New summary of multi-culti attack on basic values

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 16, 2005, 12:42 AM | #

”... hatred of everything Western, white, male and Judeo-Christian.”

“...hatred of everything Western, white, male and

GrecoRoman-Christian.”
Hasn’t He suffered enough?

Posted by wintermute on February 16, 2005, 04:45 AM | #

(Excerpt from World Net Daily)

A news source that because of its own set of blinders, is often referred to as World Net Deli.

John, I can’t say if it’s a bad thing or a good thing that you’ve become a simple cut-and-paste artiste, as of late, sparing us your own commentary on events, but you could at least find more compelling materials than advertisements for The Deli’s spinoff rag. Or did you not notice it was a promotional page before you clipped it?

Some notes on the copy -

This worldview whereby we declare all human cultures and moral codes, from the fairest to the foulest, to be equal in value is made possible only by the total abandonment of any objective standard of right and wrong.

The ideology of the equality of all cultures was created by a Jew, Claude Levi-Strauss, and propounded to advance Jewish group interests. This link was first publicly identified by John Cuddihy and presented in his book, The Ordeal of Civility:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3724

Cuddihy’s thesis goes roughly as follows: Upon the granting of emancipation to the Jews of Europe[1], their less-refined ways, developed over centuries within their tightly bound tribal lives, bumped rudely into the carefully cultivated behavioral codes of the larger Gentile communities of Europe. The closer Jews tried to get, the more intense the conflict became. The Jewish intellectual elite cringed when the ostjuden, or unassimilated Jews, made a spectacle of themselves in European civil society. Cuddihy cites the example of the Victorian-era social reformer Beatrice Potter, who found herself disgusted by the Jews of London’s East End: “...the immigrant Jew, though possessed of many first-class virtues, is deficient in that highest and latest development of human sentiment — social morality… He totally ignores all social obligations other than keeping the law of the land, the maintenance of his own family, and the charitable relief of coreligionists.”

Jewish intellectuals were well aware that views such as Potter’s prevailed. Their minds raced to concoct explanations for the conflict that steered clear of the most obvious one: race. Karl Marx described it as a class conflict rooted in economic maldistribution. Sigmund Freud described it as a medical malady rooted in suppressed natural urges. The “structuralism” of French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, propounded in the 1960s and 1970s, asserted that no one culture was better than any another, leaving open the possibility that, if anything, Western culture was loaded with hypocrisy and trivial etiquette while non-Western cultures were more admirably “natural.”

Likewise, the press - the filter through which Americans receive their information - is also paralyzed by political correctness.

Readers curious about the ownership, management, and day-to-day operators of the American media, and its paralysis by “political correctness” are directed here and here and here and here.

As for “political correctness” itself, this is a result of the so called Frankfurt School, who it might surprise some to learn were all Jews: Benjamin, Fromm, Lowenthal, Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno.

From Chapter 5 of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, dealing with the Frankfurt School.

Chapters 2-4 reviewed several strands of theory and research by Jewish social scientists that appear to have been influenced by specifically Jewish political interests. This theme is continued in the present chapter with a review of The Authoritarian Personality. This classic work in social psychology was sponsored by the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee (hereafter, AJCommittee) in a series entitled Studies in Prejudice. Studies in Prejudice was closely connected with the so-called Frankfort School of predominantly Jewish intellectuals associated with the Institute for Social Research originating during the Weimar period in Germany. The first generation of the Frankfurt School were all Jews by ethnic background and the Institute of Social Research itself was funded by a Jewish millionaire, Felix Weil (Wiggershaus 1994, 13). Weil’s efforts as a “patron of the left” were extraordinarily successful: By the early 1930s the University of Frankfurt had became a bastion of the academic left and “the place where all the thinking of interest in the area of social theory was concentrated” (Wiggershaus 1994, 112).

Posted by JSBolton on February 16, 2005, 06:36 AM | #

Talk of poisoning the wells; how is one to reply to the topic under discussion? Poland and Germany and several other countries eliminated the Jews, and they are as much afflicted with the Marcusian new leftism, as other places. To do the cultural housecleaning sufficient to eliminate the anti-caucasianism of the government schools, would require much more than the abolition of Jewish influence in them; by now, it requires the abolition of all such schools. It is the aggression on the net taxpayer and his culture, and the use of plunder to promote official discretion academically and scholastically, which has to be exterminated. Academic freedom from government money is the most important right today.

Posted by Delmore Macnamara on February 16, 2005, 07:48 AM | #

Wintermute, tell your friends in Mossad that your cover has been blown; you won’t be able to provoke any reaction here.

Posted by John Ray on February 16, 2005, 08:40 AM | #

“The ideology of the equality of all cultures was created by a Jew, Claude Levi-Strauss”

C’mon, Wintermute, you can do better than that.  What about Heidegger or Kierkegaard, for instance?

Posted by Friendly Observer on February 16, 2005, 08:57 AM | #

What about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, of “noble savage” fame?

Posted by wintermute on February 16, 2005, 09:14 AM | #

Poland and Germany and several other countries eliminated the Jews, and they are as much afflicted with the Marcusian new leftism, as other places.

Mr. Bolton -

You are completely mistaken regarding the extent and nature of Jewish influence over Poland, which has gone from such an astonishing degree thirty years ago that even Time magazine made note of it, to the current day, where it remains extensive locally, but is amplified by membership in NATO and the EU, which can force complience to the wishes of international Jewry, whether this means the removal of local statues, the denunciation of certain groups, or the criminalization of certain kinds of speech and thought.

Some reading material for you:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/Polish_press.html

IT is generally acknowledged by scholars that Poland’s press—owned chiefly by foreign interests—is in the Polish language, but heavily “influenced” by Jewish cultural goals.

Poland’s equivalent of The New York Times is Gazeta Wyborcza. But Gazeta Wyborcza is controlled by Adam Michnik. And Adam Michnik, a former Trotskyite, once attended Trotskyist International Congresses.

His family was a famous Central European communist entity. His brother was a notorious communist judge who after WW II convicted and sentenced to death Polish soldiers; he had them hanged as anti-communists. He now resides in Sweden, under the new name of Swedowicz.

[ . . .]

Poland’s president, incidentally, is a Mr. Kwasniewski. His father’s original name was Stolzman. Stolzman-Kwasniewski was also once a hard-core communist. Today the press has given him a George W Bush-like TV image. He’s a personal friend of Adam Michnik. So much for the so-called democratic process.

Could that be one of the reasons why half the population of some of these so-called democratic countries don’t vote. They just don’t believe in their elected politicos.

According to Time Magazine, the facts described in the letter above have not changed appreciably in the last half century - 

Time Magazine, August 18, 1967

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,840966,00.html

Though anti-Semitism has a long and virulent history
in Poland, Jews form a vital and powerful segment of
the present Polish government. As in other countries
in Eastern Europe, the roots of the Polish Communist
Party go back to 19th century Jewish-led
organizations. And as Europe’s Communist parties grew
after World War I, so did the influence of the Jews
within them. During World War II and Nazi occupation,
many Polish Communist Jews fled to Russia for
sanctuary – and many returned with the Red Army to
hold high military, secret police and administrative
posts. Thus, though there are only 30,000 Jews in
Poland today, they are seeded influentially from the
politburo down through the intellectual community and
the Polish press.

After Party Boss Wladyslaw Gomulka’s decision to break
off diplomatic ties with Israel last June at Moscow’s
behest, there was a modicum of wry truth in a gibe
that quickly made the rounds in Warsaw: Tel Aviv was
going to retaliate by withdrawing the Polish
government…

Posted by wintermute on February 16, 2005, 09:16 AM | #

A note on the (Jewish) uses of NATO. As a participant in both the EU and NATO, Poland is subject to a commanding influence from International Jewry, as well as the ex-communist network that now rules it, and the Jewish press that misinforms it.

http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=12024&intcategoryid=2

As NATO meeing approaches, light
shines on handling of Jewish issues
By Adam B. Ellick, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Nov. 4, 2003

“Later this month, seven nations will clear a crucial hurdle toward full membership in NATO. But as they embrace a military alliance that seemed unimaginable during the Soviet era, these nations — Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia — will remain under close scrutiny to ensure they follow through on promises regarding “value issues,” including how they handle Jewish affairs. Jewish leaders are divided on how the nations will behave after they are formally invited to join the military alliance during the Prague Summit on Nov. 21. NATO demands that candidate countries establish high standards in treating their ethnic and religious minorities. NATO membership is not a foregone conclusion for the seven aspirant nations. Though invitations will be extended in Prague, nothing will be final for another 18 months. During that time, the legislatures of all 19 NATO members states — including the U.S. Senate — must approve the additions. During the past decade, Jewish leaders and the U.S. State Department have used NATO membership as leverage to encourage the aspirants to confront their Holocaust history. That includes politically sensitive issues like local collaboration with the Nazis, property restitution, Holocaust education and commemoration and the prosecution of war criminals. “There will be a greater effort to keep these countries” moving on such issues “than ever in the past,” said Bruce Jackson, executive director of the U.S. Committee on NATO, a nonprofit group that tracks value issues among aspirant nations.

All of this does not even begin to address the question of George Soros and his well funded agencies, which with the aid of world media, have shown the ability to direct the course of elections and governments, as in the Ukraine and Georgia. Soros oversaw Poland’s economic shock treatment and his Foundations are quite active there.

Unfortunately, I neither have 300 agencies with a combined multibillion dollar endowment, as do Jews, to assist me with my research, nor do I have limitless resources of time. Therefore I cannot, by myself, completely counteract your ignorance of these matters. You must begin to take your education into your own hands, and not passively regurgitate the talking points common among your countrymen.

Posted by wintermute on February 16, 2005, 09:17 AM | #

Speaking frankly, your impression of low to no Jewish influence in Poland and Germany is wildly ill-informed, bordering on the delusional. You can no more make responsible decisions with the information base you are currently working with than you could operate a car after drinking a gallon of whiskey.

Regarding Germany, I will charitably assume that you have forgotten it is an occupied nation, and therefore operates under the guidance of its occupier - us. Its laws and constitution are imposed, as is the censorship board that - in addition to speech codes -decides what sort of information the Germans may examine themselves or communicate with others.

Jewish influence, direct and indirect, is quite high. There is also a sizable and growing Jewish population, with such high rates of immigration that Israel has recently started to complain.

Of course, living on site is not required of the landlord. A dual citizen “American”, Chaim Saban, recently made massive purchases in the German media sector:

http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/jews/saban.htm

The German government transferred ownership of (ProSiebenSat.1 Media), the largest media conglomerate in Europe, over to Saban. Saban “added that the German government had been very supportive of him. ... There have been all kinds of theories because of the fact that I’m an Israeli-American and the like.” Why was Saban so keen to control the German media market? It was not just a financial score “but the cornerstone of something bigger”: “The German situation has the potential to be not just a financial score but serve as the cornerstone of something bigger,“said Peter Chernin, president and chief executive of the News Corporation.

Saban was assisted in the deal by the Rothschilds, and the Jewish Warburg banking clan advised the gentiles bidding for the same property. Here we can see how Jewish banking monopolies are as harmful to our interests as the media ones:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2381903

“Insolvent German media group KirchMedia said on Friday it hoped to sign a deal to sell its television assets to U.S. billionaire Haim Saban by Monday at the latest, ending a year-long auction. Saban has arrived in Munich to help put the final touches to a two-billion-euro ($2.2 billion) deal that would open up Germany’s clubby media industry to a Hollywood figure—teamed up with French TV group TF1—for the first time ... After a year of sometimes high drama, Saban has trumped an offer by German publisher Heinrich Bauer Verlag for a stake in Germany’s largest commercial broadcaster ProSiebenSat.1 Media and a vast library of film rights. Saban, who made his fortune with children’s TV figures such as the ‘Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers” is now the sole contender for KirchMedia after Bauer, teamed up with Germany’s No. 2 bank HVB Group, pulled out of the deal on Wednesday. ... Saban jumped back into the bidding this year, overtaking Bauer with a spruced-up offer. N.M. Rothschild & Sons is advising Saban. UBS Warburg is advising KirchMedia.”

Having dealt with your objections as to political influences active in Poland and Germany, will you be so good as to address the points I raise regarding “political correctness”, Claude Levi-Strauss, and the American Press? Thank you.

Posted by wintermute on February 16, 2005, 09:56 AM | #

What about Heidegger or Kierkegaard, for instance?

What about them, John? Do you have some evidence linking them to the widespread influence - in the modern academy - of the idea that all cultures are equal? I don’t think you do, and furthermore, I believe you are dropping these names as a deliberate dodge, since you cannot adequately counter the information I have provided in my post regarding Levi-Strauss, the Frankfurt School, ownership of American Press, and so forth.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 16, 2005, 10:17 AM | #

JJR:

C’mon, Wintermute, ... What about Heidegger or Kierkegaard, for instance?

I’ve only read selected essays and criticisms of both Heidegger and Kierkegaard and in both cases neither discussed cultural relativism. In the movements and persons Mr. Wintermute detailed this is the only or central idea.

Posted by Geoff Beck on February 16, 2005, 10:30 AM | #

Friendly Observer:

> Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau certainly wasn’t a modern cultural relativist, this is not the central tenent of this teaching, rather the most powerful element in his thought is the idea of “The General Will”. That is if men’s desires and ambitions are not stifled by morals and dogmas man will be happy.

The noble savage was the idea the pre-Columbian cultures, especially, were SUPERIOR to Europe’s. Why, well they were, again, not infected with our ideas of right and wrong.

Sure Rousseau is an ally of the relativists, but stops short of what is being discussed here.

Posted by MD on February 16, 2005, 10:48 AM | #

Because it’s such an absurd idea, it’s an interesting question where the “all cultures are equal” idea orginated and gained traction.  It should be first noted that, in all these analyses, Western European culture lies outside the pale; it isn’t “equal,” and is in fact “dominant” and “oppressive,” and only when its oppressiveness (false consciousness) is lifted will we Westerners be able to apprehend the glorious equality underlying all cultures.

Like all effects (i.e., the “all cultures are equal” meme), this one is probably overdetermined; one can rummage through intellectual history, from the gospels to Hegel, and find some ammunition in support of it.

My impression is that its current incarnation has been an unholy alliance between Marxism (the “New Man” and the “false consciousness” of Westerners/captitalists) and the academic disciplines of anthropology and sociology.  I don’t see much authorship for this idea in Western philosophy, and as evidence I give you the postmodern “philosophers,” who, although they mine Hegel and Heidegger for a piece here and there, declare the fundamental purpose of philosophy (a disciplined pursuit of truth) to be bogus.  So Rorty declares that philosophy is finished, that “it’s all interpretation,” and if it’s all interpretation one culture’s “interpretation” is surely as good as any other.

Once one gives up on epistemology, then it seems inevitable that an “equality” thesis must follow in some form (or, Nietzsche’s cynical will to power).  The postmodernists adopt both: will to power is used to analyze all social organizations and relationships (i.e., they are all corrupt power relationships) and “equality” is proffered as the utopian remedy for this horrible state of affairs.

Thus, “all cultures are equal” is offered as part of our repentance from our false consciousness of Western “exclusivity” and imperialistic or patriarchal “power trips.”

It’s all very suggestive of Puritanical Christianity: we have all sinned, we are all in a sinful condition of false consciousness, we must all repent, we must enter the new “paradigm” of unreserved equality (the “born again” dynamic or baptism), enter into secular salvation as “inclusive,” and then proselytize our conversion to the unwashed masses through indoctrination, education, and legal regulation (and we must work very hard on the children).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 16, 2005, 11:09 AM | #

Wintermute your posts paint a picture of Jews at all levels from lowly newspaper reporter or schoolteacher to international multidecabillionaire constantly gaining the upper hand by outsmarting all the gentiles at their level and imposing the collective Jewish will on everybody.  What about the gentile reporters and schoolteachers?  What about the gentile billionaires?  How come they’re not speaking out?  How come they never see what’s going on, never outsmart the Jews and defend gentiles from attack?  Whatever is going on always seems perfectly fine with them.  One isn’t saying many Jews don’t have a strong instinctive desire to “keep white-Euro Christianity down.”  Many influential Jews at all levels of society obviously do, and act accordingly, and that fact needs to be openly discussed and if possible remedied.  (Many influential Jews don’t have that instinctive desire of course.)  More specifically, where Jews push such policies partly for reasons of their Jewishness, not solely out of liberalism, they need to be confronted with that and told that it’s intolerable.  (Liberals of course are already constantly told by our side that they are intolerable.)  But to paint Jews as the whole picture is not only false, but harms the effort to set things to rights, by obscuring the full range of real culprits.  What one is saying is it’s not credible that influential gentiles would remain so suppine before aggressive behavior contrary to the interests of their communities.  On that theoretical basis alone, without needing to check the actual empirical facts, we must conclude that gentiles are happy with the same developments Jews are happy with.  Now if we go further and carefully observe the actual facts of the world around us, we see for example that all U.S. multibillionaires (I believe almost without exception) heartily endorse policies for this country that coincide with those that are heartily endorsed by leftwing Jewish billionaires.  These are men (and women also of course:  leftwing billionaire heiress Patsy Stryker, for example, is gentile; leftwing billionaire heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry is gentile) who cannot be intimidated by any individual Jew or any Jewish organization pushing Jewish interests that conflict with gentile society.  Therefore on both theoretical and empirical grounds we understand that this harmful segment of the Jews is not inflicting its harm alone, but is aided by an even more harmful segment of the even more numerous and even more powerful gentiles.  What am I saying?  That we shouldn’t blame the Jews where they deserve blame?  No.  We should blame them where they deserve it.  But why do you blame only them?  What do you let the way more culpable gentiles off scot free?  That is NOT the way to solve the problem.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 16, 2005, 11:17 AM | #

Erratum:  in my post above, that should read as follows:

“Now if we go further and carefully observe the actual facts of the world around us, we see for example that all gentile U.S. multibillionaires (I believe almost without exception) heartily endorse policies for this country that coincide with those that are heartily endorsed by leftwing Jewish billionaires.”

Posted by Svigor on February 16, 2005, 02:11 PM | #

Judeo-Christian, is that like Union-Confederate, or maybe Hutu-Tutsi, Judeo-Islamic, or Communo-Capitalist?  Christianity coincides with Judaism only as far as is necessary to totally rebel against it.

Posted by Effra on February 16, 2005, 03:19 PM | #

Jews have become among the least religiously observant of Americans (except for their cult of Holocaustianity and Reparations, of course). The weaselly term “Judaeo-Christian” to conflate anatgonistic creeds—one of ingroup particularism and organised dissembling, the other of missionary outreach and universality—is a symptom of how US culture and public doctrine have been secular-Judaised since WW2. That hyphenated adjective was barely in use before the dawn of the Civil Rights era and the systematic mongrelising of America in the name of “diversity”.

Today J-C sums up the tactical alliance between evangelical Armageddonite Christians and power-worshipping neocon atheists and agnostics, who in their heart of hearts despise and mistrust each other. What a basis for a foreign policy, let alone an attempt to regenerate the nation!

Posted by lurk on February 16, 2005, 07:55 PM | #

http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/download/eric_kaufmann/Decline_WASP_USA_Canada.pdf

Search for the phrase ‘pro-immigrant’.

Posted by ben tillman on February 16, 2005, 10:40 PM | #

Wintermute your posts paint a picture of Jews at all levels from lowly newspaper reporter or schoolteacher to international multidecabillionaire constantly gaining the upper hand by outsmarting all the gentiles at their level and imposing the collective Jewish will on everybody.

You are ignoring the fact that the Jewish community is an organization or, in the terms of evolutionary biologists, an organism.  (See David Sloan Wilson’s work.)  While there are internal disagreements regarding how the group should proceed, the group is sufficiently organized to enable it to marshal a relatively high proportion of its members’ resources to be marshaled and act relatively cohesively in the face of conflict with gentile individuals or groups.

What about the gentile reporters and schoolteachers?  What about the gentile billionaires?  How come they’re not speaking out?  How come they never see what’s going on, never outsmart the Jews and defend gentiles from attack?

Gentile reporters and schoolteachers are indoctrinated, intimidated, and incentivized to adopt prevailing memes and are naturally inclined to imitate those perceived as successful.  (See Boyd & Richardson regarding conformism.)

Posted by ben tillman on February 17, 2005, 12:20 AM | #

...it’s not credible that influential gentiles would remain so suppine before aggressive behavior contrary to the interests of their communities.  On that theoretical basis alone, without needing to check the actual empirical facts, we must conclude that gentiles are happy with the same developments Jews are happy with.

Do you mean gentile *billionaires* are happy with the same developments?  By and large, they seem to be.  If you’re looking to “blame” someone, they are the ones who can be considered most morally culpable, since the Jewish community long ago opted out of our moral community.

Elites are generally less committed to the community than are lower-level members of the community.  See Triandis on this point.  And, traditionally, the elite has been the point of entry for the Jewish community into the gentile community.  The ease of entry at this point may be facilitated by our race’s greater variability in intelligence, which allows high-IQ outsiders to present themselves as having more in common with the elite than do the elite’s own “poor relations”.

Regardless, this phenomenon has a long history.  From Benzion Netanyahu’s “The Origins of the Inquisition in 15th-Century Spain”, pp. 71-72:

“It was primarily because of the functions of the Jews as the king’s revenue gatherers in the urban areas that the cities saw the Jews as the monarch’s agents, who treated them as objects of massive exploitation.  By serving as they did the interests of the kings, the Jews seemed to be working against the interests of the cities; and thus we touch again on the phenomenon we have referred to:  the fundamental conflict between the kings and their people—a conflict not limited to financial matters, but one that embraced all spheres of government that had a bearing on the people’s life.  It was in part thanks to this conflict of interest that the Jews could survive the harsh climate of the Middle Ages, and it is hard to believe they did not discern it when they came to resettle in Christian Europe.  Indeed, their requests, since the days of the Carolingians, for assurances of protection before they settled in a place show (a) that they realized that the kings’ positions on many issues differed from those of the common people and (b) that the kings were prepared, for the sake of their interests, to make common cause with the ‘alien’ Jews against the clear wishes of their Christian subjects.  In a sense, therefore, the Jews’ agreements with the kings in the Middle Ages resembled the understandings they had reached with foreign conquerors in the ancient world.”

And from Israel Shahak’s “Jewish History, Jewish Religion, pp. 62-63:

“But the most lasting and tragic results occurred in the eastern provinces of Poland - ... The towns were established by nobles and belonged to them - and they were settled almost exclusively by Jews. Until 1939, the population of many Polish towns east of the river Bug was at least 90 per cent Jewish, and this demographic phenomenon was even more pronounced in that area of Tsarist Russia annexed from Poland and known as the Jewish Pale. Outside the towns very many Jews throughout Poland, but especially in the east, were employed as the direct supervisors and oppressors of the enserfed peasantry - as bailiffs of whole manors (invested with the landlord’s full coercive powers) or as lessees of particular feudal monopolies such as the corn mill, the liquor still and public house (with the right of armed search of peasant houses for illicit stills) or the bakery, and as collectors of customary feudal dues of all kinds. In short, in eastern Poland, under the rule of the nobles (and of the feudalised church, formed exclusively from the nobility) the Jews were both the immediate exploiters of the peasantry and virtually the only town-dwellers.

“Anti-Semitic outbursts were a reaction to Jewish economic exploitation and the Jewish role in assisting the oppressive gentile elite, which protected the Jews against the masses.”

Shahak further explains (p. 64):

“It must be pointed out that in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that is, where Jews were killed, the ruling elite, the emperor and the pope, the kings, the higher aristocracy and the upper clergy, as well as the rich bourgeoisie in the autonomous cities - were always on the side of the Jews. The latter’s enemies belonged to the more oppressed and exploited classes and those close to them in daily life and interests, such as the friars of the mendicant orders.”

Posted by ben tillman on February 17, 2005, 12:22 AM | #

The bottom line is that gentile elites have had a tendency to act hyperindividualistically, and indeed would be expected to do so when they can get away with it.  This is nothing more than within-group selection operating at the expense of the group under basic principles of multi-level selection theory.  Of course, as D.S. Wilson explains, the enforcement of a moral code is an important foundation of group cohesion, and ideally the moral code works to exert bi-directional social control in stratified societies.  Each stratum, ideally, exerts control over adjacent strata to prevent parasitic behavior by group members. 

The Jewish contribution to the problem is at least twofold.  First, the Jewish community encourages the gentile elite to engage in hyperindividualistic activity.  Second, the Jewish community’s activities tend to interfere with the mechanisms of bidirectional control whereby parasitism at the top is ameliorated, if not eliminated.  When Benjamin Ginsberg [The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State] speaks of the role of the Jewish community in building the (coercive) “state”, he is essentially referring to a process of centralization of power that consists of the breaking of the organic ties between those who govern and those who are governed. 

The tension between the gentile elite’s egoistic interests and the interests of the group is not created by the Jewish community, and absent genetic uniformity within the community, the principles of evolutionary biology hold that such tension will remain (although where the gentile elite is viewed as genetically similar to the commoners, a greater degree of elite egoism will be tolerated, which is why the thesis of Thomas Franks’s “What’s the Matter with Kansas” is so vacuous).  In the absence of a Jewish presence, large stratified gentile communities will not magically or instantaneously become perfectly cohesive and harmonious [though it is worth noting the extraordinary achievements of English civilization in the centuries after the expulsion by Edward I and the decline that followed widespread intermarriage beginning in the early 19th century (see Hillare Belloc’s “The Jews”) and the Emancipation of the Jews in the same century], but Jewish influence, to the extent it works to break the bonds that tie the community together and that enable the interests of a wayward elite to be reined in, prevents our communities from resolving the tension between “individual” interests and “group” interests.

Posted by ben tillman on February 17, 2005, 12:49 AM | #

Moreover, while hyperindividualism may in theory be adaptive for the gentile elite, the expression of such hyperindividualism becomes maladaptive at some point.  Regardless of the distinctive or eccentric sub-genes, genes, and gene-combinations (“genetic structures”) that the native elite may possess, the elite members of a community will still share large portions of their genetic structures with the non-elite.  That is to say, the evolutionary fate of the elite’s genetic structures is shared to some significant degree with that of the non-elite.  Because of this shared (or, more precisely, overlapping) fate, a program of multiculturalism that results in the destruction of the non-elite is ultimately harmful to the elite’s own evolutionary interests, although the exact point at which a multicultural program becomes maladaptive for the elite is more difficult to pinpoint.  The hypothesis that multiculturalism somehow emanates from a native elite faces a substantial theoretical problem.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 17, 2005, 01:39 AM | #

Ben Tillman thank you for posting those helpful (for me, at any rate) explanations.  I’ve just finished reading them all twice and still don’t quite grasp everything in them.  I’m going to go over them again.  The kind of analysis you do here is important.  Everyone who is an honest observer, whether Jew or gentile, wants to get to the bottom of this question of what brought the post-60s malaise on us—nay, not malaise but disease, and potentially deadly disease at that.  No frequenter of this web-site needs to be reminded of what catastrophic problems may lie in store if we cannot begin to get this breakdown mended.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 17, 2005, 03:34 AM | #

Incidentally,

here

(the passage below) are Jewish leftists doing the same intolerable, society-weakening things ... this time not to white-Euro Christian society, which a certain segment of Jews want to weaken, but to Israel.  Is this telling us anything? 
_____________________

Israeli university’s are crawling with flaky pseudo-scholars. Take the Op-Ed column in Haaretz Jan 30, 2005 by one Eran Neuman, a lecturer in architecure at Tel Aviv University (go

here

) who insists that all of architecture should be conscripted on behalf of political opposition to “occupation” of the Palestinians, but not of course to the genocidal mass murder of Jews.

There are many anti-Israel architects running around Israel, and two years ago, two of the loopiest, Ayal Weizmann and Rafi Segel organized an exhibition on “Architecture against the Occupation”. Their point was that the very design of Israeli buildings in the “occupied territories” shows how Israel is a brutal colonialist evil racist entity. Trust them, they are architects so who better to offer insights on the Arab-Israeli war!

After airing their “art” in Berlin, a place containing many people with experience in liberating territories from Jewish occupation, the Daffy and Bugs of Israeli architecture wanted the Israeli Architects Association also to show their “exhibit” in the Association’s building, but they declined. They considered the exhibit blatant politics and extremist politics at that, but not art nor design. Naturally, the Far Left screamed censorship, since not allowing anti-Semites and pro-terrorists to use your private property to promote their views is in their opinion suppression of free speech.

Comrade Neumann in Haaretz Jan 30, 05 is all upset because of this “censorship” and also over the fact that not all architects have followed the example of Weizmann and Segel in promoting the destruction of Israel through critical art and progressive architecture. Comrade Neumann by the way teaches “Critical Theory” (which means Marxist boilerplate) at Tel Aviv University. Why does Tel Aviv University carry courses in Marxism, after Marxism was thoroughly disproved 150 years ago and discredited by the 100 million victims killed by communism in the 20th century? Maybe you should ask the officials at Tel Aviv University (

here

) or some of their donors!

Meanwhile, I am sure these architects against occupation must have gone out and partied all night long right after bin Laden filed his own protest against buildings representing power and domination in New York and DC! Ah, but Marxist architects for the destruction of Israel do not even come CLOSE to this week’s Israeli award winner for Dumbest Idea on Campus, which must go to Dr. Danny Kaplan, a sociologist at Hebrew University (you know, Baruch Kimmerling’s stomping grounds). He also teaches “gender studies” at Bar-Ilan University and The Tel Aviv-Jaffa Community College. Kaplan is featured in Haaretz Jan 30, 04 in a long interview. Kaplan recently published an article in “Theory and Criticism,” which is a brain-dead Marxist piece of manure edited by Tel Aviv University Marxist sociologist Yehuda Shenhav. You may recall this “journal” as the one in which an education-faculty member at Haifa University published an article a couple of years back arguing that his own university’s architecture was nothing more than a large phallic symbol representing oppression of Arabs. Really! I think he got tenure for that article!

In the hot new issue of “Theory and Criticism,” Kaplan develops a theory according to which any time Israel mourns for any of its soldiers who have been murdered by the Palestinian savages, this mourning is in fact a form of eroticism and that all Israelis mourning their dead soldiers are possessed with an uncontrollable form of homosexual necrophilia. Military solidarity among soldiers in Israel is erotic by its nature, insists Kappy. Really. I am not making this up. Kappy insists friendship and mutual support among Israeli soldiers is homosexual and erotic, and that Israel’s mourning murdered soldiers is collective necrophilia and also homoerotic. My guess is he did his research on this point while stroking himself in the Hebrew University men’s room while looking at photos of dead Israelis. Kaplan can be reached

here

.

Meanwhile, for many more horror stories about Israeli academia, [...] please go

here

!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 17, 2005, 09:06 AM | #

Correction:  The link in the next-to-last sentence of the excerpt I posted above doesn’t work (my apologies to any who clicked on it and wound up back at MajorityRights.com).  Let’s try that again:

Kaplan can be reached

here

.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 17, 2005, 09:16 AM | #

Sorry again, it still takes you back here.  (I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.)  Anyone interested in that URL can use the one given in the original log entry at Moonbat Central (the original log entry is linked at the very start of my post above of 07:34 AM).

Posted by ben tillman on February 17, 2005, 03:23 PM | #

Incidentally, here (the passage below) are Jewish leftists doing the same intolerable, society-weakening things ... this time not to white-Euro Christian society, which a certain segment of Jews want to weaken, but to Israel.  Is this telling us anything?

Absolutely.  It tells us that “libertarian” critiques of the coercive “state” are spot on.  The Weberian “state” possesses a monopoly of the “legitimate” use of physical force within a given territory.  In the diaspora, the Jewish community never had a territory, so it never had a state.  Even within a ghetto—a small-scale territory—the hallmark of a state (government by people you don’t know) was absent.  The establishment of a Jewish “state” (in the Weberian sense) in Palestine, however, means that the Jewish community within that territory will face the problems engendered by such a parasitic “state”.  These problems include the weakening of the moral code and its enforcement mechanisms, as well as the various consequences identified by Hans-Hermann Hoppe as attendant to social democracy.  With the weakening of the moral code, we would expect to see more sociopathic behavior, and we would expect the community to have more difficulty opposing it.