The Jooos

Posted by Daveg on May 02, 2006, 11:06 AM | #

Without Jews, the left would not exist in any real sense.  Just look who writes for The Nation.

Sure, Jews are involved in lots of activities, but there is a special relationship between Jews and Communism.

Posted by Donald Miller on May 02, 2006, 11:06 AM | #

This is a disturbing post. It seems as though the author is deeply conflicted by his relationship to, and understanding of, Jews. Most Americans, Canadians, and Australians, not to mention Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans, are not so judeocentric, either pro or con.

Lots of us live our lives without reference to the nuances that plague the author. Why does the so-called JQ fascinate the author so much?

Were he certain of the accuracy of his intellectual findings, and content that they match reality on the ground, he wouldn’t have to chew on this subject so much.

We get it, he loves Israel and he enjoys the contributions Jews have made to our day-to-day lives. But if he really believes it so much, why the obsession?

PS: Let’s drop the idea that we live in a Western civilization or in the “West.” If by that we mean the universalization of the ideology of the enlightment in Europe, North America, and Australia, that age has been successfully destroyed. Let’s stop pretending that we live in a special kind of “Western” civilization…it’s one of those contributions the author enjoys so much.

Posted by James Bowery on May 02, 2006, 11:12 AM | #

Just as understanding of epidemic disease had to come to understand contageon, understing Jewish virulence has been awaiting a good general theory of virulence.  People use metaphors for suppression of epidemic disease all the time—metaphors that, were they to be taken seriously, would make them sound mideval or mad or both—metaphors like “war”, etc.  But if you fight against advances in epidemiology on the basis that some people continue to harbor mideval superstitions or that others use metaphors that might invoke those superstitions, you are part of the problem.

No the simple fact is that Jews, as a group, have no more interest in destroying Europeans than a horizontally transmitted virus has in destroying its hosts.  Yet there are such viruses and they do retain their virulence precisely because they are mobile—disrespecting borders—able to find a place to live no matter how much destruction they wreak upon their hosts.

This multinational, horizontally-transmitted, character of Jews goes back at least to the Persian Empire’s Royal Road, with its 111 way stations where Jews seem to have occupied critical positions rendering them immune to the fate of any country in which they resided.  That is hundreds of generations ago and, as E. O. Wilson pointed out in “On Human Nature”, 50 generations is enough time to evolve unique characters.

The fact that modern technology has rendered their virulence self-destructive doesn’t mean they are going to adapt overnight and become symbiotic due to the fact that now they are running out of viable places migrate.

Posted by ben tillman on May 02, 2006, 11:56 AM | #

Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.

James is Right.  The Jewish gene pool differs from ours, creating an evolutionary conflict of interest.  The only way Jewish interests can be coterminous with ours is if they are prevented from moving horizontally among white communities; i.e., they would have to be contained like mitochondria, making their survival into the future dependent on our survival into the future.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 02, 2006, 12:05 PM | #

Where I part from the Judeophobes is in their assertion that Jewish self-interest lies in destroying European civilization.  That seems to me the most towering absurdity.  Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.  Does anybody seriously propose that Jews would benefit from a Muslim takeover???

Why are you preaching to the choir?  Go tell that to the jews, dummy!

And don’t tell me that I have not heard all the arguments.

You hear, but you don’t listen.  Nothing penetrates that thick skull of yours.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 02, 2006, 12:16 PM | #

Where I part from the Judeophobes is in their assertion that Jewish self-interest lies in destroying European civilization.  That seems to me the most towering absurdity.  Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.  Does anybody seriously propose that Jews would benefit from a Muslim takeover???

This is a perfect example of how you absorb nothing.  How many times has this been addressed here?

Posted by starimomak on May 02, 2006, 12:51 PM | #

I skip many JJR posts, so perhaps he’s addressed this, but how does he explain the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt’s paper on the part of Dershowitz, Elliot Cohen, and the like? Yes, there has been some defense of the paper by Jews (Richard Cohen), but that is very ‘nuanced’ compared to the vicious campaign carried out by Professor Dershowitz and his militant co-ethnics.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 02, 2006, 01:08 PM | #

Possibly no one will take this kid seriously, however it is interestingly that the notion appeared at all.

Many claim that Islam is just a violent religion that advances the idea of holy war and violence throughout the world and has done so since its inception.

They are right, except for the last part. Only in the last 125 years or so has Islam been a religion prone to violence and extremism.

Since its inception in 610 up to the 1880’s, Islam was a tolerant and peaceful religion. Under the Islamic empires of that time, only a small head tax was placed on non-Muslims living there by its religious rulers. Otherwise, Jews, Christians and any others were free to worship as they pleased.

In fact, Islamic scholars contributed greatly to the fields of mathematics, astronomy, medicine and philosophy centuries before Western scientists reached that level of intelligence. Jews and Muslims often had to unify to fight a common enemy: Christianity.

I hate Christianity. There, I said it. Since its creation, it has mostly caused violence and death, despite espousing the doctrine of compassion and love.

Posted by karlmagnus on May 02, 2006, 01:30 PM | #

JJR, I thought you’d agreed to restrict your Jewish posts to one a month. By posting continuously on the subject like this you stir up the nutters and bore everybody else rigid.  Also, by encouraging the nutters, you make it a place where the rational and thoughtful are reluctant to post things, for fear that third parties will be able to tar them with guilt by association with the loonie fringe. It’s extremely unhelpful. and prevents the blog from dealing with genuinely important issues in a rational manner.

Posted by Geoff Beck on May 02, 2006, 03:17 PM | #

Karl, always gets mad when his beloveds are criticized, oh not Americans, not rural English, not Mexicans… oh but the the chosens… well.

Ok, don’t listen to a nutter like me.

I’ll confess it, at least: like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflecting its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves.

—Stephen Steinlight

Dr. Stephen Steinlight was for more than five years Director of National Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Jewish Committee. For the past two and a half years he has been a Senior Fellow at AJC. He is co-editor of the forthcoming Fractious Nation: Race, Class and Culture in America at the End of the Twentieth Century (UC-Berkeley Press), and he has recently been appointed editor of South Asia: In Review.The views expressed in this essay do not reflect the current policy position of AJC with regard to immigration.

Posted by Matra on May 02, 2006, 03:19 PM | #

And similarly anti-Jewish Jews are readily to be found today (Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky etc

I don’t know about Finkelstein but it’s news to me that Chomsky doesn’t like his fellow Jews. He became a leftist in response to European fascism and American ‘bigotry’, including anti-semitism. My impression of him is that he hates white Christian America so much that he’s willing to extend his hatred to Jews he sees as its friends. Chomsky also seems to believe the U.S, not Israel, is the main obstacle to peace with the Palestinians as the Americans are in charge of the relationship. So though he’s critical of Israel he always makes sure the reader knows the Americans (white Christians) are the main problem. Unsurprisingly he’s also been critical of “The Lobby”.

Posted by Matra on May 02, 2006, 03:38 PM | #

Jeffrey Blankfort on “anti-Jewish” Noam Chomsky:

Chomsky tends to simplify US politics, blaming everything on the elites and whoever is in the White House while avoiding the role of Congress. Today, eleven members of the Senate are Jewish, that is 11 % of the 100 members while only 2 % of the American population is Jewish. He and his supporters, either directly or indirectly, raise the spectre of anti-Semitism, of provoking anti-Semitism, and what happens is that people keep their mouth shut. Now, Chomsky, who was a Zionist when he was younger - he lived in Israel, he has friends in Israel, was considering moving to Israel - admitted in 1974 that this might influence his perspective – and he wanted his readers to know that. He wrote this in 1974 and yet few people who read Chomsky today know that. They do not know that he was Zionist, that he considered living in Israel.

In fact, for years he did not speak about Israel while he was speaking out about the US in Central America and Vietnam. It was a mutual friend of ours, Dr. Israel Shahak, who convinced Chomsky that he should speak up against what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. It is interesting that the most important book that Chomsky wrote about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, The Fateful Triangle, begins actually with a defence of Israel, a defence in the sense that while acknowledging all the Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, he blames the US for allowing it to happen.

In other interviews Chomsky has referred to the U.S. as “the Boss-Man” that the Israelis must not offend.

More from Blankfort on Chomsky and the Israel lobby:

On most other subjects, he is more open. On this particular one, he won’t even debate the issue. In 1991 we had an exchange that was published in a left newspaper in New York, the National Guardian, and a friend there wanted to set up a debate between Chomsky and myself on the issue of the Israel lobby at the Socialist Scholars Conference. Chomsky refused, writing “that it would not be useful.” After his refusal, I asked a professor in California, Joel Beinin, whom I know, and who takes Chomsky’s position, if he would debate me. His response was identical: “it would not be useful !”

http://www.voltairenet.org/article136002.html

Posted by James Bowery on May 02, 2006, 04:45 PM | #

More evidence that migratory Jews are the problem.  below are the average coefficients of determination of the strongest determinants of western demographies.

0.2059 HIVPositiveTestsPercapita2001
0.2000 RussianPercapita1990
0.1983 FamiliesWithIncome125000to149999PercapitaIn1990
0.1955 MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirth1980
0.1945 FamiliesWithIncome100000to124999PercapitaIn1990
0.1940 MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirth1990
0.1935 FamiliesWithIncome10000to12499PercapitaIn1990
0.1933 FamiliesWithIncome75000to99999PercapitaIn1990
0.1928 JewishPercentOfWhites
0.1927 FamiliesWithIncome12500to14999PercapitaIn1990
0.1913 FamiliesWithIncome150000ormorePercapitaIn1990
0.1908 JewsPercapita1999

Russian Americans are predominantly Jews born in Russia who migrated to the US as the Soviet Union was collapsing—exactly as predicted by the horizontal transmission theory of Jewish virulence and its destructive effects on societies.

Now, did I manage to come up with this rank ordering of dominant determinants by cherry picking my demographic variables to make it fit my “hatred of the JOOOOOS”?

MR won’t let me post the average coefficients of determination for all the rest of the variables—there are too many of them including everything from nation of origin to race to crime stats to education/IQ (even UFO sightings)—but you can look at them all at Laboratory of the States and decide for yourself.

Bottom line, anyone who tries to tell you that “Jews” is a meaningless category is not being intellectually honest and anyone who tells you that “Jews” are not influential is being intellectually dishonest and anyone who tells you that the influence weilded by Jews isn’t primarily negative isn’t being intellectually honest.

Here are the correlates with Jews:

        99   with JewishPercentOfWhites
        94   with RussianPercapita1990
        87   with AIDSTotalPercapitaThru2001
(log)  86   with log(FamiliesWithIncome150000ormorePercapitaIn1990)
        86   with sqrt(West_IndianPercapita1990)
(log)  84   with log(FamiliesWithIncome125000to149999PercapitaIn1990)
        83   with HIVPositiveTestsPercapita2001
        83   with sqrt(ImmigrantsJamaicaPercapita1998)
(sqrt)  83   with sqrt(ItalianPercentOfWhites)
(log)  82   with -WhiteYearsMarried18To44In2000
(log)  82   with log(FamiliesWithIncome100000to124999PercapitaIn1990)
(log)  82   with log(FamiliesWithIncome75000to99999PercapitaIn1990)
      82   with sqrt(ImmigrantsDominicanRepublicPercapita1998)
(log)  81   with log(FamiliesWithIncome60000to74999PercapitaIn1990)
(sqrt)  81   with log(ItalianPercapita1990)
(sqrt)  80   with sqrt(RomanianPercapita1990)
(log)  80   with log(ImmigrantsNonWesternPercapita1998)
(log)  80   with InnerCityPercapita1990
(log)  80   with log(LithuanianPercapita1990)
(log)  79   with log(ForeignBornPercapita1990)
(log)  79   with log(PublicEducationTeacherSalaries2000)
(log)  79   with log(ImmigrantsTotalPercapita1998)
(sqrt)  78   with GSPServicesPerGSP1999
(log)  78   with log(FamiliesWithIncome55000to59999PercapitaIn1990)
(log)  78   with log(ForeignBornPercapita2000)
(log)  77   with -FamiliesWithIncome12500to14999PercapitaIn1990
(log)  77   with log(DoctorsPercapita1990)
(sqrt)  77   with -log(SuburbanPercapita1990)
(sqrt)  76   with GSPServicesPerGSP2000
(log)  76   with -FamiliesWithIncome17500to19999PercapitaIn1990
(log)  75   with -FamiliesWithIncome20000to22499PercapitaIn1990
(log)  75   with log(ImmigrantsIndiaPercapita1998)
(log)  75   with -FamiliesWithIncome15000to17499PercapitaIn1990
(log)  75   with log(MedianFamilyIncome1990)
(log)  74   with log(MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirth2000)
(sqrt)  74   with log(ImmigrantsChinaPercapita1998)
(sqrt)  74   with log(GreekPercapita1990)
(log)  73   with log(ArabPercapita1990)
        73   with AustrianPercapita1990
(log)  73   with -FamiliesWithIncome22500to24999PercapitaIn1990
(log)  72   with -FamiliesWithIncome10000to12499PercapitaIn1990
(sqrt)  72   with sqrt(HousingPricesPercentChange1980To2004)
(sqrt)  72   with log(UkrainianPercapita1990)
(log)  72   with log(MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirth1990)
(log)  71   with -sqrt(VoteBushPercent2004)
(sqrt)  71   with BirthsPerAbortion1998
(sqrt)  71   with AbortionsPerFertileWoman1998
(sqrt)  71   with sqrt(HousingPricesPercentChange5YearsPriorTo2004)
(log)  71   with -FamiliesWithIncome25000to27499PercapitaIn1990
      70   with CostOfLivingHousing2000
(log)  69   with log(MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirth1980)
(log)  69   with log(AbortionsPercapita1998)
(sqrt)  69   with -log(RuralPercapita1990)
(log)  68   with log(FamiliesWithIncome50000to54999PercapitaIn1990)
(log)  68   with log(HungarianPercapita1990)
(log)  68   with log(MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirthIncrease1970to2000)
(sqrt)  68   with sqrt(H1BWithJobsPercapita1997)
(log)  67   with -FamiliesWithIncome27500to29999PercapitaIn1990
(log)  67   with -log(FedExpendituresPerDollarOfTaxes2002)
(log)  67   with -log(FedExpendituresPerDollarOfTaxesSansDC2002)
(log)  66   with log(PolishPercapita1990)
(log)  66   with log(Age25To44Percentage2000)
(sqrt)  66   with MothersAgeAtFirstLiveBirth1970
  66   with CostOfLivingComposite2000
(log)  66   with log(SATWICHEParticipationRate2001)
(log)  65   with -FamiliesWithIncome5000to9999PercapitaIn1990
(log)  65   with log(PublicEducationExpenditurePerStudent1998)
(sqrt)  64   with -GSPIndustriesPerGSP1999
(log)  64   with -log(ImparingWaterPollutantsSedimentationMilesPercapita2003)
(sqrt)  64   with log(Subsaharan_AfricanPercapita1990)
(log)  64   with RobberyPercapita2001
(log)  63   with log(HateCrimeEstimatedPercapita1996)
(sqrt)  62   with -GSPIndustriesPerGSP2000
(sqrt)  61   with HousingPricesPercentChange12MonthsPriorTo2004
(log)  60   with log(HateCrimeEstimatedPercapita1999)
  59   with PrisonerDeathsFemalePerInCustody1988
(sqrt)  59   with CostOfLivingRank2000
(sqrt)  58   with -FamiliesWithIncome30000to32499PercapitaIn1990
(log)  57   with -log(FedExpendituresPerDollarOfTaxes1992)
(log)  57   with -log(FedExpendituresPerDollarOfTaxesSansDC1992)
(log)  56   with -log(Age18To24Percentage2000)
(log)  56   with AlcoholConsumptionPercapita1986
(log)  55   with log(Asian_or_Pacific_IslanderPercapita1990)
(log)  55   with -SATIMeanVerbal1991
(sqrt)  55   with -log(FamiliesWithIncome32500to34999PercapitaIn1990)
(log)  55   with -log(IraqWarCasualtiesPercapita2005)

Posted by seelow heights on May 02, 2006, 05:06 PM | #

Maybe JJR can explain to me why Israel is considered a US ally ( and why so heavily subsidized? ) in light of: (1) the Lavon Affair (2) the attack on the USS Liberty (I don’t think even JJR thinks it was an accident), (3) Jonathan Pollard and (4) the clandestine resale of US military technology to Red China. An honest question-I’m puzzled.

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 02, 2006, 05:34 PM | #

Ummm. So why is it okay to generalise about Africans and not okay to do so about Jews? Still haven’t heard an answer for that one.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 02, 2006, 05:48 PM | #

Steve,

It’s not medically safe to hold your breath on that one.

Where I part from the Judeophobes is in their assertion that Jewish self-interest lies in destroying European civilization.  That seems to me the most towering absurdity.  Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.  Does anybody seriously propose that Jews would benefit from a Muslim takeover???

John, you’re a great bloke. Let me state that outright. And it is for that reason that I have to pull a few punches when I have to respond to you.

You also either blind or utterly dense or don’t pay much attention. It is not about whether WE think Jews will benefit from a Muslim takeover. What we think is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what Jews themselves think and how they act in response to that (even if that is based on delusion). Read this article for confirmation. The writer should know as he’s ethnically Jewish and has an insider view on things the way we cannot have. 

I am not a Jew-hater. I’ve stated this many times. And in fact, Jewish political propensities are not even a matter of much serious argument any more. Many people (including many Philo-semities) admit this openly or privately.

Recognising that Jews have a propensity for loony left-wing causes (and/or those that are disproportionately destructive to western society) does not make one a Jew-hater any more than recognising that Blacks are crime prone makes one a racist.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 02, 2006, 05:57 PM | #

Jews are indeed prominent on the culturally destructive Left but they would be utterly powerless except for the fact that the selfsame Left is vast, hugely influential and hugely destructive all by itself—without any need of Jewish assistance.

Probably true for Europe today but much less so for America.

Posted by James Bowery on May 02, 2006, 06:00 PM | #

I think it is profoundly unwise to underestimate the influence of the US on post-WW II Europe, Phil.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 02, 2006, 06:07 PM | #

James,

John said that the Left would sustain itself with or without Jewish influence. This is certainly true in Europe today.

Most of the European Left is very anti-Israel and virulently anti-American (whatever might have been the US role in its creation, it is now self-sustaining). You need to see some of these people. Not ever having met these people leaves one with a false impression. I guess what I am trying to say is that the European “hard-Left” no longer has a significant Jewish component (unlike the American hard-Left). And yet it is quite strong and is very destructive.

Self-destructiveness is a human trait. One thing that I have never understood with WNs is why they think Jews are indispensible for whites to self-destruct. Every nation, every people, every race on earth is capable of destroying itself without outside help. We are too. Let us not forget that.

I keep going back to the Scandinavian example to support my argument.

Posted by jonjayray on May 02, 2006, 06:16 PM | #

I have just put an update on this post that replies to some of the comments above but I think Steve’s query about blacks deserves a reply here.

The short answer is that I DO treat blacks on their individual merits.  The person I quote most frequently in my blogging is Thomas Sowell—an American black.  For a more systematic reply, see http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/race.html

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 02, 2006, 06:25 PM | #

There has been a bit of grumbling in the Comments about my raising this issue again.  But it is not I who have raised the issue.  It is a continuing theme on this blog.  If a post itself is not Judeophobic, Judeophobia will crop up in the comments.  I was merely trying to provide some antidote to that and thus demonstrate to all and sundry that you can be concerned about majority rights (as I most certainly am) without also being Judeophobic.  It seems utterly clear to me that Judeophobia HARMS the cause of majority rights and I am genuinely trying to dissuade majority righters from such foolish views.  Quixotic of me, perhaps, but arguing against folly is what I do.

There is no doubt that for some people the JQ becomes a fixation and then they cannot think of anything else. Their minds then run round and round in circles and rot.

However, what you seem to be saying is that ANY criticism of Jews should not occur. This seems like a patently irrational position to me. On this blog, there is probably not a single ethny of significant influence that hasn’t been criticised. So why should Jews get any special privileges?

If what you are saying is that people can get into overkill with the JQ, then I agree. But if you are saying that Jews should never never be criticised, that’s an irrational position for someone with a supposedly free mind to take.

Posted by rustymason on May 02, 2006, 06:37 PM | #

“Maybe JJR can explain to me why Israel is considered a US ally ( and why so heavily subsidized? ) in light of: (1) the Lavon Affair (2) the attack on the USS Liberty (I don’t think even JJR thinks it was an accident), (3) Jonathan Pollard and (4) the clandestine resale of US military technology to Red China. An honest question-I’m puzzled.”

Don’t forget the Israeli Lobby:
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=540#more-540

Any person who doesn’t see the problem with organized Jewry in the US is either a liar or a fool.

Posted by random commenter on May 02, 2006, 06:39 PM | #

average coefficients of determination of the strongest determinants of western demographies

Could you explain a little bit more about this?

James,

Your laboratory of the states lacks gini coefficient by state.  It would make for interesting comparisons.  For example, gini coefficent vs. jewish per capita has a .4 correlation.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on May 02, 2006, 07:04 PM | #

Ray assumes that populations always behave in ways that ensure their survival and success. If this were so, no ethnic group would ever disappear. But Jews have, time and again, behaved in ways that threatened their survival as a community, rendering themselves persona non grata and seemingly unable to learn from the cycle of reception/ghettoisation/emancipation/predation/odium which recurs whenever they plant themselves among gentiles.

Today irreligious Jews are in some peril of being annihilated in their chosen homeland and assimilated almost out of existence in the New World, looking a few generations ahead. Worldwide they number under 20m and are becoming as endangered a species as Zoroastrian Parsees, as their birth rate withers. Their ascendancy in the western world’s financial system, media, show business, jurisprudence, academic life etc has proved to be a double-edged sword, tempting them to shed the faith, fertility and folkways which preserved their separateness on a critically-massive scale.

Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.  Does anybody seriously propose that Jews would benefit from a Muslim takeover???

Secular Jews have been the vectors of the disillusionment, degeneration and decadence of Christian society. Their self-interest has been that of ivy vis a vis the oak. I do not believe a Muslim takeover is any more likely than the worldwide triumph of communism raised by scaremongers after 1945; but that is immaterial to the point that Jews have been behaving in presumptuous and foolhardy ways since Pilate’s time. Why should they stop now, when they are dizzy with the success and riches they have gained by playing the blame game?

Posted by john on May 02, 2006, 07:11 PM | #

Times are changing, the post war generation, those who believe in the “good war” and the silly gas chamber story, and who understandably can’t change, will pass on and a more balanced view of our history will prevail.
Maybe some whities will start putting their own interests, which coincide with facts, first.
The word judeophobia has no meaning other than a slander.

Posted by James Bowery on May 02, 2006, 07:56 PM | #

I wrote: average coefficients of determination of the strongest determinants of western demographies

random commenter wrote: Could you explain a little bit more about this?

A dominance hierarchy is established by taking each variable and seeing how much other variables change along with it. The more other variables change along with it, on average, the more dominant that variable.

Squared correlations (coefficients of determination) are averaged rather than correlations themselves so as to estimate the portion of variance in all variables explained by that variable.

The fact that Russians and Jews top the list, along with HIV, AIDS, the highest income groups and delay of motherhood shows a nasty ecological situation.

District of Columbia is excluded in these by-State correlations to improve the normality of the distributions and therefore their statistical significance.

Why Averaging the Coefficients of Determination Works

Some people with a background in statistics wonder why the coefficients of determination are averaged to give each variable its ranking.  Sometimes they suggest techniques such as PCA or related techniques such as ANOVA.

Some sort of ANOVA, with a “value” weight assigned to each input variable, would be ideal here, but such weightings would have to be quite subjective anyway and are probably best estimated by the meta statistics of the statistics gathering process itself, which has to do with how concerned people are with various measures.

The selection of demographic variables here is not at random—they are contributed to this site by the users of the site.  There
are, therefore, more demographic variables for those “important” dimensions of society as seen by users of the correlator.

Therefore, some principle components are more important than others.  For instance, it may be that an optimal coordinate system for these data would include all incarceration rate statistics in the same principle component.  It may even be that the eigenvalue is relatively small for that principle component.  Without some weighting of the a priori importance of the principle component the ANOVA algorithm would wash out incarceration’s a priori importance vs principle components containing “random” variables (that’s a pun for statistics nerds) such as median age, Norwegian Americans as a percent of whites, etc.

Another principle component that has “too many correlations”, and which would tend to involve only one or two principle components is percapita populations at each of many, income groups.

Again, if we’re really concerned about something we tend to scrutinize it more and have more measurements of its various manifestations. That’s why averaging the coefficients of determination as a measure of “influence” (as approximately defined as that word is here) works in the measurement of dominant United States influences.

Posted by John Ray on May 02, 2006, 08:47 PM | #

“if you are saying that Jews should never never be criticised”

Hardly.  See http://jonjayray/netfirms.com/semitism.html

Posted by Al Ross on May 02, 2006, 08:53 PM | #

KM’s ad hominem ‘nutters’ comment is an indication of his desperation in the face of unanswerable evidence and also a sign of his dedication to a belief in the sacrosanct nonsense about Jews which many American dupes are conditioned to accept without question.

Previous generations of Englishmen at least understood the nature of the Jewish threat , even if they lacked the will to combat it.

Posted by James Bowery on May 02, 2006, 08:57 PM | #

John said that the Left would sustain itself with or without Jewish influence. This is certainly true in Europe today.

I think you’ll find that as hatred of the United States grows in Europe, the left itself will self-destruct because in its post-communist era incarnation, it is a creature primarily of the United States.  When they realize what the Jews have done to them via the United States there will be a profound backlash against Jews in Europe and it will be a toss-up as to whether it will hit Islamic invaders as well.  That depends on the degree to which the Islamics can shift the reaction away from diaspora Jewry toward Zionist Jews.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 02, 2006, 09:27 PM | #

Jews and Muslims often had to unify to fight a common enemy: Christianity.

I hate Christianity. There, I said it. Since its creation, it has mostly caused violence and death, despite espousing the doctrine of compassion and love.

Jewry flourished under Christianity and withered under Islam, because Muslims had the sense to keep their feet on jewish necks.

Self-destructiveness is a human trait. One thing that I have never understood with WNs is why they think Jews are indispensible for whites to self-destruct.

I find the question itself a red herring; jews are a problem.  How much of one is largely academic.

Posted by ben tillman on May 02, 2006, 09:35 PM | #

More evidence that migratory Jews are the problem.  below are the average coefficients of determination of the strongest determinants of western demographies.

I think Random’s question was directed at the meaning of “the strongest determinants of western demographies”.  In other words, your numbers indicate a correlation betweeen each listed factor and what?

Posted by ben tillman on May 02, 2006, 09:38 PM | #

One thing that I have never understood with WNs is why they think Jews are indispensible for whites to self-destruct.

It’s called the germ theory of disease.  A disease involves a patient and a pathogen.

Posted by ben tillman on May 02, 2006, 09:46 PM | #

I keep going back to the Scandinavian example to support my argument.

But that example has never withstood scrutiny.  The onset of Sweden’s auto-immune disorder occurred only after its exposure to television.

Posted by Lurker on May 02, 2006, 09:48 PM | #

Matt O’H - your favourite Tory boy has, at long last, added a new post to his site, I was surprised to note you hadnt called by to offer your best wishes.

Posted by ben tillman on May 02, 2006, 10:08 PM | #

Russian Americans are predominantly Jews born in Russia who migrated to the US as the Soviet Union was collapsing—exactly as predicted by the horizontal transmission theory of Jewish virulence and its destructive effects on societies.

One of history’s most compelling images is that of Lenin’s sealed train hurtling from Switzerland into Russia—like an injection with a syringe.  Churchill observed, “They transported Lenin in a sealed train like a plague bacillus from Switzerland to Russia.”

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 03, 2006, 01:02 AM | #

Except John Ray has also repeatedly said that a large black population is “trouble”. So how can that be anything but a generalisation?

Posted by AD on May 03, 2006, 01:07 AM | #

I’ll only talk about Australia.

It is a fact that every single major Jewish organisation here, whether “left” or “right” wing, is fanatically pro-mass immigration/multiculturalism, willing to finance litigation against anything perceived to be “pro-white” and in favour of reducing the White Christian majority. This isn’t all Jews, but it is all organised Jewry:

Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies
Australian Jewish News(who have purged their archive of obsessive 6 year campagin of anti-Hanson lies)
Courage To Care
B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission
Jewish Community Council of Victoria
Australian Union of Jewish Students
Executive Council of Australian Jewry
Australian Jewish Democratic Society

It is a fact that Mark Leibler, former chairman of the “right wing” Zionist Federation of Australia, was the principal force behind the 1995 racial discrimination act and the more recent Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Bill. There is no “judeophobia” in recognising it, the Jewish community openly proclaim these things”:

“Australian Jewry was in the forefront of moves to expand national anti-racism legislation to include laws against racial vilification and incitement to racist activity. The Legislation came into effect late in 1995 and the Jewish community has been involved in a number of conciliations under the Racial Hatred Act.”

Mark Leibler is the brother of Isi Leibler who the Herald Sun (27/9/2000) reported: “Melbourne Jewish leader Isi Liebler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel. “‘This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,’ he told a Jerusalem newspaper. “Mr. Liebler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that ‘we are all proud being part and parcel of ....’”

JR says:

Where I part from the Judeophobes is in their assertion that Jewish self-interest lies in destroying European civilization.  That seems to me the most towering absurdity.  Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.

But JR doesn’t see mass immigration and multiculturalism as “destroying European civilization” himself. He has stated that he is in favour of it, so of course to him it must seem a “towering absurdity” that pushing race-replacement can be viewed as being against White “self-interest”. I assume JR’s only problem with organised Jewry is their litigation against ‘racism’, as seen most recently by their agitation, funding and participation in the case against Andrew Fraser.

There is no “phobia” or anything irrational in stating the obvious: All major organised Jewry, whether left or right wing, pro or anti-israel, is hostile to the idea of a majority White nation and actively puts its financial, legal and lobbying muscle to work against it. While there are exceptions on an individual level, there are no exceptions on an organised level of any consequence. None. Anti-Israel Chomsky wants the end of White nations. Pro-Israel Foxman wants the end of White nations. Left or right, marxist or capitalist, it doesn’t matter as long as it’s internationalist in nature. Organised Jewry were pro-British Empire when it was breaking down borders, organised Jewry are against Britishness/Monarchism in Australia because it’s equated with anti-internationalism.

There is nothing “evil” about any of this. It is simply about (perceived)ethnic interests. Organised Chinese groups do it in Australia too, though they’re not anywhere near as successful. There are also many young Jews in Australia who see themselves, not as a minority, but part of the white majority(ie only a sectarian difference)......this in fact isn’t a new path, but a path that British Jews in this country took pre-WW1, before continental Jews started arriving and setting up anti-majority “organisations”. I don’t know how it’s going to play out.

Jews get most of the attention(on boards like this) because they’ve been with us the longest, played a disproportionate role in Bolshevism/Freudianism/Hollywood/The Press and most of all, because they look similar to us and aren’t as easily recognised as “other” which lends itself to even more suspicion…....that Jews like Tim Wise claim whiteness to vilify whiteness doesn’t help.

Any ethnic lobby group is an enemy of the majority. Organised Jewry in the West that has worked for “minority rights” for over a century should be no exception just because we may or may not like Israel or count Jews as Westerners. We slam modern Christendom and go to town on the Muslims so it shouldn’t fall into the realm of “phobia” to hold any organised group to account. And by “organised group” i don’t mean Jews who organise to participate in their religion.

You’re either for the continuance of our people purely for the sake of our people or you’re not. No “alliances” or situation specific “similar interests” matter. I don’t want an “ally” who teaches his children to work against the interests of my children the second it becomes conveniant.

When honest, logical people like Rabbi Schiller aren’t endlessly vilified by “organisations” i’ll reconsider my position. Until then, these social policy-influencing groups will be called on what they do(and have historically done) and it shouldn’t be considered “nutty” to examine their motivations. At the same time, we shouldn’t behave like Farrakhan blaming Whitey for everything, or claim that they are the root of all our problems.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 03, 2006, 01:14 AM | #

Today irreligious Jews are in some peril of being annihilated in their chosen homeland and assimilated almost out of existence in the New World, looking a few generations ahead.

Not according to KMac in Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism:

All of these findings suggest that the recent upsurge of intermarriage will not result in a major gentile representation in the Jewish gene pool. The Jewish gene pool will eventually shed a very large percentage of the children of intermarried couples and retain a fairly high degree of ethnic homogeneity even in the presence of high levels of intermarriage. Nor is there any evidence for declining numbers of Jews. Although in the future there may be a lowered population of Jews due to intermarriage, at present the number of Jews in America is increasing rather than decreasing ( Goldberg 1997).
[...]
There is no question that there remains a committed Jewish core population in the United States. Kosmin et al. ( 1993) find that 33 percent of the “Core Jewish Population” identified themselves as Orthodox or Conservative for whom intermarriage is anathema.  6 Moreover, a large minority of Jews -estimated by Goldberg ( 1996, 9) to be one-fifth to one-quarter of American Jews-is becoming more Jewish rather than less. This group is becoming “more traditionalist, more observant of Jewish ritual, more attentive to Jewish group interests, and steadily more alarmed over the backsliding ways of their four million ‘assimilated’ brethren”.

Jews have, time and again, behaved in ways that threatened their survival as a community… Again KMac dissents:

The proposal here is that Torah study as the summum bonum within the Jewish community had four important benefits relevant to the present perspective on Judaism as an evolutionary strategy: (1) Most obviously, scholarly study resulted in knowledge of an incredibly wide ranging set of laws and customs, which constituted an important source of the barriers between Jews and gentiles and therefore was important for facilitating genetic and cultural segregation. There is also a long scholarly tradition that holds that the Pharisees and their successors utilized their knowledge and practice of the law to separate themselves from lower-class Jews—the ‘am ha-ares ( Sanders 1992, 428; see discussion below). (2) Training in the Jewish law would result in a relatively high level of education for the Jewish population as a whole compared to surrounding populations. This training would then be useful in resource competition with surrounding populations. (3) However, apart from the general level of Jewish education compared to surrounding populations, the educational system was geared to producing a highly educated elite. We have seen that the prosperity of the Jewish community in traditional societies often depended on the actions of a highly educated, wealthy elite of courtiers, capitalists, and lessees who in turn employed other Jews and thereby advanced the fortunes of the entire Jewish community. (4) Scholarly study became an important arena of natural selection for intelligence by serving as a vehicle of upward mobility within the Jewish community, as well as providing access to resources and reproductive success.

It is interesting to note the emphasis on scholarly pursuits versus manual endeavours. Nordic evolution was driven by adaptation to a harsh environment where scholarly study was not paramount for survival.

Apart from community-wide elementary education, there was an even stronger emphasis on education of an elite group of scholars. The emphasis on a scholarly elite can be seen in Ecclesiasticus 38:24-39:11, written in the second century B.C. This passage contrasts those who work with their hands with the scholar who preserves ancient knowledge, is of service to rulers, and is a source of sound advice for the community. Whereas the scholar has the most noble profession, those who work with their hands “are not in demand in public discussions or prominent in assembly . . .

Inductivist posted an interesting stat-

Working-class Jews II: I wanted to explore this issue a little further since income is one thing, but it does not tell us what kind of work people are doing. So I found a question on the same survey asking if you have to lift heavy things at work. Here are the results (in percentages):

Protestants 48.6
Catholics 42.6
Jews 14.3
No religion 47.0

And then of course there is the correlation with income:

On the one hand, if we look at the percentage of people who made a household income of more than $110,000 in 1998, it looks like this:

Protestant 7.2
Catholic 7.9
Jewish 28.9
Hindus 17.2

It is doubtful, based on the evidence that Jews are endangered by assimilation or anihilation in the very near future. It is also questionable whether their behaviour threatened their survival in gentile society. Certainly it brought them into direct competition with gentiles, however, despite the setbacks in Europe, Jews have dominated the twentieth century. Despite their size their influence is hugely disproportionate and while no ethnic Jew will probably run the 100m in under 10.0 flat, a case can be made that they are a superior race.

Posted by AD on May 03, 2006, 02:35 AM | #

Desmond, are you Jewish? I notice that you often bag celts so figure that “Jones” isn’t your ancestral name…..and “Jones” is often adopted by Jews(then again it may be an alias). Also the anti-slavic schtick lends itself to the European Jewish experience. Also the constant naysaying(BNP suck, we should give up etc), pushing the line that “whites are already mixed” and talking up the enemy.

Maybe you’re not Jewish, i don’t know, but am i wrong to assume that you’re not a straight white gentile interested in the survival of straight white gentiles?

Posted by EV, EF, ER on May 03, 2006, 03:35 AM | #

Today irreligious Jews are in some peril of being annihilated in their chosen homeland

I agree with Desmond Jones that this is absolutely not true. Israeli Jewish fertility is at a healthy 2.6, and they segregate themselves from the Arabs, whom are increasingly restricted to smaller and smaller portions of Israel (by law). It’s as though nonwhites in America were limited to Alabama,  in which case the level of their birthrate vis-a-vis whites is 100% irrelevant to white survival.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on May 03, 2006, 04:45 AM | #

Desmond Jones:

It is doubtful, based on the evidence that Jews are endangered by assimilation or anihilation in the very near future.

That is why I wrote ‘looking a few generations ahead’, e.g. 60-100 years. It may be true that the absolute numbers of self-identified Jews in Europe and the USA, mostly Ashkenazi, are not falling; but their weight relative to the host populations is shrinking, and we may expect their political influence (versus Muslim Arabs in the EU and mostly Christian Arabs in the USA) to fall likewise. Assimilated, outmarrying Jews in the USA bequeath little but their inherited phenotype and a taste for bagels to their children and grandchildren. I am not enough of a racial determinist to think that the phenotype is all that matters—especially not when those children and grandchildren are apt to mate with Caucasoids.

Macdonald may be correct that there is a hard core of American Jewry which will go on for ever, but to the extent (pronounced) that this is religiously observant and culturally separatist, it is less of a threat to the gentile hosts. Better that the USA should have a 1pc Jewish fraction of the Satmar/Neturei Karta sort than a 2pc population where the standard Hollyweird/Zionist line prevails and blackguards the hosts in return for enrichment and protection.

I cannot see how Macdonald’s arguments about privileges for scholarship in Jewish communal life relate to my contention that historically Diaspora Jews have often behaved provocatively and self-destructively. If Jews have bred themselves up to be smart and then abused the court-Jew positions they won so that pogroms ensued, that is not to their benefit.

Sure, they always bounced back somewhere else, but why bother? Or was provoking persecution yet another incredibly cunning ploy by the Selfish Gene to weed out dud Jews? Some of Macdonalds’s arguments have the ‘Just-So Stories’, self-sealing quality often complained of in ev-psych speculation.

The jury is out on whether the USA will repeat the European backlash pattern. A few straws in the wind—such as the radical Left’s turn against Zionism and the poking of Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s probosces above the parapet—are interesting. One smells a shift in the political wind in the States towards isolation and against immigration which, obliquely, is not ‘good for the Jews’ of the Foxman-Dershowitz sort. But there is a wall of money and intimidation to be demolished. On verra…

Today irreligious Jews are in some peril of being annihilated in their chosen homeland

By this I meant that the majority-Jewish population of Israel may be wiped out in a nuclear exchange with an Arab state. But since you mention it, the gap in fertility between ‘European’ Jews and the more devout Mizrahi or Sephardi variety is also a concern in Israel. Alarums are raised that the Judenstaat is becoming Middle Eastern, militaristic and nepotistic as what used to be called ‘Arab Jews’ outbreed the Herzlian, socialistic, kibbutznik types of the 1948-73 glory days.

This is quite apart from the fears for ‘demographic balance’ (i.e. ensuring a large permanent Jewish majority) if Arab Israelis and Palestinians in occupied territories should go on producing babies so much faster than the barely-replacement mommas and poppas of the Ashkenazim.

One way and another, things are not looking as ‘good for the Jews’ as they did. And a wounded, cornered, desperate animal is at its most vicious.

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 03, 2006, 05:10 AM | #

John Ray has already been exposed as an apologist for the Mexicanisation of the US, so his claim to support “majority rights” will only be accurate once Mexicans are in the majority.

Posted by John Ray on May 03, 2006, 05:20 AM | #

“John Ray has already been exposed as an apologist for the Mexicanisation of the US’

Hardly.  Like most Australians, I believe firmly in border control

Posted by Steve Edwards on May 03, 2006, 05:26 AM | #

Your memory is appalling. Have you already forgotten certain posts you wrote suggesting, amongst other things, that illegality might be an appropriate form of immigrant selection, backing up your claims with personal anecdotes about Mexicans serving you breakfast in New York?

Posted by ben tillman on May 03, 2006, 08:22 AM | #

Sure, they always bounced back somewhere else, but why bother? Or was provoking persecution yet another incredibly cunning ploy by the Selfish Gene to weed out dud Jews?

Matt -

Why ask a question that has already been answered (by James Bowery) in this very thread?

Posted by Amalek on May 03, 2006, 08:26 AM | #

Steve Sailer here uses ‘New York’ as code for ‘liberal Jewry’ to explain why they might have their own reasons for wanting Mexican Indians, Haitians and PRs to hit Hymietown:

On a subnational level, however, the affluent white residents of elite cities such as New York may, however, might rationally have a self-interest for America importing Mexican illegal immigrants because they tend to “economically cleanse” African-Americans out of a New York or a San Francisco. The black population of NYC, for instance, has fallen in recent years as the Hispanic illegal immigrant population has grown. This process lowers the crime rate in New York City, but not in the country as a whole. Of course, much of the media is based in NYC, so the rest of us get propagandized in favor of what’s good for New Yorkers.

Is this the reasoning behind Ray’s sudden tendresse for Mexican illegals and his longer-established tendency to give Jews a pass? It would be no good flooding NYC with Ray’s best boys, orientals—too many would be smart enough to compete with the Jews and whites, instead of watering their lawns and nursing the lone, neglected kids of their middle age.

Posted by karlmagnus on May 03, 2006, 08:52 AM | #

Fred, good catch of the statement by Wanky Bernanke, who is as I expected turning out a hopeless and ineffective Fed Chairman. 

He’s wrong on productivity for two reasons: (i) there hasn’t been a surge of productivity in the US in the last decade, it’s a Bushite/Clintonite myth and (ii) to the extent that illegal immigrants are paid “off the books” which many of them are (e.g. in domestic service, landscaping, etc.), their output appears in the numerator of the productivity statistics but their existence doesn’t appear in the denominator, thus artificially inflating the productivity statistics.  If the ILLEGAL immigrants (as distinct from most of the high-skill H1B Asians) were repatriated, US productivity would markedly improve.

Posted by Al Ross on May 03, 2006, 09:03 AM | #

I’m sure many Americans look at the US economic growth rate (about 4.5%) and wonder why this respectable number isnt reflected in faster-rising living standards. Perhaps this is because, due to immigration-driven population increase,the actual per capita growth figure is more like 3%.

Posted by Geoff Beck on May 03, 2006, 09:37 AM | #

> If a post itself is not Judeophobic, Judeophobia will crop up in the comments

1)
Judeophobia is a group survival mechanism.

2)
Judeophobia exists wherever White men are allowed to speak freely.

Posted by Learned Elder on May 03, 2006, 10:34 AM | #

Why is it spelled here as “Jooos”? What ever happened to “Jooz”, with a “z” and with one “o”?

Posted by Søren Renner on May 03, 2006, 12:12 PM | #

Two ‘o’s you must have meant.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 03, 2006, 12:55 PM | #

a case can be made that they are a superior race.

I disagree, because jews are incapable of self-sufficiency.  Jews won’t take out their own garbage, so they are doomed to be forever locked in struggle with their hosts (which they can’t do without).  Jews also seem incapable of existing without “the other” around to be better than; in Israel they’re starting to make “the other” out of one another because there aren’t enough real “others” around to satisfy them.

I guess my point is that jewry (at least, ashkenazi jewry), isn’t a race at all - it’s the head of a race constantly in need of a Frankenstein body to attach itself to.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 03, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

But that example has never withstood scrutiny.  The onset of Sweden’s auto-immune disorder occurred only after its exposure to television.

No it didn’t. Myrdal wrote his American Dilemma in 1944 - well before American Tv became accessible in Europe.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 03, 2006, 02:41 PM | #

I find the question itself a red herring; jews are a problem.  How much of one is largely academic.

It is not a red herring. If people remain fixated on Jews, they never focus on other things that are the cause of Western decline.

Whether Jewry is destructive or not is not really an open question any more. But as I say, much of the European left does not have a significant Jewish component now and would sustain itself even if the tiny number of Jews stayed away from it. It wouldn’t make any difference.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 03, 2006, 03:33 PM | #

Self-destructiveness is a human trait. One thing that I have never understood with WNs is why they think Jews are indispensible for whites to self-destruct.

find the question itself a red herring; jews are a problem.  How much of one is largely academic.

It is not a red herring. If people remain fixated on Jews, they never focus on other things that are the cause of Western decline.

I’m as against open jewish fixation as anyone. Generally, I refrain from making sweeping pronouncements about jewry.  Usually my comments are defensive: some nimrod makes a statement that I disagree with, and I respond.

Funny, no one seems to object when I blame raw capitalism.  No one objects when I blame our own elites. 

Philo-Semitism is wackier than anti-Semitism.  Open jewish fixation is a tactical problem, but let’s all acknowledge that crypto jewish fixation is a far better thing than philo-Semitism.

I was just reading a thread about Mormonism at GNXP the other day.  There was much discussion about which religion is craziest, where Mormonism stands in the hierarchy, and many silly mischaracterizations of atheism.  I just chuckled to myself that none of them said a word about how Mormonism is doing a better job of advancing its members’ ethnic interests than the vast majority of white religions.  So much for “gene expression”. 

Basically I’m agreeing with you.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 03, 2006, 03:42 PM | #

Svy,

That is a laugh. GNXP’s utility is severely limited by their fear of breaking too many taboos (even if all their bloggers were white gentiles - which some of them surely are). They break the race differences taboo but that’s as far as they will ever go.

Posted by Desmond Jones on May 03, 2006, 04:43 PM | #

No, I’m far too hairy to be a Jew, AD. Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race outlines the basic perspective. I don’t recall bagging or slamming Celts (Ok maybe Irish Catholics or French Canadiens). However, if you are ever in Toronto, it’s worthwhile catching the Burlington Welsh Male Voice Choir’s rendition of Hen Wlad fy Nhadau, (although you’re correct, it is not really the Land of My Fathers).

If you’re referring to Griffin, then yes I’m critical of him and his legal Beagle (woof, woof) Lee Barnes, because IMO, they are political opportunists. One Asian threatens a lawsuit and Griffin and Barnes roll out the propaganda howitzers.

Earlier this month Griffin met senior members of the BNP to discuss ways of quashing the threat of legal action. The issue first materialised late last year when an Asian man threatened to sue the BNP after being barred from joining the party. The BNP’s constitution stipulates that all its members must be of ‘British or closely kindred native European stock.’

The BNP’s head of legal affairs, Lee Barnes, has warned legal action would be a ‘potentially fatal attack’ on the party, providing its opponents with ‘the means to bleed us to death with compensation law suits’.

And then more recently they justify acclaiming an Armenian candidate (closely kindred native European stock?) with some garbly-gook from a US Federal Court.

Bollocks.

The whites that founded America are not the same group of whites that inhabit her today.

Grant writes:

The native American by the middle of the nineteenth century was rapidly becoming a distinct type. Derived from the Teutonic part of the British Isles, and being almost purely Nordic, he was on the point of developing physical peculiarities of his own, slightly variant from those of his English forefathers, and corresponding rather with the idealistic Elizabethan than with the materialistic Hanoverian Englishman. The Civil War, however, put a severe, perhaps fatal, check to the development and expansion of this splendid type, by destroying great numbers of the best breeding stock on both sides, and by breaking up the home ties of many more. If the war had not occurred these same men with their descendants would have populated the Western States instead of the racial nondescripts who are now flocking there.

These new immigrants were no longer exclusively members of the Nordic race as were the earlier ones who came of their own impulse to improve their social conditions.

…the new immigration, while it still included many strong elements from the north of Europe, contained a large and increasing number of the weak, the broken, and the mentally crippled of all races drawn from the lowest stratum of the Mediterranean basin and the Balkans, together with hordes of the wretched, submerged populations of the Polish Ghettos.

With a pathetic and fatuous belief in the efficacy of American institutions and environment to reverse or obliterate immemorial hereditary tendencies, these newcomers were welcomed and given a share in our land and prosperity. The American taxed himself to sanitate and educate these poor helots, and as soon as they could speak English, encouraged them to enter into the political life, first of municipalities, and then of the nation.

The result is showing plainly in the rapid decline in the birth rate of native Americans because the poorer classes of Colonial stock, where they still exist, will not bring children into the world to compete in the labor market with the Slovak, the Italian, the Syrian, and the Jew. The native American is too proud to mix socially with them, and is gradually withdrawing from the scene, abandoning to these aliens the land which he conquered and developed. The man of the old stock is being crowded out of many country districts by these foreigners, just as he is to-day being literally driven off the streets of New York City by the swarms of Polish Jews. These immigrants adopt the language of the native American; they wear his clothes; they steal his name; and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals, and while he is being elbowed out of his own home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race.

There is no white nationalism, AD. The evidence is overwhelming, at least in the Canadian experience, that French Canadians, Italians, Ukrainians, Portuguese and Jews are aligned, in a rainbow coalition, with blacks and yellows to promote a culture of victimization with the evil Anglo-Saxon as the target of their venom. What is the advantage of aligning with other whites when their intent is simply to pursue their own ethnic interest to the detriment of the Nordic race?

Posted by James Bowery on May 03, 2006, 05:00 PM | #

Phil—“fixation” on anything is obviously irrational.  The rational question is what are the ratio of importance?

Putting it another way, what is the structure of this virulence we’re all cocerned about?  What is founded upon what?

I’ve put forth my hypothesis as to what is the first order approximation of reality here, and it doesn’t “fixate” on Jews, although it does, as it must, start to address Jewish history from first principles.

To restate my opinion in condensed form:  The problem is irresponsible use of technology—specifically technologies that make it so that groups with different levels of genetic fixation—different levels of reliance on nurture—different levels of genetic dominance—different levels of r Vs K strategy—different levels of polygyny—are brought together via diffusion of and poor control over transportation and habitation technologies. 

This hypothesis directly predicts the Scandinavian weakness, rendering it so predictable as to be a trivial consequence of their genetic makeup.

Posted by Ben Tillman on May 03, 2006, 06:42 PM | #

But that example has never withstood scrutiny.  The onset of Sweden’s auto-immune disorder occurred only after its exposure to television.

No it didn’t. Myrdal wrote his American Dilemma in 1944 - well before American Tv became accessible in Europe.

Of course, but Sweden did not commit itself to the course to national suicide until decades later:

http://www.amren.com/0312issue/0312issue.htm

As recently as 1965, Swedish prime minister Tage Erlander noted with regard to racial problems in the United States: “We Swedes are in an infinitely better situation. Our population is homogenous, not just regarding race, but in many other aspects too.”

Posted by Geoff Beck on May 03, 2006, 09:47 PM | #

Ben is right… Eugenics and racial awareness used to be a staple of the old’ European left. Paul Gottfried, among others, has commented on that.

Labor unions in the US used to be steadfest in opposition to 3rd World immigration.

Posted by Rnl on May 04, 2006, 12:38 AM | #

JJR:

And don’t tell me that I have not heard all the arguments. I have been studying Nazism and neo-Nazism since my late teens—over 40 years ago—so there is NO antisemitic argument I have not heard. The arguments are absurd, that’s all.

I have some respect for JJR’s unshakable obstinacy, which resembles my own, though on a different subject.

I’ve never believed that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and I’ve heard ALL the arguments in favor of the proposition. In the slow-learners section of my first-grade class my teacher tried to convince me, but her various arithmetical arguments, repeated regularly and with increasing desperation during the decade I spent in her class, were absurd. Over the years arithmetic obsessives have tried to convince me with calculators, authoritative math textbooks, pairs of pencils held an inch from my nose, rocks dropped on my head in successions of two, etc. I still don’t buy it. I’m proudly impervious to facts. I suspect I was born with the brain of a rhinoceros.

But in those moments when I’m especially honest with myself, I recognize that my refusal to look seriously at the evidence, which I’ll grant is pretty strong, isn’t really much to boast about.

Posted by JB on May 04, 2006, 12:33 PM | #

JJR:

Where I part from the Judeophobes is in their assertion that Jewish self-interest lies in destroying European civilization.  That seems to me the most towering absurdity.  Jews are at the cutting edge of that civilization and it seems to me that their self-interest is essentially coterminous with ours.

They think they have a common interest with third world invaders taking over America. If you haven’t read chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique, take a few minutes to read it before commenting on this topic next time:

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-immigration.html

JJR:

Jews are indeed prominent on the culturally destructive Left but they would be utterly powerless except for the fact that the selfsame Left is vast, hugely influential and hugely destructive all by itself—without any need of Jewish assistance.

leftists don’t run the American media nor the Hollywood studios and the music industry. Who puts those dumb leftists on a pedestal and give them a platform from which they can speak to millions ? Who refused to make a couple of hundreds of millions of profits by shunning a popular actor who made a movie about Jesus Christ because he refused to condemn his antisemitic father ? Who turned those strong noble and courageous crack dealers from da ghetto into cultural heroes ? Who decided that anything ressembling racism or crypto-racism coming from a white public figure’s has to be denounced in the strongest terms and that the sinner must be flagellated until he recants in front of the cameras ?

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 04, 2006, 12:35 PM | #

LOL!!!

Very funny post Rnl.  I especially enjoyed the “pairs of pencils” part, lol.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on May 04, 2006, 03:14 PM | #

As I said previously,JJR is the catalyst that makes MR what it is. After going thru the above postings,I have earned three credit hours in Sociology/Modern History/Economics/Aberrent Stastical Analysis LOL. Love it!

Posted by Matra on May 05, 2006, 09:35 AM | #

Meanwhile in Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says maintaining a Jewish majority is more important than biblical land. Imagine the horror at the New Republic and the Weekly Standard if a white American politician said something similar about whites remaining the American majority.

Fred, Castaneda is seen by many Mexicans as too pro-American. Why? Because after 9/11 he said the U.S. had a right to retaliate!

Posted by Learned Elder on May 05, 2006, 02:10 PM | #

For non-National-Vanguard readers, Jews going to work in Switzerland:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8872