|
|
|
A classic double standard How do you like this for a double standard. In yesterday’s Melbourne Age Professor Andrew Jakubowicz defended the policy of multiculturalism. In his article he assumed that mass immigration was inevitable, leaving a choice between assimilation of migrants or the fostering of many different ethnic communities. Having limited debate to these options, Jakubowicz claimed that attempts at assimilation hadn’t worked because, “immigrants didn’t enjoy being told they had to abandon everything that had been their soul and being”. So for migrants, ethnic identity is their soul and being. But what about the locals? Is their ethnic identity also defended in this way by the professor? Well, no. In fact, Jakubowicz condemns its very existence by speaking of the “arrogance and parochial narrow-mindedness that invested Australian culture of the 50s, 60s and 70s.” So the Anglo-Australian ethnic culture was merely parochial and narrow, whereas that of the immigrants was a positive part of their very being. And this claim is made in an article demanding “mutual respect”! Which raises an important question. Why do we have such a double standard? Why is there a greater respect for immigrant ethnicity than for the established mainstream one? There is part of an answer in the fact that Professor Jakubowicz is himself not of Anglo ancestry, but is Jewish. So you can argue that he is willing to adopt a double standard because he is pursuing his own ethnic interests. Why, though, do Anglos themselves not point out the double standard or reply to it? For instance, if you look at the research centre which Professor Jakubowicz belongs to, you find that most of the academics are gentile Europeans. Why do they not object to their own ethnic identity being undermined and vilified? The answer here is that the minds of these people have been captured by an academic variant of liberalism in which a straightforward defence of ethnic identity is made very difficult. From what I can make out, the research centre, Trans/forming Cultures, is part of the academic field called Cultural Studies. Cultural Studies itself seems to combine social constructionism and identity politics. What is social constructionism? I won’t attempt to answer this with academic precision, but it includes the idea that parts of our identity, such as our race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality, are merely socially constructed rather than having a fixed, external, biological existence. The opposite of constructionism is often held to be essentialism, which is “most commonly understood as a belief in the real, true essence of things, the invariable and fixed properties which define the “whatness” of a given entity.” It’s not difficult to see why constructionism should have emerged from within a liberal philosophy. Liberals believe that we are human because we are capable of forming who we are and what we do through our own individual will and reason. Liberals, therefore, want a freedom in which we are unimpeded in our individual choices, so that we can “do what we want to do, be what we want to be”. Constructionism supports this liberal idea by claiming that there are no limits placed on our individual choice by “essential” qualities like our race and gender. Instead, to use constructionist jargon, we individually negotiate complex, hybrid, ambiguous, multiple, shifting, and fluid identities in order to form an individual self-authored narrative. Do you get the picture? There is no straightforward and stable basis for self-identity for the individual to readily adopt; instead, the heroic, self-defining liberal individual must necessarily forge his own unique identity from the complex circumstances of a particular time. Anyone who accepts this intellectual approach is going to have a hard time defending a traditional ethnic identity. Just consider, for instance, the description by one of the Trans/forming Cultures researchers, Dr Devleena Ghosh, of a theatre performance by young Indians in Sydney. Dr Ghosh described the play as follows: “The composite identities articulated through this process consisted of complex structures ... there is no authentic shape to these configurations of identities but a series of adaptations, changes and borrowing.” Dr Ghosh then announces his article will discuss “the ways in which the identities of young Indo-Fijians in Sydney are being constantly negotiated ... identity is not stable or unchanging but contingent and contextual.” Or consider the efforts of another of the Trans/forming Cultures researchers, Professor Muecke, to explore his own identity. He is more open-minded than the others, but can only manage a rambling, amorphous account of his personal identity. At best he manages to explain that “Through building, dwelling and storytelling we are thus connected ... So our centredness comes not so much through an essential being inside, like the fantasy of having a soul in there, but through what Elspeth Probyn called ‘outside belongings’: desires to belong which are not connected to firm political identities, nor to some axiomatic notion of difference ... my use of centre does not imply an excluded margin ... its sense of identity comes through narrative ... a centre is thus nothing much more than a structural point ... negotiating fluidly the potential conflicts of being.” The airiness of the piece is further illustrated when Muecke asks his wife “is ‘woman’ a concept, a bunch of feelings, an identity?” How can we expect, from people trained in this intellectual field, a ringing defence of the Anglo-Australian ethnic identity? Realistically, it won’t happen. So there is no Anglo intellectual class out there likely to respond to a double standard like the one perpetrated by Professor Jakubowicz. Professional academia is too heavily influenced by various forms of liberalism for this to happen. Yet we need intellectuals, so it’s important that we effectively criticise the liberal philosophy. In doing so, we will create the potential for at least some of our own intellectuals to accept the reality and the legitimacy of their own ethnic tradition. Comments:2
Posted by Andrew L on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:14 | # I suppose it is all part of the agicprop, We are all equal, unless you are white, then you are not an equal, you are culturless, Who pays this dick head, remove him off the pay roll, and exile him to Sudan, let him fix their problems and save us the trouble. You would be happy with developments in NSW Mark, even Labour polli’s are bounsing off walls at the moment, Change is comming.Amazing what one talk back station can do, and it works.People taking the Initiative back off the Ideological Idiots and giving them a swift kick where it hurts. 3
Posted by Stuka on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:34 | # ...we individually negotiate complex, hybrid, ambiguous, multiple, shifting, and fluid identities in order to form an individual self-authored narrative. This is a philosophy of nothingness. Ours is an atomised society where everyone is spinning around in their own tiny, “self-authored” orbits. It’s not a society I would do anything to defend. On the contrary, the sooner it falls the better. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:23 | # Mark that was a really, really, really excellent log entry. And GW made an excellent comment. One of the proper ways to respond to Jewish academics who play the anti-white-Christian game in this way is to play the same game but turning it around, aiming it at Jews and Israel instead, and see how they like that. See how fast the enthusiasm for this aiming-it-at-Israel-and-the-Jews facet of the game wanes in these Jewish intellectuals. In a few of them, of course, it doesn’t wane—they take aim at Israel and the Jews exactly as they take aim at the white Christians and white-Christian nations. The Jews who do this, such as Prof. Chomsky and many others, are what I call the homozygotes, the Jews who inherited two copies of the nation-destroying gene. It’s like the Jewish smartness gene—when you get two copies of it you wind up with Tay-Sachs. 5
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:43 | # Let him battle first for the Palestinian right of return. When he has won the great victory for Israeli openness he can come back and lecture white Australians. That’s pretty much what I was going to say. Jews have little credibility amongst those who are aware. To regain a portion of that lost, they must all begin tending to their own back yards. If they want to be taken seriously on multiculturalism, let them first criticize Israel. If they want to be taken seriously on immigration, let them first criticize Israel. If they want to be taken seriously on human/civil rights, let them first criticize Israel. If they want to be taken seriously on history, let them criticize Israel. 6
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:00 | # Steve Sailer once blogged how he was grateful to the Jews for their culture of critique, as though the real term isn’t the culture of pseudo-critique. He’s grateful for Jews relentlessly attacking all of western civilization without provocation, under the false flag of impericism (obviously a lie since there is no culture of critique against Jews). Sometimes he’s a real twit. Thankfully it’s seldom. 7
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:03 | # The Jews who do this, such as Prof. Chomsky and many others, are what I call the homozygotes, the Jews who inherited two copies of the nation-destroying gene. It’s like the Jewish smartness gene—when you get two copies of it you wind up with Tay-Sachs. Throw in the “token” effect as well; Jewish criticism of Jewry won’t ever reach critical mass (sorry), so all these Jewish critics do for organized Jewry is create a defense against the monolithic charge. 8
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:07 | # Perhaps I didn’t emphasize enough how pathetic it is to thank Jews for scientific honesty and openness. This isn’t a Jewish trait Steve, you dunderhead, its a western one. Jews have been history’s all-time heavyweight champs of obscurantism and ethnically-motivated “science.” 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:10 | # Svigor’s right but I wouldn’t have phrased it the same way, in terms of being “taken seriously.” I’d have phrased it in terms of being unmasked as a bigoted white-Christian-phobic hypocrite who wishes not only harm to come to white Christians but genocide. If a Jew advocated that all Jews in the world be race-replaced, or that Israel have open borders, I wouldn’t “take him seriously” but would say to myself, there goes a complete wacko—I’d consider him either that, a lunatic, or a very evil person. Noam Chomsky is a nutcase, as David Horowitz has pointed out. He’s brilliant but crazy. He does not recognize that nation-states are legitimate, be they white-Christian ones or the Jewish one. I certainly don’t “take that position of his seriously”; I dismiss it as insanity. The guy’s off his rocker, maybe not about linguistics, his academic specialty, but certainly about what people are like and how societies, nations, and the world work. But he’s a homozygote (homozygous for the Jewish nation-destroying gene). The heterozygotes (carrying only one copy of the gene), Jews like David Frum and, I believe, every one of the Jewish neocons, recognize nation-state-hood as legitimate for Israel but not for white-Christian nation-states, and that’s the most transparent drivel and nauseating hypocrisy (which they only get away with because fifty percent of voters are women): what the heterozygotes transparently are is anti-white-Christian bigots, umasked as such by their inconsistent stands on things like immigration. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:15 | # “Svigor’s right” (—my comment, above) I was referring to his note of 4:43 PM, which I agreed with. the notes he posted underneath that one contain stuff I would question, quibble with, or phrase differently, but I won’t get into that here. 11
Posted by Svigor on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:51 | # Anti-white-Christian bigotry is a general Jewish trait. Some Jews don’t qualify, but they generally support the Jews who do. John Hartung has it here. Anti-white-Christian Jews depend on non-a-w-C Jews for support, and they receive it. 12
Posted by a reader on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:14 | # I believe (correct me if i am wrong aussies) that one of the most aggresive attacks on the party that sought to limit immigration in australia was from a jewish rabbi, who was then caught writing editorials in the jerusalem post about how the jewishness of israel must be preserved, when called on it he pretty much said zionism for us, multicult for you. The funny thing is these zionists always claim diveristy is good for us…well if its so good why not do it for israel? 13
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:34 | # A reader, you’re essentially correct, except that he wasn’t a rabbi. He was a tax lawyer as I recall (the name escapes me) here in Melbourne who complained that left-wingers were endangering Israel by promoting multiculturalism there, but who was a prominent supporter of multiculturalism in Australia. The double standard was so blatant that one reporter for the Herald-Sun actually picked him up on it - he was briefly put on the defensive. 14
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 01:53 | # Actually, not a tax lawyer. His name was Isi Leibler and he made his money out of a travel agency, Jetset Travel. He became chairman of the World Jewish Congress. He got into trouble in the Melbourne Herald Sun of 27 September 2000 (not online) for preaching a double standard on multiculturalism. In terms of Israel he said that multiculturalism had no place there because “This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews”. He complained about post-Zionists in Israel, writing that “A post-Zionist is someone who actually looks positively towards the end of the Jewish people in ethnocentric terms, as a national group, and no longer sees the Jewish people as one united people”. Mr Leibler was concerned, according to the newspaper report, that “post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state.” The Herald Sun pointed out that just three years previously Mr Leibler had defended multiculturalism in Australia and had warned that, “There is a need to sit together and establish a way in which Australians can recapture that spirit of multiculturalism which I think we are all part and parcel of, and which is really under threat.” I forget how Mr Leibler responded to this public criticism of his double standard, except that there was some kind of awkward excuse given. 15
Posted by a reader on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:03 | # Mark, thanks when you really think about it, its not a double standard, its quite consistent. 16
Posted by a reader on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:06 | # just another thought but i believe culture of critique points out the founder of the idea of multculturalism was a zionist 17
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:31 | # The one thing I’d point out, reader, is that Australian Jews have not been alone in promoting multiculturalism. The Australian path to multiculturalism was first set during cabinet meetings in WWII by an Irish-American-Australian by the name of Arthur Calwell. The “father” of multiculturalism in Australia is often thought to be Al Grassby, an Italian who has become notorious for his links to the mafia, his womanising and his colourful dress sense. The Christian Churches have pushed for multiculturalism, as have Anglo-Australian academics and the diplomatic corps. Both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have offered bipartisan support for the policy. So the entire “political class” has supported it against the wishes of most rank and file Australians. That’s why I believe the key problem is the way that liberalism predisposes the political class to take a negative view of ethnic nationalism. Once you adopt liberal understandings of terms like social justice, anti-discrimination and so on, it’s hard to mount a principled defence of traditional nationalism. 18
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:45 | # A_READER, From his answer it appears Mark R. may not have read the CofC? Anyway Kevin MacDonald has an chapter on the first successful huxter of multiculturalism, Franz Boaz(1858-1942). The contamination came from Boaz, and seeped into the minds and institutions Mark R. mentioned. Here is a link to the CofC. 19
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:17 | # A great many U.S. Jewish Zionists and all U.S. Jewish “neocons” favor open borders for the U.S. and Europe (a lot of them expressing themselves <u>quite aggressively</u> on the subject) but highly-selective Jewish-only immigration for Israel. This absolutely breathtaking hypocrisy on the part of Zionist Jews ought to be common knowledge—and I think probably is, more or less, which goes to show the main problem in regard to open borders is, as Mark points out, the acquiescence of white gentiles in it (which doesn’t diminish the guilt of Zionist Jewish hypocrites who show the most unbelievably brazen behavior on this subject, as “a reader” notes: “Zionism for us, multi-culti for you”—it’s outrageous, unspeakable behaviour on their part). 20
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:38 | # Geoff, the problem I have with pinpointing the blame on the Frankfurt School is that it makes it sound as if everything was OK with Anglo political culture until some outside force deliberately subverted it during the twentieth century. From my reading of history this just isn’t the case. I believe the basic problem came from within Western political culture and that this problem dates back several centuries. To give one small example: I’ve been reading a biography of Tom Paine, a writer for the cause of American independence in the 1780s. Paine was already back then using much of the language and terminology of modern day leftists and he happily declared himself to be, above all, a citizen of the world. He had hopes that commerce would break down national barriers and national “prejudices” to bring about some kind of world order. So America didn’t have to wait until the arrival of Franz Boaz for a champion of cosmopolitan politics - it was there from the very inception, from a root within the Western political tradition itself. 21
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:51 | # Mark, Agree 100%. Perhaps an even finer point could be made that the Franco-German Enlightenment philosophies, once ingested, were the poison that let the CofC spread. Interestingly, Historian Paul Johnson had this to say about the nexus of Jews and Enlightenment thought:
22
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:57 | # > Tom Paine I would like to also add an historical note about Mr. Paine. He was a pamphleteer during the American Revolution (1776) and not an influence so much on the Revolution as much as a provacateur for it. Futhermore, his ideas are as radical as you say - and many of them came out of the protestant reformation and the English Civil War - BUT Tom Paine was a forgotten figure once the Revolution was finished. Quickly a Christian religious revival swept the nation including John Wesley’s Methodism. This period was known as the Great Awakening. Paine and his radicalism were an embarrassment. He lived a quiet life and died in anonymity. 23
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 04:11 | # BTW, generally I defend the English/Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Hume and Scott, as anti-Enlightenment Enlightenment thinkers. 24
Posted by R J Stove on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:40 | # Anyone who wants a good laugh/good cry should attempt to track down Isi Leibler’s article in the March-April 1966 Quadrant, called “Australia’s Radical Right”. Major Australian libraries will certainly have it in stock. Depressing to realise that 20 years before Christophobic neocons had ever been heard of, and fully 30 years before they became the most serious menace to America’s political health, Isi was already a squalid shill for their mindset. What (apart from staggering naïveté, I guess) impelled James McAuley to accept such pernicious tripe for Quadrant‘s pages is beyond my understanding. Maybe great poets just shouldn’t be allowed to edit mags. 25
Posted by Andrew L on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:20 | # I can only get Quadrant on line, archives to 2000, Must be a hell of an article.Are you Any relation to Mr D Stove? 26
Posted by R J Stove on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:18 | # Andrew L says: “I can only get Quadrant on line, archives to 2000, Must be a hell of an article.Are you Any relation to Mr D Stove?” Yes, the late David Stove was my dad. Actually in my earlier post I was probably much too harsh towards James McAuley for having published the Leibler diatribe in Quadrant. Because although this diatribe is intellectually absurd and morally fatuous, it certainly serves a purpose - proclaiming, as no mere enemy could do, the finger-wagging governessy truculence of the Leibler Zionist-multiculti mindset. As such, the piece possesses a sort of ghastly fascination. Especially when one recalls that it was written back in ‘66, before anyone outside the ranks of organised crime had ever heard of Al Grassby. 27
Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 09:20 | # Interesting, Robert. I’ve always thought of James McAuley as one of the more impressive conservative voices of the period. (To non-Aussies: McAuley is best known for the Ern Malley hoax in which he and a friend penned some gibberish, and submitted it to a modernist poety magazine to great acclaim. The Australian literary left still hasn’t quite got over it - even today some are claiming that the poetry is great literature in spite of its origins.) 28
Posted by jonjayray on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:00 | # “The funny thing is these zionists always claim diveristy is good for us…well if its so good why not do it for israel?” Israel is incredibly diverse ethnically. Israelis now have to cope with 3 alphabets as a consequence: Latin, Hebrew and Cyrillic. The Law of the Return is very flexible. Even a large number of blacks (Falashas) have qualified Ern Malley: 29
Posted by a reader on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:19 | # “Israel is incredibly diverse ethnically. “ Israel has jewish only immigration and jewish intermarriage is illegal. 31
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:49 | # > Israel is incredibly diverse ethnically What a laugh, it is amazing how the Jews can get others to do their dirty work. I’d expect such propaganda from the TV networks(Jewish owned), but Ray is under no compunction to repeat such lies here. He must actually believe the propaganda. Refer to a_reader. 32
Posted by a reader on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:12 | # “The Law of the Return is very flexible. “
33
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:25 | # a_reader (and perhaps JJR): If either of you read the CofC you’ll encounter Margaret Mead and Carl Jung, two Gentiles that joined thier respective Jewish intellectual cliques. It is remarkable how Freud manipulated Jung, and Boaz used Mead. They were the storefront Gentiles that peddled the dememented logic of Freud and Boaz. When Jung, particurlarly, broke with Freud, Freud used whatever means to smear and destroy Jung. A pattern repeated over and over again: Once you’ve squeezed the juice, throw away the rind. 34
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:33 | # Not only do you have to prove genetically that you have Jewish blood, it appears that all Jews are not created equal. Case in point are the Ethiopian Jews. “White” Ashkenazi Jews do not have a problem with a little “discrimination” against their darker brothers. As long as we follow the “do as I say and not as I do” adage, we White European Christians should do just fine in the eyes of the Chosen Ones. 35
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:50 | # So the entire “political class” has supported it against the wishes of most rank and file Australians. That’s why I believe the key problem is the way that liberalism predisposes the political class to take a negative view of ethnic nationalism. Once you adopt liberal understandings of terms like social justice, anti-discrimination and so on, it’s hard to mount a principled defence of traditional nationalism. Capitalism is involved here too. We’re going to have to face up to the fact that selling us down the river is in elite interests, once EGI is stripped away and amity destroyed. After all, once EGI and familial love are removed, fathers can make a healthy profit whoring out their daughters and selling their sons. 36
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:56 | # Svi, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig24jul24.story 37
Posted by Kubilai on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:29 | # What a friggin’ tool that Bush is. A horror story that may come to fruition would be a presidential race in 2008 that has Hilary pitted against Jeb. Who the @#$% is one supposed to vote for? Jeb’s family interests obviously trumps any concerns for the US and its people. As a true conservative, I want Bush not only removed from office, but also tried for treason, then hung by the neck till dead on the White House lawn. However are the Dems any better? They are the pandering party after all and Hilary can out lie and out pander the best of them. I don’t know what would be better for our long term benefit. Probably a clear loss for the Republicans due to an absence of White votes, who happen to be their damn base. Not non-Whites. BTW, thanks for the suggestion of the Phillips book on the Bushes, Geoff. It is fascinating and well written. I have only read the first chapter and plan to finish it when we go on vacation next month. 38
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:45 | # Geoff, I guess the bottom line is that once you’ve driven a race crazy, expect insane behavior. 39
Posted by Svigor on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:48 | # Yeah Kub, you’ve fingered the least evil. Republicans must be taught not to take white votes for granted. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:37 | # “Capitalism is involved here too. We’re going to have to face up to the fact that selling us down the river is in elite interests, once EGI is stripped away and amity destroyed.” (—Svigor) “Israel is incredibly diverse ethnically. Israelis now have to cope with 3 alphabets as a consequence: Latin, Hebrew and Cyrillic. The Law of the Return is very flexible.” (—John Ray, 1:00 PM) 41
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:40 | # (Cont’d from previous comment) While I agree completely with Mark’s comment of 2:38 AM, to the effect that what’s gone wrong is not fundamentally the fault of Jewish influence but due to something terribly wrong with white people, the Jews are certainly doing their share of helping to push things in the wrong direction and they’re being the most brazen hypocrites while they’re about it, in that they don’t want the same rot for themselves or Israel that they try to push on white Christians—and it’s appropriate to mention that and keep mentioning it as long as they do it. Look at <u>this</u>, for example. I totally support the imposition of Jewish-only dating policies for Jewish schools if that’s what they want. I’d never in my wildest dreams think of telling some group which race or ethnic group they had to include in their recommended dating practices for their young generation. But if the tables were turned—if the excluders were white Christians instead of Jews—who would be the loudest, most furious, most aggressive, most coördinated, most simultaneous, most nasty, most unrelenting in attacking them? Which group? No need to answer that—everyone knows the answer: it would be Jews, no matter whether the groups the white Christians were excluding were Jewish, Negro, Chinese, Protestants excluding Catholics, Catholics excluding Protestants, or whatever. Everyone remember the flap about Bob Jones University’s whites-only dating rules some years ago for its students? My feeling about that was let them do what they want. No one had to go there. The Jews were, predictably, in a furor over it. They had no business being, except for any who, Chomsky-like, utterly rejected Jewish nationalism for Jews themselves. Otherwise they were nasty hypocrites of the most jaw-dropping variety. That’s also how you typically see far too many Jews behave in regard to open borders, of course: good for white-Christian countries, bad for Israel. The fact that white Christians aren’t verbally tarring-and-feathering Jewish hypocrites at every opportunity for that unacceptable and obnoxious double standard only goes to further support Mark’s point above: white Christians are more than willing to overlook hypocrisy on the part of another group in espousing policies which they, the white Christians, view as right ones. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 19:56 | # About John’s comment on Israel being diverse: the Jews are already implicitly a race, a Semitic Near-Eastern one with Turkic (Khazar) and Euro elements mixed in. So, in letting only Jews in Israel is already implicitly excluding other races of people. There were some part-Chinese Jews once, apparently, who died out completely, and there are some part-Subcon ones, a tiny number, in addition to these Falashas, and that’s the extent of the racial varieties of the Jews. That being the extent of it, they can’t very well change to a diametrically opposite race through immigration of Jews, so a policy of “opening Israel’s borders to other Jews” doesn’t portend the same potential for complete racial destruction and replacement as, say, a policy of opening England’s borders to everyone in the world. 43
Posted by Geoff Beck on Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:23 | # > thanks for the suggestion of the Phillips book on the Bushes, Geoff. Kub’s talking about this book: American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush BTW, with few exceptions I quit watching TV on 5 May 2003. Best thing I ever did: I’ve read more books, paid more attention to my wife than I’ve ever done before. ( 2 children as a result Give up drug - DUMP TV 44
Posted by Stuka on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:42 | # Geoff asks: Who the @#$% is one supposed to vote for? Geoff, I agree. It’s incredibly frustrating. At the risk of raising your blood pressure even higher (:)), check out this story from today’s LA Times on how the Bush administration is working with Big Business & non-whites in order to push through Bush’s amnesty & guest-worker scheme: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig24jul24.story Sounds like outright treason to me. White Americans are being dispossessed & disenfranchised—in our own effing country!!! When the day of reckoning arrives—as it surely will—there will be hell to pay. 45
Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 01:04 | # > Sounds like outright treason to me. It is no longer treason, because that crime means betrayel of a otherwise faithful regime. We, in fact, have lost our government, and what we call treason is simply the normal operating procedures of the new master. And yes, the agenda of the new regime is white dispossession. WE are the ones committing treason, because we are defying the regime. 46
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:10 | # BTW, with few exceptions I quit watching TV on 5 May 2003. That’s roughly when I did too. I watched 0 hours of television in the last month. I don’t count DVDs, I still watch movies. 47
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:13 | # Scroob, I had another banal epiphany, this one concerning what you touch on above. It matters not if Jewry is a race. Jews decide who’s a Jew and who immigrates. That’s all we need to know. 48
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:03 | # Perhaps an even finer point could be made that the Franco-German Enlightenment philosophies, once ingested, were the poison that let the CofC spread. But it seems likely that those philosophies grew from a Jewish seed, as Sutcliffe explains. 49
Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:13 | # Ben, I really don’t know the history of Franco German Enlightenment thought that well to conclude what you have done. The critical players of Franco German philosophy being Rousseau, Diderot, Kant. Since these folks lived during the ancien regime I’m unsure what, if any, contact they had with Jewish thought or Jewish people. During this time Jews were all stuck in the ghetto, and wisely kept segregated from Gentile society. I would argue, from my knowledge, that the Jews traveled on the backs of Rousseau, Diderot, Kant, after having been liberated from the Jewish ghettoes of Europe, by those very same people. Kevin MacDonald in CofC only examines the 20th century in depth, so its hard to look for clues there. But Historian Paul Johnson has argued alone my lines: A History of the Jews 50
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:57 | # Geoff: The Enlightenment had its genesis in 17th-c. Holland )although, of course, it had antecedents in Isaac Luria and others), where the Jews were not confined to a ghetto. The later Germans and French all had full access to the ideas developed there, due in part to the connections among the respective Jewish communities. Jonathan Israel makes this point, as does at least one other Jewish author I’ve read (Baer or Sachar, can’t recall) in discussing the emigration from Iberia. 52
Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:22 | # You would do well to read more broadly, Geoff. 53
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:25 | # Ben, Spinoza was a contemproary of John Locke, but writing after slightly in arrears. Marx said, “We are all the children of Hobbes.” The Enlightenment, it shames me to say, was an English invention. 54
Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:33 | # Ben, > You would do well to read more broadly, Geoff. You know me better than I do myself. How did you manage that? 55
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:05 | # Well, Geoff, it works both ways, as you implied precisely the same sentiment regarding me. 56
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:41 | # Well Ben, the title of the post is <u>A Classic Double Standard</u> Anyway, I really do read the Englightenment somewhat different than you, and perhaps GW. Look, things like this are subject to great debate, high & low. Where do I source my thinking? ==> Paul Johnson, <u>A History of the Jews</u>, <u>Intellectuals</u> Roger Scruton, <u>Modern Philosophy : An Introduction and Survey</u>, <u>A History of Modern Philosophy</u> Donald Livingston, <u>Hume As Philosopher of Society, Politics, and History</u> Balint Vazsonyi, <u>America’s Thirty Years War: Who is Winning?</u> And bits and pieces from Thomas Fleming at Chronicles Magazine. 57
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:02 | # PS: Hobbes(1588-1679) was not a figure in the Enlightenment era proper, but preceded it. The Enlightenment begins and ends in the 18th century, Hobbes lived his entire life in the 17th. John Locke (1632-1704) only live 4 years in the 18th century, so I wouldn’t label him as an Enlightenment figure either Sometimes I get these eras messed-up, as I did on an earlier MR in a post. Most embarrassing in that kind of situation. Oh, forgot one other book <u>A History of Political Philosophy</u>, edited by Joseph Cropsey and Leo Strauss. (Yes that Strauss) 58
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:04 | # Geoff: About six months ago, I observed that the origins of the Enlightenment was the subject regarding which the MR party line (obviously, in general, a well-informed party line) deviates most sharply from what would be expected as a matter of theory. Since then I have dedicated my reading to an investigation of that topic. While I have much more territory to cover, I would ask that you be charitable enough to acknowledge that I am not wholly ignorant of the subject. As for Johnson’s take on the origins of the Enlightenment in his “History of the Jews”, you might discount it for a number of reasons: (1) the book is devoted to a much broader topic, (2) Johnson has displayed a tendency to idealize other topics, such as the Christian social order of the Middle Age in his “History of Christianity”, (3) Johnson wrote in 1987, before crucial theoretical advances presented by D.S. Wilson and K.B. MacDonald, and (4) Johnson wrote before the groundbreaking works of British Jews David S. Katz, Jonathan Israel, and Adam Sutcliffe. If I remember to review his work tonight, I’ll point out anything else I note. As for your limitation of the Enlightenment to the 18th c., that rather begs the question as to its intellectual and historical antecedents, which would necessarily predate it. 59
Posted by Geoff Beck on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:38 | # > As for your limitation of the Enlightenment to the 18th c., It is not my limitation, it is the generally accepted delineation for the era. We’ve come to different conclusion. Fine, this ‘tete a tete’ is pretty much ended, I’m somewhat worn out by the subject. After this dueling I’m ready to strap a bomb on my chest and head down to the illegal alien labor center and blow myself up. Should I do it George? sure Geoff and be sure to pack some roofing nails in your pockets.
(just kidding Michael) 60
Posted by Dr Sev Ozdwoski on Mon, 16 Dec 2013 01:24 | # Poles “guilty” of Holocaust according to Prof Andrew Jakubowicz Prof Andrew Jakubowicz and Christina Ho edited a book ‘For those who’ve come across the seas…’ about migration to Australia; it was published in 2013 by Australian Scholarly Publishing in Melbourne. In this book Prof Jakubowicz, a well known Sydney sociologist, claims that his parents were refugees ”who have fled the Holocaust in Poland and fortuitously found heavens in Lithuania, Japan and China.” (page xii) As far as I know history, Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Union in September 1939 and the Polish state ceased to exist till 1945. Poles did not collaborate with Nazi occupiers along the lines of the Vichy regime, but developed powerful resistance. The Holocaust was initiated and systematically conducted by Nazis state in virtually all areas of German occupied Europe. Poles not only did not participate in the Holocaust, but to the contrary were its victims being deemed to be “racially inferior” and subject to mass deportations and killings. In fact, three million Catholic Poles, died along with the three million Polish Jews at the hands of the Nazis. This includes members of my own family killed in Dachau. Intrigued by what I thought the sloppiness of Jakubowicz language, I wrote to him suggesting that more appropriate description would be that his parents fled the Holocaust in “Nazi occupied” Poland. Prof Jakubowicz responded: “Thanks for taking up your concerns about how Poland is described in the mention of my parents’ escape. When they fled in September 1939 to the east into what soon became Soviet occupied Poland, they entered another killing ground. Luckily having departed the Nazi zone, they avoided both the Soviets who were approaching and the Endecja deaths quads. While you are of course right to describe Poland after mid 1941 as fully Nazi occupied, when my parents escaped to Wilno it was still Poland. I would argue what became known as the Holocaust very much later had already started well before the Nazi’s declaration of the Final Solution - I have discussed this in a chapter for a book about the aftermath of Neighbours, http://andrewjakubowicz.com/publications/notes-for-a-grave-under-snow/.” 61
Posted by DanielS on Mon, 16 Dec 2013 02:15 | # It is simple: Now that Jewish interests have bilked Germany for all it is worth they are looking to (further) extort Poland in the moment it gains any affluence. Post a comment:
Next entry: One in four Muslims in Britain is a terrorist sympathiser
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
)
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 23 Jul 2005 08:14 | #
Jakubowicz’ ethnicity decides Jakubowicz’ politics. He is an anti-white racist and part of the international culture war against whites.
Let him battle first for the Palestinian right of return. When he has won the great victory for Israeli openness he can come back and lecture white Australians.