|
|
Leftism can only be understood psychologicallyEvan Sayet is doing a great job of showing up the follies and inconsistencies in Leftism. His analyses of Leftist thinking are in many ways spot-on. And I encourage people to have a read of his blog right now. You will note that he freely admits, however, that some things about “liberals” are just incomprehensible to him. He is not alone in that. Leftists are incomprehensible to a lot of people. And the reason they are incomprehensible is that we treat Leftists with more courtesy than they deserve. We take seriously statements they make that are not at all serious. We assume that Leftism is a set of ideas or even a philosophy when it is neither of those things. Leftism is a posture, not a set of ideas. And as such it can only be understood psychologically rather than logically. The Leftist is not at all bothered by his inconsistencies or failures to recognize reality. So to discover inconsistencies and unreality in his utterances is both easy and irrelevant. A Leftist utterance is not aimed at any sort of serious explanation of the world at all. It is aimed simply at making the Leftist feel good —and hopefully of persuading others that he is a good guy too. So the Leftist can quite cheerfully say that there are no genetic influences on human behaviour when discussing IQ and then go on immediately to say that homosexuality is genetically inherited (“the gay gene”). To conservatives that sounds like inconsistency and it is certainly logically inconsistent. But the Leftist isn’t really bothered about logic. What he says is psychologically consistent. In both cases he is casting himself in the heroic role of the defender of the underdog. In the case of homosexuals, the disgust that most normal people feel about homosexuality means that they will always to some extent be underdogs so the Leftist aims to show how much kinder and wiser he is by defending them. And if “they can’t help it” (“the gay gene” theory) seems to be the best defence of them he will say that. But in the case of IQ the idea that there is an inborn disposition to be good or bad at solving most problems implies that people who prosper may be prosperous for a good and just reason. And that conflicts with the Leftist’s desire to feel and look kind and wise by championing the poor. So in this case he has to DENY that the poor “can’t help it”. It sounds a lot better to say that poverty is the result of wicked and unkind people conspiring to keep poor people down. And saying that shows the Leftist as “caring” about the poor and as being so wise as to see causes of poverty that others cannot. So he denies that there is any such thing as IQ, let alone an inherited IQ. He claims that poverty is the result of “oppression” and “injustice”, not of lesser ability to make good decisions in life. A century of evidence about the reality, importance and heritability of IQ does not bother him because evidence is not what he is concerned about. So let us apply that understanding to two of the things that puzzle Evan. 1). He cannot understand how his New York liberal relatives are so reflexively anti-American: But he tries foolishly to apply logic to their statements when there is no logic there. Their anti-Americanism is a CLAIM on their own behalf, not a rational proposition. It is a claim to being superior. They are in effect saying: “We are good and smart and wise—not like all those other dumb Americans around the place”. They knock Americans as a way of feeling better about themselves—just as Europeans do. And, like Europeans, such knocking shows that they secretly fear that they may in reality be inferior. If they really were demonstrably superior they would not feel any need to put other people down. 2). He cannot understand why American Jews are so Left-leaning when the Left is so antisemitic. But again what we see there is a claim: “We are superior — We are not like all those ignorant Goyim who infest the place”. So again their anti-Americanism takes precedence over everything else. Their egos are more important to them than gratitude for the safety that only those dumb Americans give them. One should really feel sorry for people whose egos are so weak as to need propping up in that way. But I guess that thousands of years of persecution should be expected to engender some defensiveness. Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 07:39 AM in Liberalism & the Left Comments:2
Posted by Mark Richardson on June 19, 2005, 08:00 AM | # I agree that there are inconsistencies in the politics of liberals. But the idea that liberals are simply acting from psychological needs is not the only way of explaining this. If an underlying political principle is false, and does not correlate well to reality, then it will inevitably produce inconsistencies. This leaves liberals with a choice: stop being liberals or learn to live with inconsistencies. In a society which is nearly wholly liberal, there is no-one to really take political advantage of the inconsistencies - so it becomes easy for liberals to sweep inconsistencies under the carpet. Take a classic example: feminists claim to represent women as an oppressed group, but at the same time they deny the reality of gender differences. In other words (to put things bluntly) feminists are saying that women deserve special treatment but then deny that the category of “woman” has any meaningful existence. There actually are academic feminists who admit that this is an inconsistency - but it simply becomes fodder for academic debate. There’s no-one to force things to a conclusion and to tell feminists that they have to get their politics straight - not in the cosy liberal world of academia. 3
Posted by James Bowery on June 19, 2005, 11:37 AM | # Leftism is more appropriately underood as a sociobiological than as a psychological disease. Indeed many and perhaps even most incidents of “psychological” disease are more appropriately understood as sociobiological disease cases. From The GOD Hypothesis: “As a rule, hybrids do not represent the form exactly intermediate between the parental strains…Those traits that pass into hybrid association entirely or almost entirely unchanged, thus themselves representing the traits of the hybrid, are termed dominating, and those that become latent in the association, recessive.” “...mutations are most frequently in the direction of inactivation and that for physiological reasons inactivation should generally behave as recessive.” “If two beavers working on the same dam have different genes for dam height, the resulting extended phenotype will reflect the interaction between genes, in the same way as bodies reflect the gene interactions. There could be extended genetic analogues of epistasis, of modifier genes, even of dominance and recessiveness.” Freedom is the ability to express self-interest. Oppression is the inability to express self-interest. Slavery is the compulsion to express other-interest. Dominance acquires freedom by taking it from others, resulting in oppression if not slavery. To the extent that phenotypes extend outside the bodies within which their genes reside (as described by Dawkins) genetic dominance (as described by Mendel) has social implications. To the extent that mutations tend to be recessive (as described by Wright) those social implications are the oppression and slavery of recently evolved populations by older populations when they come into intimate contact through ecological mixing. This is the essence of hypothesis of genetic omnidominance; The GOD Hypothesis. When mental processes—particularly those concerning the genetics of kin identification and reproduction—are up for grabs, the GOD hypothesis predicts genetic omni-dominance will override the mental processes of individuals of lesser GOD producing behavior that seems bizarre if one does not consider the externality of the genes being served by said behavior. For example, arguing in good faith about genetics with those subject to the “logical fallacies” of “political correctness” is frequently akin to arguing with the bee in the following passage from “The Extended Phenotype” by Richard Dawkins chapter titled “Host Phenotypes of Parasite Genes”: “Many fascinating examples of parasites manipulating the behavior of their hosts can be given. For nematomorph larvae, who need to break out of their insect hosts and get into water where they live as adults, ‘...a major difficulty in the parasite’s life is the return to water. It is, therefore, of particular interest that the parasite appears to affect the behavior of its host, and “encourages” it to return to water. The mechanism by which this is achieved is obscure, but there are sufficient isolated reports to certify that the parasite does influence its host, and often suicidally for the host… One of the more dramatic reports describes an infected bee flying over a pool and, when about six feet over it, diving straight into the water. Immediately on impact the gordian worm burst out and swam into the water, the maimed bee being left to die’ (Croll 1966).” We can rest assured the bee was not thinking “I must atone for the abuses to which my species’ immune system has put the poor little nematomorph larvae throughout our history of coevolution together. Therefore, with full knowledge and forethought, I now die for my little friend inside, and it I feel _so good about myself_!” despite how impressive our little parable of “the politically correct bee” is. However, when the mental processes are as complex as those supported by human nervous systems, the GOD influences of parasite genes may be masked in entire academic and theological disciplines with libraries filled with the scholarly works of the generations. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on June 19, 2005, 11:48 AM | # Evan writes: ... I remain utterly stymied as to why Jews so foolishly continue to vote for a party that supports its enemies, gives credence and power to the most virulent of antisemites (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to mind) and seeks to undermine the existence of Judeo-Christian values in America and around the world. I don’t think there’s a manjack among the MR commentariat who couldn’t help Evan out there. Jews tend to be leftists because burying Christian civilisation and Western Man is “good for Jews”. It’s a tribal choice ... a conservative choice, and therefore, not liberal at all. On gentile leftists, I don’t think any one explanation is adequate. I well remember my own moments of youthful moral outrage that attended, say, the discovery of the material self-satisfactions of my own middle class, or the fact that working life did not remotely answer my ambitions to get up in the morning and deal in meaning and a greater purpose. At 18 years old I was pretty damned, typically angry about all that. I voted for Harold Wilson’s Labour in 1970. Not a trace of posturing in it. I grant that posturing will, though, account for some leftists ... youthful anger prolonged into adulthood for others ... the hatreds and guilts that flow from a dysfunctional childhood for many more ... self-interest yet more (homosexual activists, working class demagogue types etc). A very mixed picture but, in my experience, family life is a common explicator (though I know you disagree with that, John). 5
Posted by Charles Copeland on June 19, 2005, 01:47 PM | # To play advocatus diaboli: For example, isn’t it just possible that many scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is both a reality and a threat because that is where the bulk of evidence leads them, and not because they are the hired hands of the liberal establishment? Perhaps they are mistaken, but perhaps they are simply following the argument wherever it goes. It’s certainly not a ‘cut and dried’ issue such as the hereditability of IQ, the reality of race, or the inevitable basket-case status of all societies in which people of African origin constitute the majority. Besides, to attribute a person’s views to their motives alone is a bit on the ad hominem side – it’s politics, not science. It is not necessarily fairer to denigrate somebody who asserts that climate change is a potential hazard as a ‘leftist’ that it is to denigrate somebody who asserts the reality of race difference as a ‘racist’ I’m pretty appalled when I read rightists (whom I admire on so many fronts) who arrogantly dismiss Malthus or who haven’t read any of the classics on the population explosion or resource depletion or who believe that perpetual economic growth is a viable option for the human races. Ma brudda! Like my momma say - show mo rispekk! Show mo rispekk for dose lib’rels dat talk ‘bout da wedda changin’ ‘coz we drivin’ all dose Benzes all ova da place and dat bad-ass for da future. Dey not all mothafuckas all of da time! 6
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 19, 2005, 02:11 PM | # “Jews tend to be leftists because burying Christian civilisation and Western Man is ‘good for Jews.’ It’s a tribal choice ... a conservative choice, and therefore, not liberal at all.” (—GW) GW here is onto the fundamentally right explanation for what’s going on with the Jews. By advocating what they see as good for their tribe—in this case the destruction of the rival tribe of white-Euro-derived Christian society and nation-state—they aren’t being liberal but conservative. There’s a tribal war going on, John. When one side strikes the other in that war, of course it’s not going to say openly that it has just successfully stricken its enemy, but will make up some morally high-sounding justification and deny it’s engaged on the field of battle. Thus when the Jews, such as Abe Foxman and the ADL, or the Jews who run about 60% of Hollywood, or the Jewish neo-Trotskyites who are mistakenly called the “neocons,” push hard for the genocidal destruction of white-Christian society and nationality in this country through race-replacement, what they are up to is striking their tribal enemy—white Christianity—as starkly as they can, regardless of whatever high-sounding motives they make up to seem to occupy the moral high-ground, and when Pat Buchanan, Taki, and the American Conservative Magazinecome out with opinion pieces implying Ariel Sharon and the Likud Party are somehow immoral for favoring what are legitimate Israeli/Jewish nationalist interests, they are in reality launching a counterattack against Jews whom they see as having attacked their side, white Christianity, notwithstanding all the stuff they trot out about feeling sorry for the Palestinians: their real motivation is to strike back at the Jews whom they see as having striken them. Tribal war, folks. Let’s start talking frankly about it. Jews, by the way, are going to have to start getting talked about—as a group they’re contributing strongly to the support of too much wrongness, such as Marxism and genocide-through-race-replacement, thereby helping to do much harm in the world, and people are going to have to start figuring out why and, together with the Jews, see if the defect Jews harbor that makes them do this, whatever the defect is exactly, can be rectified or at least somehow disarmed and neutralized so it can’t continue to cause harm. My idea is that lots of Jews have an inherited genetic predisposition for harming the white-Christian society they live in—in other words, their leftist mischief, to take one example, and, to take another, their tendency, no matter whether they’re leftist or conservative, to almost religiously insist on race-replacement-type genocidal destruction of white Christian nation-states, is partly genetic. The genetic trait that makes them do these things may have conferred on them a survival advantage over the centuries—or been linked to some genetic trait that did—and therefore got selected for, so lots of Jews have the trait. On a different subject: Cochran and Harpending have suggested that Jews heterozygous for the Jewish smartness gene are made smart, which was supposed to happen in the interest of Jewish group survival, while ones homozygous for it are made smart but in addition are made susceptible to lipid-storage diseases or DNA-repair diseases, which wasn’t supposed to happen—just as Negroes and some Mediterraneans heterozygous for the sickle-cell trait get less malaria, which was supposed to happen in the interest of their survival, while ones homozygous for it get less malaria but also get sickle-cell anemia—which wasn’t supposed to happen. Getting back to the subject: In the same way, I think Jews who are heterozygous for the white-Christian-nation-state-destroying gene are made into advocates of the destruction of white-Christian nation-states and societies they live in (through compulsive leftism, Marxism, favoring of race-replacement immigration, and so on), which was supposed to happen in the interest of their group survival, while those who are homozygous for the gene are made into advocates of the destruction of the white-Christian nation-states and societies they live in but also advocates of the destruction of the Jewish state, Israel—which wasn’t supposed to happen. Someone like Noam Chomsky, for example, is homozygous for the gene, and therefore passionately favors the destruction not only of white-Christian societies and nation-states but of Jewish/Israeli ones as well. 7
Posted by jonjayray on June 19, 2005, 05:43 PM | # Charles Copeland expresses delightful conservative moderation—precisely the moderation which Leftists exploit. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is what they rely on. But extending consideration to Malthus really takes tolerance too far. Malthus is right ceteris paribus. The trouble is that ceteris never is paribus (to mangle the Latin). I have been discussing population questions for 30 years and have yet to find a Malthusian who is disturbed by the mismatch between the theory and all history subsequent to Malthus. When do the facts matter? 9
Posted by Mark Richardson on June 19, 2005, 05:48 PM | # So we have three basic positions on what makes a liberal a liberal: the political (me); the psychological (John); and the genetic (various). It’s not that I doubt that psychological and genetic factors are involved. But I think it’s best to focus on the political causes for several reasons. First, if you say it’s primarily genetics then there’s not much to be done about things. Though I wonder why so much multicultural propaganda and so many legal restrictions would be necessary for the internationalist cause if the genetic factor is a satisfactory explanation. It seems to me that among the mass of the Western populations there never has been any built in tendency to accept multiculturalism, but rather the opposite. If there is a faulty Western gene it rather curiously resides mostly among the political and intellectual classes. The psychological explanation certainly does fit some liberals: the need to assert a moral high ground against the working classes for instance. However, there are plenty of liberals who work hard for liberalism despite having a seemingly conservative personality and psychology. I’m sure we all know cases of the good, devoted family man who nonetheless supports, as a matter of principle, feminist politics which harm the traditional family. What we have to work toward is getting the large number of people with basically conservative inclinations to actually support a conservative politics. We don’t need to fix these people psychologically, we need to persuade them politically - to break them away from the heavy weight of a poltical orthodoxy. One final point. I think the influence of politics is shown even more clearly by the fact that it explains the political positions adopted by liberals across a range of issues. It’s not just liberal opposition to ethnic nationalism we have to explain, but their opposition to the traditional family, to traditional sex roles, to traditional codes of objective morality, to a traditional understanding of sexuality, to monarchy, to a priesthood and so on. These policy preferences are easy to understand as a logical application of liberal political principles. 10
Posted by James Bowery on June 19, 2005, 09:12 PM | # To be clear, the most important symptoms of sociobiological diseases concern public communications and public morality about genes. Some issues, such as global warming or limits to growth, may have very indirect relationships to genes but we needn’t rely on those issues for a diagnosis of sociobiological pathology. When people run around quoting Lewontin like he’s Ratzinger we can rest assured they are exhibiting a sociobiological disease. 11
Posted by Paul Johnson on June 19, 2005, 09:35 PM | # Leftism is a physiological condition, not psychological. It is a physiological addiction to OUTRAGE that proceeds exactly as do all other physiological addictions. 12
Posted by Jim Thio on June 20, 2005, 02:37 AM | # Hi Guys, You’re right the leftists are inconsistent. The leftists are not the only one inconsistent. When a women unhappily trapped in a marriage, proponents of sex laws wouldn’t count that as prosecution. Yet when women happily choose to be mistresses of rich smart males, proponents of sex laws will say that womyn are exploited. It doesn’t make sense logically. However, it make sense psychologically. Both tend to ration females too less desirable males. Females prefer the rich, mainly. Without sex laws, all womyn can pick rich smart males. The rich are happy to pay for sex. When they do they’ll inherite their productive genes to more kids. There will be more rich smart males. It’ll be easy to help the poor. This is prevented by right wings. And here we are bitching against welfare which is relatively cheap compared to minimum wage, and trade restrictions. 13
Posted by Jim Thio on June 20, 2005, 02:39 AM | # Ups my contact info is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) by the way. I wonder why it doesn’t show up under my name like others? 14
Posted by Charles Copeland on June 20, 2005, 10:05 AM | # I have been discussing population questions for 30 years and have yet to find a Malthusian who is disturbed by the mismatch between the theory and all history subsequent to Malthus. John, Ecology and conservatism are not necessarily contradictory—have a look at the Social Contract Press: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/ Puh-leez try to be open-minded about ecological issues. Suggested reading at my summer school for the ecological re-education of libertarians: Cohen’s ‘How many people can the earth support?’. See: 15
Posted by Charles Copeland on June 20, 2005, 10:11 AM | # P.S. http://www.scottberkun.com/essays/essay40.htm Hat tip: David Boxenhorn (GNXP) 16
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 20, 2005, 01:51 PM | # Say, what’s the general take on David Horowitz around here? I’ve found many of his views to be fairly worthwhile (particularly in exposing the “Shadow Party” led by elite leftists like George Soros, as well as attacking race reparations and multiculturalism), but it’s occurred to me that his dramatic break with the Left might be part psychological. He appears to be a very emotional individual, possibly disturbed by his experience in the Black Panthers. 17
Posted by Charles Copeland on June 20, 2005, 02:58 PM | # ‘Frontpage’ publishes some high-grade material, such as articles by Lawrence Auster (View from the Right). A bit ‘zoggish’ when it comes to the Middle East and US foreign policy, though, where Horowitz is something of a Rush Limbaugh lite. 18
Posted by JW Holliday on June 20, 2005, 04:14 PM | # Charles, Taylor on Horowitz To my mind, Horowitz is like Steinlight - his “conversion’ is very careful to meet the needs of his particular ethny. His interests are different than mine - in fact, they are incompatible it seems. 19
Posted by Charles Copeland on June 20, 2005, 04:32 PM | # Let’s say that Horowitz is to Israel as John Ray is to oil depletion. Even the smartest people have their blind spots. 20
Posted by Phil on June 20, 2005, 06:07 PM | # or the inevitable basket-case status of all societies in which people of African origin constitute the majority. Its not an inevitability, Charles. South Africa under the Apartheid regime was not an economic basket case. Ok, I agree that’s a cheeky argument…....... 21
Posted by Phil on June 20, 2005, 06:09 PM | # Ma brudda! Like my momma say - show mo rispekk! Show mo rispekk for dose lib’rels dat talk ‘bout da wedda changin’ ‘coz we drivin’ all dose Benzes all ova da place and dat bad-ass for da future. Dey not all mothafuckas all of da time! ROFTL Oh man….......! 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 06:13 PM | # Horowitz is one of the greatest social/political commentators to have emerged in the last part of the 20th century. He’s schizophrenic on race-replacement “immigration”—wavers back and forth on it—but even with that drawback what he’s published on it that’s of truly outstanding quality beats 99.99999999% of what’s come out of the mainstream Republican world (and for him, that outstanding output is the result of only half-trying, because, as noted, he’s schizophrenic on the subject). In fact, it beats 100% of what’s come out of the mainstream Republican world. It’s completely appropriate to talk about Horowitz’s (and everyone else’s) ethnie in this context but let’s not forget what John Ray and others have pointed out: the main foe we confront, we who struggle against white-Christian genocide-through-forced-race-replacement, are white Christians. A certain genocidal segment of organized Jewry is up there in importance as a foe of course (typified by the Jewish hate-groups the ADL, the SPLC, and to some extent the heavily Jewish-staffed and Jewish-funded ACLU), as are other groups, both ethnic ones and purely political ones—but our own people, white-Euro Christians, like John Ray, Birch Barlow, Robert Lindsay, President Bush, Karl Rove, Tony Blair, Mary Robinson, Jacques Chirac, and so on ad infinitum, are the biggest obstacle we face to solving the problem of race-replacement immigration. 23
Posted by Phil on June 20, 2005, 06:14 PM | # Horowitz is no Gottfried Paul Gottfried is a sage. God bless him. 24
Posted by ben tillman on June 20, 2005, 06:15 PM | # A Leftist utterance is not aimed at any sort of serious explanation of the world at all. It is aimed simply at making the Leftist feel good…. Not only the platitudes but also the punishment inflicted on dissenters can make the leftist feel good. I can’t believe I missed this when it came out: http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=2225490
White people may be manipulated into accepting non-reciprocal “moral” systems, and those who withstand the manipulation are punished by those who do not. 25
Posted by Phil on June 20, 2005, 06:18 PM | # Even the smartest people have their blind spots. I have nothing against a Zionist who extends to white gentiles the right to self preservation that he advocates for the Jews. Lawrence Auster is one such example. Paul Gottfried another. Gottfried is not an Israel-basher as many Neocon nutcases try to potray him. He is actually balanced on the issue. Thats bad enough for the Trotskyists. 26
Posted by ben tillman on June 20, 2005, 06:23 PM | # MacDonald discusses earlier work (2002) of Fehr and Gächter in the preface to the second edition of The Culture of Critique: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html
27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 06:30 PM | # “I have nothing against a Zionist who extends to white gentiles the right to self preservation that he advocates for the Jews.” (—Phil) This is elementary, of course. And the Jewish Zionists who don’t do this—who don’t extend to white-Euro Christians what they themselves want for Jews and for Israel in regard to nationalism and group preservation—are beyond obnoxious: they’re positively the worst sort of swine. Examples of this kind of Jewish Zionist swine would be David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, and John Podhoretz, part of the Jewish neo-Trotskyite coterie who help run National Review Online. By the way, I agree with Phil on Prof. Paul Gottfried, whom I revere. 28
Posted by Phil on June 20, 2005, 06:37 PM | # Getting Israel right, one of Gottfried’s best articles. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 06:58 PM | # Thanks very much for that Gottfried link, Phil. “I agree that there are inconsistencies in the politics of liberals. [...] If an underlying political principle is false, and does not correlate well to reality, then it will inevitably produce inconsistencies. This leaves liberals with a choice: stop being liberals or learn to live with inconsistencies. In a society which is nearly wholly liberal [...] it becomes easy for liberals to sweep inconsistencies under the carpet. Take a classic example: feminists claim to represent women as an oppressed group, but at the same time they deny the reality of gender differences. In other words (to put things bluntly) feminists are saying that women deserve special treatment but then deny that the category of ‘woman’ has any meaningful existence. There actually are academic feminists who admit that this is an inconsistency - but it simply becomes fodder for academic debate. [...]” (—Mark, 06/19, 12:00 PM) an entry up on this today: FEMINIST INCONSISTENCY Colby Cosh says one of the things that you can’t say in Canada: “It’s also completely inconsistent for feminists to stand on their individual classical-liberal right to total personal inviolability—when it comes to abortion—and to proclaim an illiberal doctrine of collective, identitarian rights in every other sphere of human activity.” 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 20, 2005, 08:05 PM | # Many Communists realized long ago that a bloody, Russian-style revolution was not the way to impose their ideas on advanced Western countries. They rightly feared that Europeans and Americans, Christian and conservative by upbringing, would never make such a revolution. So they resolved to change the people, leaving the issue of who controlled the state until later. “They believed that an attack on morality, religion, the family and traditional education would transform society much more effectively than a seizure of power. “Many of these men gathered in Frankfurt in 1923 in what they called the Institute for Social Research but which became known as the ‘Frankfurt School.’ Many members fled to America when Hitler came to power in 1933 and became highly influential in US universities, the cradles of political correctness. One of their leaders, the Hungarian Georg Lukács, said they were there to answer the question: ‘Who shall save us from Western Civilization?’ “Lukács, in his period as schools commissar in the short-lived Hungarian Soviet Republic, devised sex education as a deliberate way of debauching the minds of the young. “Other leading members included Theodor Adorno, whose book, The Authoritarian Personality, first put forward the idea that holders of conservative views were in some way unbalanced. But the most influential was Herbert Marcuse, believed to be the inventor of the slogan ‘Make Love, Not War,’ prophet of the sexual revolution and the Sixties counterculture. “Almost all the ideas of radical antifamily feminists, sex-education fanatics, homosexual equality campaigners and radical school reformers can be traced to this origin. So can the campaign to get rid of traditional history and literature in schools. It is one of the most successful political initiatives in modern history, all the more so because most of those influenced by it have never even heard of it.” —Peter Hitchens, London Mail on Sunday, 19 June 2005 The Ambler today.] These communist scholars were almost all Jews, weren’t they? Here’s your country-destroying, society-destroying, nation-state-destroying gene in action, the one carried by so many Jews—the one that, in some of them, those who are homozygous for it, even turns them against the Jews and Israel, so potent a force for evil is it. 31
Posted by Svigor on June 20, 2005, 08:45 PM | # I don’t have time right now to read everything or pitch in, but I wanted to add that I think any “theory of leftist everything” is going to have to be multifaceted. Maybe a discussion of archetypes rather than rules might get us somewhere. 32
Posted by Steve Edwards on June 21, 2005, 05:04 AM | # I’m generally inclined to agree that Horowitz is a superb, clear-thinking, writer. He holds a firm line against racial reparations, political correctness, etc, although he seems to be in two minds about immigration. Also, he’s hosted articles on his website about self-hating Jews as well as Auster’s brilliant article on immigration. Obviously, he’s a pro-Likud fanatic, but you can ignore much of what he says about foreign policy. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on June 21, 2005, 06:04 AM | # Just a word of thanks to all involved on this thread. Personally, I have found new ideas here, most especially Paul Johnson’s addiction theory and Ben’s Swiss brain imaging story. Fascinating. On the Frankfurt School I believe that the principal actors were:- Walter Benjamin, Georg Lukacs, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, Norbert Elias, Friedrich Pollock, Karl Mannheim, the non-Marxist socialist Julius Kraft and the economist Gottfried Salomon. All were Jews. Only Jurgen Habermas, a student of Horkheimer, was a gentile. 34
Posted by jonjayray on June 22, 2005, 08:55 AM | # “Let’s say that Horowitz is to Israel as John Ray is to oil depletion. Even the smartest people have their blind spots.” Charles is a cheeful chap but he obviously has still not sussed out the price of ethanol. Oil is a minor problem (Brazil mostly uses ethanol in its cars these days). Israel has major problems. 35
Posted by jonjayray on June 22, 2005, 08:59 AM | # “What was the Irish famine in the mid-19th century but a confirmation of Malthus’ basic insights?” I thought it was a confirmation of the undesirability of primitive agriculture and the desirability of technological advancement. There are still famines in the third world today —even in underpopulated Africa Next entry: Putin’s Congo Roast Previous entry: A British newspaper nearly wakes up |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Daniel Mccumllam commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 04:57 AM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/22/12, 02:51 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 02:34 AM. (go) (view) Shamim commented in entry 'Dawkins sides with the race realists.' on 05/22/12, 02:24 AM. (go) (view) Facebook Application Developer commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/22/12, 01:14 AM. (go) (view) rags6 commented in entry 'Black serial-killers' on 05/22/12, 12:23 AM. (go) (view) abibemume commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/22/12, 12:06 AM. (go) (view) HoroSmutS commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/21/12, 09:58 PM. (go) (view) alexaesjiong commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 09:53 PM. (go) (view) cocreneamenrYk commented in entry 'Time travel and a pol in the MultiCult' on 05/21/12, 09:51 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 09:12 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:46 PM. (go) (view) sweectexcagma commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:45 PM. (go) (view) Hinksmick commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 08:43 PM. (go) (view) pet sitting commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 05/21/12, 08:36 PM. (go) (view) aharlesjaj commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/21/12, 08:26 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 08:25 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 08:02 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:43 PM. (go) (view) InsetaTemwews commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 07:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:54 PM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/21/12, 06:37 PM. (go) (view) Stephen commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 06:29 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:48 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 05:23 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:41 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 04:19 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:33 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 03:08 PM. (go) (view) directrxusa commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 02:25 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 02:02 PM. (go) (view) BroowlorCliEf commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/21/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'It's politics. And it's KMD.' on 05/21/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) trobojertunny commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/21/12, 12:29 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by jonjayray on June 19, 2005, 07:49 AM | #
Hmmm…
Just to be totally clear, I should stress that I am talking about Left-leaning Jews, not all Jews.