosse players are rich fashionable whites, and SWPLs are rich fashionable whites. SWPLs identify more with the priesthood, but are not priests, while Lacrosse players identify more with soldiers, but would never sign up to go to Afghanistan.
Lacrosse is a sport and thus indeed ultimately warrior caste. However, Duke lacrosse is a nancy sport played at a university, and thus leans heavily scholar. SWPL is too large a group to just eject all their warriors, they have to quarantine them somewhere.
On whether Goldman was the greater beneficiary, I yield the case to Bill as I know less. I’m inclined to go with what he’s saying, but admit I could be prejudiced.
Mozillo garnered a cool 300 M as a pious lord of a holy race, but will any power emanate from it, beyond some abundant campaign donations or something to certain people? It seems potentially less significant than Goldman moving one square closer to the divine center of the core Megacorps now basically semi-dictating in Southern Europe. I can’t really see a focus on good-time boys when these huge firms have untold zillions — real money, real power.
Mozillo did not accumulate any power, just piles of money: Indeed I expect an investigation in which he is ritually condemned and fined some small change to distract attention from the fact that the policies he profited from and so enthusiastically helped implement continue in effect, while Goldman and Sach are granted rule over various minor countries of the Eurozone.
But a price of that rule shall be that Goldman and Sach lose money on political loans to Europe, as MF Global did. They will get real power, will lose real money, and will pray that they get bailed out again. MF Global, despite being run by a Democratic Party Governor and Goldman Sach alumnus, and despite making politically correct “investments” did not get bailed out. Assuming Corzine is Jewish, which one might suppose from his Goldman Sach relationship, the MF Global scandal looks like the King squeezing the Jews rather than the Jews owning the King.
I think you are all missing the key point of Jewish history in the North, though people have pointed out important aspects of it. Bill has noted how things were closer to a zero-sum economy.
The key point is just that Jews had a much higher fitness in the land and probably more or less threatened to begin taking over Slavland completely, demographically. They obviously would rule it forever long before reaching a 50% population fraction. Hence the 1600s mass violence killing perhaps half of them. Then the 18-1900s efforts to have them leave, separate, stay on a sort of reservation, be recolonized, be mass murdered, etc. Anyway, basic tribal struggle for land and power. The Jews lost. Then they won, but, as noted by Bill, seem somewhat perplexed by their situation.
I agree with Jim on German aggression — open-minded as ever, but I just haven’t seen much to contradict the wikidox version of events. ‘Villie’ cabled Oesterreich some 51,286 times to ‘remind’ them he totally had their back.
Basically how would you feel if you rule an independent Old Norse-speaking Pennsylvania-Maryland….. meanwhile an ethnically foreign volk with a pretty different nature and tradition and already owning a large empire (the Russians) are making a multi-century, 3,000-mile expansion across all of North America. (Much of this counterfactual Noram is pretty uninhabitable, granted.)
Germany is the loser unless it can
1 become a sea power
2 find someone nice, and equal, and equally limited in their opportunities, to ally with
3 cook up a pan-Germanic unificationism
4 make conquests as a land power (see Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), and successfully force the MANY angry parties to deal with it
etc
The default is sort of just to lose, or anyway acquiesce. Not that the latter should be considered off the table.
This, of course was Germany’s world war I and World War II strategy: Enrage everyone and fight everyone. Hitler, after attacking the nation with the largest population, promptly declared war on the nation with the greatest wealth and industrial capability to build weapons and support armies in the field.
The major rational reason for the progressive attack on nation, race, and tribe, is that they are worried about German nationalism, racialism, and tribalism – and with good reason.
Many people perceive the Jews as detribalizing and denationalizing the gentiles. It is not so. Progressives are detribalizing and denationalizing everyone, and are quite successful at detribalizing and denationalizing Jews. Their success, however, at detribalizing and denationalizing Germans, their major objective and motivation, is rather less than they imagine.
S??sz?c rodzaj po?yczki promocji bez BIK, Nie mo?na z nas s?dzi, ?? s? owe po?yczki
na rzsecz przeci?tnego. Zja?i?ko nie jest to autenty?zno?ci?.
Koo?dynacje niebankowe, jakie oferuj? kredyty lub debety bez BIK owo stw?rzony wyrób naadaje na rzecz okre?lonej g?upy ludzi.
?y web site kosa szybkie pozyczki przez internet