White Dindus

“Our entire history is something that’s been done to us by tricky outsiders — especially the bad stuff!”

When anybody else sounds like this, it’s rightfully categorized as pathetic whining.

ADDED: “Can we criticize (the extraordinarily large number of) Jewish Leftist freaks without going completely insane about it?”
“No! Go completely insane about it!”

October 8, 2015admin 105 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Ideology

TAGGED WITH :

105 Responses to this entry

  • White Dindus | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 3:20 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    The ‘right’ to so categorise naturally issues from the tricksters.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    It seems that I misread. Thought you were critiquing anti-colonialism, in a backhand way.
    In that context, yes, the exploiter & victimiser, is going to characterise his victims as pathetic & whining.

    Whatever you’re all talking about now, I’m not interested in. If it’s in the USA, that system seems insane; half the people seem insane, too.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Valorize pathetic whining, and everyone starts doing it. Those best at it probably won’t be the most meritorious in your eyes (but simple the smartest, most cynical, and most professional). That’s how it goes with the Left.

    Watch East Asians asset-stripping the American grievance industry, for example.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    It seems that I misread. Thought you were critiquing anti-colonialism, in a backhand way. In that context, yes, the exploiter & victimiser, is going to characterise his victims as pathetic & whining. Whatever you’re all talking about now, I’m not interested in. If it’s in the USA, that system seems insane; half the people seem […]

    Valorize pathetic whining, and everyone starts doing it. Those best at it probably won’t be the most meritorious in your eyes (but simple the smartest, most cynical, and most professional). That’s how it goes with the Left.

    If the inability to conform to ‘market vacillations’, as it were, in the one instance, causes a history of exploitations that are characterised as “pathetic whining”, what occurs when that “pathetic whining” itself becomes a concern, & then a commodity? Because, in the USA, everything gets commodified. So, because of this, one gets a business of “pathetic whining”, which gets infiltrated by the ‘glossy’ & facile styles of presentation so beloved of American marketing. This happens throughout the ‘political spectrum’. Consequently, one gets a field of essentially dogmatic tendencies & positions, all warring with each other in a lowbrow “conflict of interpretations” that can never resolve, because the USA is a mechanism of hysterical hype which tries to follow all dreams at once in a kind of “full spectrum” oneiric domination.

    The consistent rationale for the Neoreactionary stance has been “what works” or “doesn’t work”, effectively predicating this determination on socioeconomic factors residing within a certain range of overt tangibility. That’s ok, it’s the ‘scene’ from that standpoint, but it’s far from an exhaustive interpretation. Aside from the consideration, ‘works for whom’, it no longer seems to be the case that conventional figurations of ‘reality’, & their ‘pragmatic’ corollaries, of whatever political orientation, are sufficient, in & of themselves, to give insight into the ‘contemporary era’.

    I don’t view the “smartest, most cynical, and most professional” manipulators as meritorious or clever. It’s possible to see them as weak & limited, but I don’t really think about it in that way. One can say that such ‘professionalisms’ as compete in the marketplace of oneiric presentation (.ppt), though capable of rendering convincing spectacles, often fall short in delivering that which their presentations are alleged to reflect. The failures to so render, are themselves zones of continuing exploitation, contrivance of business oportunity through strategic incompetence, base level scamming, with a gloss surface.

    Dark Psy-Ops Reply:

    @ Artxell Knaphni

    What’s interesting is the victim-complex grievance industry in America has nothing much to do with colonialism, other than using it to further their own insane agendas. No matter how they try to spin it, no American (besides the Indians) can justify their victimology on the demerits of their colonizers, as they had none. Instead, they are victims of racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc. I’m sure you know the game by now. This post, which you have commented on erroneously, before declaring your magisterial indifference to the discussion, and then returning to hash out whatever it is you were arguing in the above comment, is actually about self-proclaimed goyim blaming the shekel-grubbing jews for the stinking socialist wretch that America currently is. Yes, you’d think an ethnocentric merchant class would have an aversion to progressive social policies but just take a look at George Soros. Personally I am repulsed by the JQ, perhaps mainly because it wounds my pride to think I am a helpless victim of exploitative, pathological aliens. In fact, the JQ is a vehicle for blatant ‘alt-right’ entryism into the reactosphere, which wouldn’t be a problem if it’s proponents weren’t so consistently mindless. Still, I won’t deny the proliferation of Judaeo-communism as an (evil, decadent) ideological force, though I’d contend it’s largely insignificant compared to the overall problem of Western democratic values.

    As for colonialism, it worked fine in the Pacific Rim, where their was a population ready and willing to work for modernization. Where this desire for modernization is absent, colonialism will fail, unless, perhaps, there is severely restricted suffrage. Wherever progressive democracy rears its head it promises ruin of civil life and dysgenic collapse, whether this cancer infects a colony or a ‘nativist’ population makes no difference. As Scientism aptly tweeted some days ago (from memory), “history shows it is better to be conquered by a foreign power than given the vote”. Following this, we could expect the West may be saved if China buys it wholesale and rules it under a system of market authoritarianism, but no one expects that to happen before the civil war/mass killings/revolution.

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 3:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • RorschachRomanov Says:

    This is especially manifest in the WN penchant for obsessive, unrelenting, unassailable fretting about Jews.

    Erase every Jew from existence and after a century they’d be discussing the long shadow cast in his demise.

    [Reply]

    Mr. Zeepie Reply:

    Jewish dindus aren’t vocal at all, natch. They never pity themselves or fume over their grandfathers’ inability to get into country clubs.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You guys are so Boolean. You seriously think they’re being defended here?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Nuance (not really a White Dindu thing).

    Mr. Zeepie Reply:

    I don’t seriously think that, no. True blue white dindus are marginalized and twinned with UFO enthusiasts. On the t’other hand….

    Besides, I dindunuffins. Motto: 100% of all bullets are fired at oneself.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 3:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • OLF Says:

    Hm, this is a bit puzzling. Are you pointing at Don Quixotes, or at prospective Führers? Though they hate each other, they do tend to agree on Der Juden Question† and Capitalism‡.

    † – Admittedly most j00z are leftists. However, only a tiny minority of leftists are j00z. Ascribing magickal powers to the j00z does undeniably remind of Nation of Islam beliefs… so yeah, pretty much white dindi.

    ‡ – That’s modernisssss. (Of course, it’s a false claim.)

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    “Admittedly most j00z are leftists. However, only a tiny minority of leftists are j00z. Ascribing magickal powers to the j00z does undeniably remind of Nation of Islam beliefs… so yeah, pretty much white dindi.”

    Right. Well, the way I see it, we can only concern ourselves with facts.

    It is a fact that the Jews are disproportionately leftist in a general sense. They disproportionately vote for left-wing parties, support liberal causes, and so on. (That they often do these things when it seems to fly in the face of their own best interests — e.g. encouraging Syrian migrant acceptance, when the Syrians hate the Jews most of all, and will repay their “kindness” in bullets and burning Synagogues — is surprising and disconcerting to us. Difficult to understand. Perhaps even sinister.)

    It is also a fact that a disproportionate number of leftist intellectuals, zealots, and trend-setters are Jewish. These people fill us with revulsion.

    Furthermore, it’s a fact that the Jews are over-represented in the various arms of what we call the Cathedral — the media, academia, and political organizations.

    Lastly, it’s a fact that Jews are genetically distinct from other European populations. This cannot be disputed.

    It cannot be ascertained as fact that there’s an overarching Jewish conspiracy of any sort. In fact, it seems extraordinarily implausible that this is the case. Let’s not forget that there are a great many Jews and mischlings who have contributed to the Right, from Weininger, to Arco-Valley, to Moldbug.

    It cannot be ascertained as fact that Judaism is a “group evolutionary strategy”. This theory is so often repeated in Alt-Right circles, but it is, as I understand it, essentially untestable. It carries a thin veneer of academic respectability, which is easy to distort & can sound impressive, but it is ultimately impossible to prove or disprove. Although rooted in evolutionary science, the theory itself is no more or less scientific than Schopenhauer’s musings on the nature of women.

    It certainly cannot be ascertained as fact that Jews are running the show in today’s Sweden or today’s Germany. It is true that they own media companies and newspapers, but they’d need industrial-strength powers of magical mind-control to manage the current European implosion. The Germans and Swedes, among the rest of ’em, are entirely responsible for their own fates. Many Jews are deeply complicit, and those Jews deserve to hang — but the Jews are not a monolith, nor are they behind all of the troubles of Europe.

    So what is to be done? Nothing. American Jews, through intermarriage, will soon become one with the broader race of SWPLs. The rest of ’em will hasten to Israel. There is no Jewish Problem in Europe today, and to go mad chasing conspiracies is not only a waste of time — it is strategically foolish. Especially at a time when Europe and America both face such intractable and immediate problems.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    A remarkable thing about Jewish genetics is the extremely low level of genetic flow from host populations into their gene pool. Such a feat (maintained over centuries) requires a cultural setup basically indistinguishable from a “group evolutionary strategy”. It may or may not be true that their culture has taken fatal damage along with ours. The Holocaust narrative has replaced traditional G-d stuff for those who can’t believe in the latter. Mischlinge aren’t Jews but serve as a kind of protective barrier around the Tribe. The dynamics are hard to predict.

    Strategically, the disadvantage of energy misspent on anti-semitism would have to be weighed against the disadvantage of splitting your movements over ant-anti-semitism.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I think that most of MacDonald’s arguments are completely reasonable, even self-evident. But I find that he mixes historical fact with theory and opinion — and sometimes, his best efforts notwithstanding, makes arguments which seem emotional and not very serious — and thus his books and papers seem closer to the musings of a popular philosopher than they are to science or fact. He has, to the best of my knowledge, never posited a testable hypothesis.

    In any case, even if the Jew has magical powers of mind control beyond our wildest reckoning, it would still be difficult to explain the fact that the Saxon is so listless, so little inclined to stand up for his nation. In the fairly recent past, to be a proper Englishman meant to embrace and represent the whole of English history, and to do one’s best to carry it forward. (Didn’t Percival tell King Arthur that he was the land itself?) This has, in the space of a few decades, descended into utter mockery and disgrace. But the reasons for this are complex, and I don’t think that they are entirely understood. To be succinct, I think that modern democracy has a lot to do with it, as does the popularization of multiculturalism and degenerate forms of popular art.

    Just before he died, Mishima said something which might be relevant. In a letter to a friend, he compared post-war Japan to a young widow: “This is a vulgar metaphor, but, because she was still young, if only one Japanese man had stood up for her, he could have turned her into a real woman.” As, instead, all of the men who showed up for her had despicable motives, she simply “grew old, full of wrinkles.” The same can be said of Europa — so ill-used by its political classes, so despicably manipulated by Americans and Soviets alike, so in need of good men who might stand up for her. But none have, and isn’t she approaching her deathbed right now? If European men are their land and their history, they have precious little time left to act. If their land and their history mean nothing to them, what then?

    Jack Reply:

    As secular Jews integrate into White circles, some Orthodox Jews leave religion and become the new secular Jews. And some Gentiles convert to Judaism and add their admixture to the Jewish gene pool. Thus, the Jewish Problem is not actually getting solved. Whether this makes for a strategy or not is beside the point.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Ok. Numbers? Evidence? Just kidding – I know you don’t have any. Luckily, I do.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/jews/

    Scroll down halfway and look at the chart titled “Jewish Population Growth Compared With Overall Growth in Each Region”.

    For North America: Jews are -2%, population as a whole is +26%.

    And, something else – your understanding of genetics is quite weak. You seem to think that converting to Judaism somehow converts genes to the Jewish gene pool. It is the opposite: such conversions dilute the Jewish gene pool. Listen: “Jewish” is [i]a label[/i]. It happens to be a label that has interesting information about allelic frequencies in the labeled population. It is only interesting to that extent. If the label stops containing useful information, it stops being a useful label. Try to pay attention to the territory, not the map.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    I thought that Jack actually made a good point.

    The Jewish Problem becomes a math problem. So let’s look at it like this:

    In addition to the source you’ve posted, let’s assume that these two sources are factually correct:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/01/us/poll-shows-major-shift-in-identity-of-us-jews.html?ref=us
    http://nleresources.com/2013/01/the-jewish-birth-rate-crisis/

    Therefore, in the USA:
    -There are approximately 5,500,000 Jews.
    -The Orthodox make up 10% of the Jewish population.
    -The Orthodox have 3.3 children on average.
    -Secular Jews have 1.4 children on average.
    -The total Jewish intermarriage rate is 58%. (71% among secular Jews!)

    Let’s define the word “Jew” to mean somebody with two Jewish parents. In other words, as somebody who is predominantly Jewish in a genetic sense.

    You could probably draw up an equation if you feel like it. It’s obvious at a glance that the secular Jews are going to dwindle into insignificance — and the Orthodox don’t have the numbers to prevent a Jewish population collapse. It may indeed be worse than the source you’ve provided describes. Yet, with that said, the Orthodox are going to persist, are going to grow, do not intermarry, and will ensure that “Jewishness” persists long into the future. (This does smack of a “group evolutionary strategy” — but there are other possible explanations.)

    If you take the Jewish Problem to mean “it is our misfortune that Jews exist in our society,” then demographic trends are clearly not going to solve the problem. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that this is a reasonable interpretation of the Jewish problem; I think that people who hold this view are letting emotion get in the way of reason.

    If you take the Jewish Problem to mean “it is our misfortune that Jews have too much social/political/economic clout in our society,” then demographic trends are very likely to solve the problem within the coming few decades. We cannot be certain, however. As Henk noted, the dynamics are difficult to predict. (If this comes to pass, it will be interesting to observe the reactions from the political left and the political right as Jewish influence subsides.)

    …To me it looks like progressivism is destroying secular Jews just as it is attacking pan-European culture — and that the Orthodox are largely immune, just as Islamists are immune, but only insofar as they latch onto their religion and refuse to accept modernity.

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    Bah. Something that jew-crazies don’t understand is that Orthodox Jews aren’t Jews. They’re just a weird, irrelevant side-cult, like the Amish but with less clout.

    Reform/Conservative Ashkenazi Jews are interesting thing.

    Erebus Reply:

    I disagree. You’ve already mentioned yourself that Jewishness is genetic. Surely the Orthodox and Reform differ quite little in this particular regard, if indeed they differ at all.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong, but here’s a thought: If you were to transport a modern Orthodox Jew into a 19th century Lithuanian shtetl, he’d feel right at home. He’d be familiar with the customs, the routine, the history, and even, to some extent, the language. If you were to transport a secular Jew into the same shtetl, he’d feel like a stranger in a very strange land — the culture of the shtetl-dwellers would be utterly alien to him. Orthodox Judaism is therefore traditional Judaisim. The others have shed their religion and culture for progressivism, which is eating them alive, just as it corrodes everything else it touches.

    Jack Reply:

    My larger point is that “Progressive Judaism” as it currently manifests is not selected against, due to a) Orthodox Jews leaving the ghetto behind and becoming secular, Progressive Jews; b) Gentile genes are streaming into the religious Jewish gene pool via conversion and preventing over-selection for a religious Jewish archetype. So the Progressive Jewish “type” remains constant, stable. Therefore, the Jewish Problem is neither solvable by the prospect of secular Jewry being replaced with Orthodox Jewry, nor by selection for genetic predisposition to Orthodoxy at the expense of Progressive secularism (because of novel Gentile genes interfering). Throughout history, plenty of Jews left Judaism, and enough Gentiles joined it. There may not be a strategy at work here, yet it could just as well be a strategy as evidenced by the results.

    I do not claim that the mere existence of Jews = Jewish Problem. I claim that the Jews as such are not experiencing any change for the better, from the perspective of the Jewish proclivity toward Leftism. Or in other words, Progressive Judaism (which is the Jewish Problem) is not selected against.

    “And, something else – your understanding of genetics is quite weak. You seem to think that converting to Judaism somehow converts genes to the Jewish gene pool. It is the opposite: such conversions dilute the Jewish gene pool.”

    That’s exactly my point: Orthodox Judaism is not selected to replace Progressive Judaism, because of Giyur into religious Jewish circles. Secular Progressive Judaism remains constant because of Orthodox Jews leaving religion; the Jewish gene pool loses some genes — those of secular Jews intermingling with Gentiles — and incorporates others — those of Gentiles converting to Judaism; this dynamic preserves Progressive Judaism.

    “Something that jew-crazies don’t understand is that Orthodox Jews aren’t Jews. They’re just a weird, irrelevant side-cult, like the Amish but with less clout.”

    False. All modern Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Orthodox. And in modern Israel, Orthodox and traditionalist religious Jews gain predominance.

    I suspect your escapade in MPC has left you traumatized, Kwisatz. You’re seeing “Jew-crazies” when there aren’t any. Not that there’s anything wrong with that: “paranoid Jews live longer” proclaimed rabbi Kahane.

    Jack Reply:

    To elaborate my point: if the Amish keep pouring out defective members of their community, then Amishness is selected over ex-Amishness, so in time you’ll see fewer and fewer ex-Amish. If, however, they also gain new genes from outsiders joining them, then Amishness is not selected over ex-Amishness, because of dilution. Then you should expect another generation of ex-Amish to follow.

    Alas, ex-Amish do not inflict memetic hydrogen bombs on their host societies, whereas ex-Orthodox Jews do just that. So we’re not discussing the Amish Problem.

    “Orthodox Jews aren’t Jews. They’re just a weird, irrelevant side-cult, like the Amish”

    While you’re at it, you may as well claim that authentic Judaism died with the Sadducees. Yet somehow, there are still Jews around. This may suggest that an adaptive evolutionary strategy is in place. This evolutionary strategy, assuming it’s a valid definition of Judaism as KMac maintains, works by furnishing 3 different segments of Jews at any given time:

    1) the “core group” of rabbinic Jews, who do the reproducing and the passing forward of Jewish tradition;

    2) the ex-Jews, be they Pagan, Hellenized, secular, intermarried, Christianized, Islamized, cryptos, or Mischlings, who either assimilate into Gentile society and severe their connection to the Jewish community altogether, or undermine Gentile society by identifying with the Jewish people and advancing Jewish causes while living outside the Jewish community as members of the host society;

    3) ethnic non-Jews who convert to Judaism and interbreed with ethnic Jews, offsetting over-selection for Jewishness.

    Is there evidence for this theory? Consider the White Nationalist Neo-Pagan claim that Christianity is the result of the second group (specifically, Hellenist Jews and Mischlings producing Christianity) being unleashed upon the Gentiles; that Christianity was the original Jewish domination of Gentile society, not dissimilar to modern Cultural Marxism; the latter, as the former, serves Jewish interests only insofar as it is under Jewish control, and once Gentiles adopt the new religion and form independent cults around it, they may as well use it against its original propagators.

    If the shoe fits, etc.

    Erebus Reply:

    “All modern Jews descend from the Orthodox”: Absolutely true. They’re no strange cult, but are instead the wellspring of Jewish culture.
    …But there’s something timeless and remarkable about their rejection of modernity. Of course they seem very odd to us, incongruous with their surroundings, and even disgusting at times. It’s understandable why one might call them weird and irrelevant, because that’s how they always seem to appear!

    “Gentile genes streaming into the Jewish gene pool, offsetting over-selection for Jewishness”: Of this, having given it some thought, I am skeptical. To the best of my knowledge, what Henk said above is correct, and there has actually been rather little inflow from host populations into the Jewish genepool.

    Also, I don’t think that we can take that White Nationalist Neo-Pagan claim entirely seriously; it smacks of White Dinduism. Do you have other evidence for this theory?
    …Instead of “Christianity was imposed on us by the Jews”, I’d suggest that Pagan religions were either spiritually unsatisfying and shallow, or too deep for the majority of the populace to comprehend. The Scandinavian brand of Paganism, so well loved by White Nationalists, is the very definition of a shallow and unsatisfying folk-religion. Mithraism is a fine example of a religion which is too deep for mass adoption; too many mysteries and initiation rights for most people to bother with. (I’d add that Buddhism has failed as a national religion — most notably in India — on account of its profundity! Wherever you find Buddhism, you’ll also find a folk-religion: Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, various forms of ancestor worship, and so on.) Christianity is both simple and undemanding enough to attain mass adoption, and is yet profound enough for intelligent men to spend their lifetimes in contemplation of it, and this lends it an air of authenticity which other religions lack. Christianity, unlike Mithraism and many other forms of Paganism, also appeals to women.

    Ah, anyway, you’ve seen the numbers. Between intermarriage and the low birth-rate, a decline in Progressive Jewish power and influence is inevitable. Even if it weren’t, to blame the listnessness of European men, and the decadence and vulgarity of American culture, entirely on the Jews is utterly pathetic. Also, and perhaps more importantly, it is strategically incompetent.

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 4:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    It’s natural for a group to blame outsiders; it’s hard to maintain social cohesion in the face of intense self-criticism. On the other hand, I’ve noticed within the Jewish community that the orthodox tend to blame the Jews for our own problems (insufficient piety, though often more nuanced), while the secular are more likely to blame Christians for everything. Based on demographics alone, orthodox observance seems considerably better adapted to modernity. Maybe having a divine third party to meditate self criticism mitigates damage to solidarity?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 4:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lucian of Samosata Says:

    Never forget the 6 million Irish murdered by Cromwell and the Famine. Englishness must be deconstructed to prevent such a travesty ever happening again.

    All culture after the Famine is garbage.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 6:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • White Dindus | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 7:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    Barking up the wrong tree.

    White Nationalism is a popular movement, so there are plenty of plebs promoting dumbed down and/or vulgar versions of it.

    But if you read thoroughly, White Nationalism encompasses an extremely thorough critique of whites, white culture and white behavior. That’s a big part of the appeal. You don’t get into palingenesis because you think your group is doing everything right.

    But white nationalism also understands this quote that you’ve endorsed before:

    “This is a war universe. War all the time. That is its nature. There may be other universes based on all sorts of other principles, but ours seems to be based on war and games.”

    Which would lead us to expect there to be many zero-sum interactions between groups. Should keep track of those.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 7:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mark Citadel Says:

    I got a good chuckle from this. Very poignant.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 8th, 2015 at 9:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    We have to fight to live, this is an immutable and eternal fact of life.

    We have to fight and at present pass destroy our enemies.

    We don’t need to destroy their completely innocent cousins who don’t bother anyone.

    Really dealing with our actual – by name, individual – enemies is quite work enough for a lifetime.

    No really we have the rest of our lives to fight, die fighting or lay down and die.
    The Rest of our lives.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 9th, 2015 at 1:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    When people speak about how Jews disproportionately vote for left-wing parties, champion Progressive policies, and inhabit left-wing professions of the Cathedral (media, academy, etc), they are speaking as if all Jews have Jewish values. All Jews are Jews. With that said, American Jews who are members of the Reform or Conservative denominations lack many of the values that distinguish Judaism. Reform and Conservative Judaism are essentially forms of spiritual Protestantism. I could explain why this is and how this came to be but that would take a long time. Maybe another time.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 9th, 2015 at 3:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Froude Society Says:

    I read a bit of the Ayatollah’s new book on how to destroy Israel and it’s disappointingly similar to the quote in question. They’ve (the Islamic Revolution) really has seemed to take up a postcolonial victim mentality. So much of Iran’s propaganda alludes to the UN charter, international law, and such like. For the sake of a civilized, anti-democracy future I sure hope they are just playing the audience.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 9th, 2015 at 3:13 am Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    I should hasten to add that Orthodox Jews are of the Right – quite resolutely so – on matters of fiscal and social policy.

    As Reform and Conservative Jews continue to assimilate into the gentile world, the Right-wing bona fides of Judaism will increasingly come into clearer focus. Judaism is a particularist spiritual perspective. It is inherently of the Right. Judaism is sooner aligned with Plato than Aristotle. Judaism cherishes the prior over the subsequent; the superior over the inferior; hierarchy over equality; order over disorder.

    Israel, by the way, is a case in point. The unfolding story of Israel is remarkable. Keep an eye on Naftali Bennett.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 9th, 2015 at 3:17 am Reply | Quote
  • Irregular Commenter Says:

    “White people were a good boy,” said a woman who knew White People, but didn’t want to be named. “He ain’t did nun,” she continued, “but shoot a cop.”

    Experts, while conflicted, all seem to agree: White People ain’t did nun, and he a good boy.

    But prosecutors disagree. According to a source who agreed to speak off the record: “Look, we all know white people didn’t do anything. But now? With Obama in office? Look, we have to deliver something to the people. And let’s face it, if we’re honest? He did do something. So we’ll run with that.”

    The future of White People looks grim indeed.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Learn that our Laws have become our chains.

    No the policemen are not our Gaolers.

    We are.

    As for Dindu Nuffin – white’s at present can honestly say that. It’s our valediction.

    It belongs on someone’s tombstone.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    the way out of trap is usually inconstruction of new one

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 9th, 2015 at 9:21 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    You know its easy to say a people got what they deserved but its kind of like blaming the hipster faggot for not becoming a black belt before moving to bushwhack. People have lives to lead they delegate authority and responsibility. This has been a tried and true method for complex organizations. Its broken.
    When did it break, was it because we should have burned Luther tout de suite and let the Medicis monetize Christianity? would that have sustained, should we have outlawed slavery and colonialism and headed off multiculturalism ? Been more understanding of Hitlers vision a middle path between capitalist and communist Jewish rule lol ?
    My 20 year old is as leftist as they come these days Im sure to her, trans rights seems a no brainer. its harder for me to think yes exactly no brain no sense of history no context no thinking through the complexities and fragility of civilization. I say would it be better for one in 10,000 women suffer Hester Prynns shaming or half of our marriages fail children aborted birth rates collapse barren wombs at 40 etc?
    But back in the 60s and 70s civil rights seemed to me the only sane way to go, if you could have gotten through to me then that MLK was a communist tool that blacks were barely human on average that it would set untold precedents that would entirely destroy western civilization Im not sure i would have changed my mind but im pretty sure few others would and I doubt they are the types I would have wanted as friends or allies… Because if i was willing to go there then the answer would have been then what shall we do shove them all in ovens let them die in another middle passage to Haiti or Liberia,? -[obviously the answer was let the CIA sterilize them.] The point is kicking the can down the road always seems the most reasonable choice until it isnt. The human mind is evolved that way.

    Whats with the Jew baiting and switching are we searching for hidden nazis? Whatever all this race talk is titillating Ill bite.
    As you say- (the extraordinarily large number of) Jewish Leftist freaks is undeniable. And its what makes the extraordinarily large number of jewish lawyer bankers academics media moguls and general billionaires problematic.Because these are often one and the same people And also because Jewish leftism is almost universal in regards to the greater society vs intra jewish activity. In some respects Jews are routinely conservative among themselves but rarely so in engaging others. Imagine if Jews were rarely leftist were almost uniformly staunch conservators of western civilization we wouldn’t be having this conversation because they would be our sons of jewesses and it would be really only a matter of religion Very few would be so bigoted on purely religious grounds.
    But leftism is anti europeanism and so defines Jews as others, in fact part of modern leftism is Jew as other meme. Jew as victim jew as enemy. Jews are too few and too similar be a genetic threat today. Because they are extraordinarily intelligent and civilized they are actually an ideal hybrid candidate to Europeans, its in fact the historical hybridization that has made them extraordinary while simultaneously hybridizing their cultural contribution with ours. they are genetically actually half Euro already the religion that separates them is not even as inherently leftist as christianity though some like myself could argue Christianity is weaponized Judaism you cant blame the jews for that. No its not Judaism or genetics but leftism thats the problem.
    But leftism has such a cultural hold on jews that its conflated in their minds and ours. If your second question is can we blame them all for this situation, well It kind of depends on your answer to the first question regarding Dindus. My answer would be no not entirely its a historical accident a defense mechanism rooted at a time when they were more other than they are now. Do I really care who was wrong in the middle ages up to the final solution no its pointless now.
    But if the real question is, is it strategically advantageous to use the meme leftist Jew to break the hold of leftism on Jews then I would say it should be studied in a less emotional way. I suppose that process might surprise with a conclusion that leftism can no longer be separated from jewishness and might lead to eliminating jewishness as a solution. My friend Kwiz sees this as the answer, total jewish assimilation. I only reluctantly agree if its the only way. I suppose I am as despondent about separating leftism from christians as he is about jews. I like western civilization i see Christians and Jews as among the founders and sustainers I really hate to see either go. Both because of cultural significance and organizational utility.But thats a two edged sword. They are not the only social organizer pwnd by leftism and while being non rational memes they were easily infected and leftism seems to have anticipated its own earlier attacks on religion will resurface against it and cobbled together a psuedo rational religion and so will sustain itself outside judeo christianity I cant help but think J/C is always an easy host to leftism.What I dont understand is DE/NRX insistence that Christianity is not inherently leftist and anti rational despite impressive historical attempts at rationalizing it. I love the middle ages I fondly remember a catholic upbringing which i did my best to sustain despite not believing since second grade. Although I even had some hope until the latest popes election,I think you can never get around the fact that its a universal communist theology more so than Judaism out of christian context.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 9th, 2015 at 5:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Nick, as usual, displaying extreme intellectual dishonesty on this question.

    Nick Land: “The entire history of tricky outsiders is done to them by us — but only the bad stuff!”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The black-and-white tribal epistemology you’re so into really churns out the strawmen.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 10th, 2015 at 5:19 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Nick,

    “Our entire history is something that’s been done to us by tricky outsiders — especially the bad stuff!”

    No one says this. Period. This is the definition of a straw man. And you have no excuse: we’ve been over this multiple times.

    You, on the other hand, do explicitly blame Jewish behavior on “Puritans”. Despite the fact that you know virtually nothing about Puritans, as you confirmed on twitter.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “No one says this. Period.” — So don’t identify with it, then. Yet, weirdly, you do.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 10th, 2015 at 11:51 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    No, Nick, I don’t “identify with it”. You attempted the same inversion of reality in the twitter thread that I assume helped prompt this bout of off-twitter subtweeting.

    It’s impossible for any serious person to point to Puritans as the source of Jewish radicalism. I call attention to some relevant survey data and Nick Land responds with the “white dindus” gambit, which is the best he can come up with now that eye-dialect “joo” is completely worn out.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    You need to learn to recognise when you’re being trolled.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It was mostly a response to Tan Staafl (check the time-line if you’re going to continue obsessing about it).

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 10th, 2015 at 1:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    To recap, I include Nick on twitter when pointing to this data:

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/10/political-background-and-identification.html

    And Nick’s reaction is: “@racehist @LexCorvus By exempting your beloved Puritans from all responsibility for Anglosphere history you reduce them to pitiful dupes.”

    Noticing the political proclivities of 20th century Jews is for Nick “expempting Puritans from all responsibility for Anglosphere history”.

    Me, to Nick, some time ago: “I think it’s interesting . . . that you happened to latch onto reactionary politics when you came across moldbug and discovered a worldview that would absolve Jews of any responsibility for the state of the world today

    And all Nick can do is hilariously try to accuse me of doing what he’s doing.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Whether or not the JQ is true or not is irrelevant, and that can be easily demonstrated…

    Let us suppose that all the Jews will miraculously disappear from the face of the Earth tomorrow. Would status quo significantly change tomorrow?

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    Why wouldn’t it?

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Status quo would change (strictly speaking). It’s why I added the word *significantly*.

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    The status quo would change if all Jewish influence on politics were removed, only surely not significantly? Some Scotsmen might stop voting for left-wing parties, but no true Scotsman would?

    admin Reply:

    It would almost undoubtedly benefit everyone “if all Jewish influence on politics were removed” (outside Israel) but doing that without a general resentment-driven jihad against annoying smart people isn’t going to be easy.

    Erebus Reply:

    Worth adding: It would undoubtedly benefit everyone if all plebeian influence on politics were removed — that is, if mass-participation in political processes were abolished. (Which is, if anything, more likely than removing “all Jewish influence”, solely!)

    The problem, fundamentally, isn’t this group or that group. It is the system itself.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “Worth adding: It would undoubtedly benefit everyone if all plebeian influence on politics were removed”

    The opposition to the Cathedral looks pretty plebian right now, while the Cathedral and the outer party look pretty elite driven.

    Posted on October 10th, 2015 at 2:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Lucian,

    No, this is not Nick “trolling”. This is the best argument Nick can come up with, and Nick’s attempt to throw red meat to certain members of his audience, while trying to keep other members of his audience on message.

    OLF,

    Yes, you have brilliantly “proved” the JQ is irrelevant. It’s obvious, if only in your imagination, that if half the most influential leftists in the media, a disproportionately leftist 1/3 of billionaires, the people responsible for 2/3 of Democratic campaign contributions (and 1/3 of Republican, including prominent Republican advocates for “gay marriage”, amnesty for illegals, and so on), a major fraction of professors at elite colleges, law schools, etc., disappeared, the status quo would not change significantly “tomorrow”. QED: JQ irrelevant.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    “This is the best argument Nick can come up with, and Nick’s attempt to throw red meat to certain members of his audience”

    You should consider the possibility that both of these propositions are actually consistent with the proposition that you are being trolled.

    [Reply]

    OLF Reply:

    Self proclaimed white “moderates” are very, very left wing and even today’s “conservatives” are much lefter than 90s progressives. So what are you going to do with those whites, i.e. almost all of them, who would rather kiss a sodomite butt, prostrate themselves before the womyn, wave incense at the Jewish feel and lick the Negro boot rather than be called raycisssss, sexisssss or somethingphobic? What are you going to do about all the welfare-addicted white trash, are they going to magically stop being socialists once Jews are gone?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 10th, 2015 at 9:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Lucian,

    That makes complete sense: Nick sets out to troll me (after losing an argument with me on twitter) by running back to his own website, which I hadn’t commented on recently, and making a post that doesn’t mention me.

    No, the only connection is that Nick thought he struck upon a particularly clever dishonest rhetorical strategy in the twitter exchange.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    “Nick sets out to troll me”

    I suggested no such thing. On the contrary, given that you’re so ardently attempting to engage on a subject you know your interlocutor doesn’t take seriously (this is why ‘white dindus’ is all you are going to get) I would have to say you’re the one setting out to be trolled. What was your intention, to expose NRx as a bunch of crypto-Juden who don’t exactly sympathise with the identitarian qualms of Wyatt Mann? That was already passe back in 2014.

    Is your aim to win arguments on the interwebz? Cool, well done, have a cookie.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Thank you. I would be delighted never to cross paths with n/a again, as I’m sure he realizes. There is absolutely zero-prospect of productive information exchange (in either direction).

    On the other hand, if he’s going to treat every episode of demurring from Cosmic-Antisemitism as a personal insult, we can expect the pointless circus to carry on.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    I guarantee you’ll find plenty of it on Twitter.

    admin Reply:

    I know it’s frustrating for “magic cosmic-jews run the earth” -types who think the world owes them an argument, but there isn’t an argument that’s going to make a dent, so everyone gets exhausted. Yes, yes, yes, Jews are over-represented in X, Y,and Z, … everyone knows that, but it doesn’t mean that aliens built the pyramids. There are plenty of reasons to find Leftist secular Jews highly-annoying, and there are far more of them than anyone sensible is happy with, and that’s it.

    The fact that Moldbug’s political philosophy says Jews don’t have any unique cosmic responsibility for the triumph of the Left is a side-effect of it being sane. He doesn’t blame the Masons, or the Grays either. As you well know, anything that didn’t have this characteristic would, by necessity, be a 24-7 Jew-paranoia fest of the kind that is boring everyone to tears here.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 10th, 2015 at 11:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    “He doesn’t blame the Masons, or the Grays either.”

    Of course not. He blames “The Puritans”, as do you.

    “24-7 Jew-paranoia fest of the kind that is boring everyone to tears here.”

    Again, extremely dishonest. You’re the one who feels a continual need (as did your leader Moldbug) to attack noticing Jewish behavior as dangerous to one’s social standing / indicative of low intelligence / crazy / etc., rather than presenting reasoned argument, or simply ignoring it as equivalent to arguments that “aliens built the pyramids”. You’re forced to acknowledge “(the extraordinarily large number of) Jewish Leftist freaks” or risk losing credibility with the bulk of your audience, while at the same time pushing an ideology built specifically around the notion of “unique cosmic” Jewish lack of responsibility.

    Drop the pose of objectivity, and I’ll probably stop responding. Continue pushing dishonest lines of argument, and I’ll continue to respond if I feel like it.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Drop the pose of objectivity” — you first.

    You completely fail to get that I (basically) like Protestants. In part, because they really did, for some centuries, responsibly ruled the world. Only recently has the Cathedral dementia taken over. Understanding what went wrong requires a grasp of the intrinsic vulnerability of the Modernist-Occidental (i.e. reform Christianity) tradition to subversion by egalitarian universalism, even if the most energetic proponents of the latter have been in very many cases secular Leftist Jews. You have nothing whatsoever to add to this process of historical understanding, because your in-group complacency and attraction to racial conspiracy theorizing leaves no room for productive self-criticism.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 2:25 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    Nick,

    I have never denied I have a partiality for my own people. On this question, however, I’ve been vastly more objective than you.

    My argument has never been that Jews are exclusively responsible for 20th-century leftism. I’ve simply pointed out that Moldbug’s hilarious attempts to blame 20th-century Jewish leftists on 17th-century New England Puritans or their descendants don’t work.

    If we’re tallying up blame, I say blame Jews for Jewish behavior.

    You screech that this is unacceptable, dumb, crazy. The only sensible thing is to blame Puritans. And people who disagree with you believe “magic cosmic-jews run the earth”.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You think the Jewishness of Jews is almost entirely explanatory of their behavior. I think this is hyperbolic in the extreme, and symptomatic of monomania. (It’s partially explanatory, though, before you pull out the “total exculpation” strawman.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 3:05 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    “You think the Jewishness of Jews is almost entirely explanatory of their behavior.”

    I think:

    (1) Ethnic conflict exists.

    (2) Jewish / minority identity has been highly salient to the political activity of US Jews (as most standard histories and Jewish radicals themselves agree).

    ‘It’s partially explanatory, though, before you pull out the “total exculpation” strawman.’

    So why the need to attack people interested in understanding this, or who come to a different conclusion than you about the degree to which “Jewishness” explains Jewish behavior?

    And what exactly do you attribute the voting behavior of US Jews to (versus other groups) if not their “Jewishness”. You know Moldbug’s hilarious answer. You know that it doesn’t work.

    The 1944 presidential vote also revealed this marked difference between Jewish and Gentile political behavior. The upper-class and upper-middle-class Christian denominations voted heavily against Roosevelt and in favor of Republican standard-bearer Thomas Dewey. Only 31.4% of the Congregationalists, 39.9% of the Presbyterians and 44.6% of the Episcopalians backed Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The more working-class denominations, however, voted heavily for him, particularly the Catholics who were 72.8% in his favor. In terms of their combined educational, occupational and status rank in the Allinsmith survey-that of second place-the Jews might well have been expected to vote Republican. Actually, they were 92.1% for Roosevelt. This overwhelming support was greater than that of any of the Christian denominations. [. . .]

    However, in the 1952 elections, despite the fact that the Republican presidential candidate, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had led the Western coalition to victory over the Nazis, 75% of the Jewish voters supported Adlai E. Stevenson, a man who had played no role of any importance in World War II. There was no difference in the attitude of the candidates toward Jewry or the state of Israel. The issue was clearly one of moderation vs. liberalism. In a situation where American voters as a whole gave decisive support to Eisenhower, three-fourths of the Jews backed his Democratic opponent. Moreover, interviews in depth of Boston voters showed that only 30% of the Gentiles with high socioeconomic status, as against 60% of those with low socioeconomic status, backed Stevenson. Among Boston Jews, 72% of those with high status voted for Stevenson.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-boston-upper-class-circa-1950.html

    So what is the excuse now?

    “monomania”

    Having a grasp of standard history as concerns the most disproportionately influential US minority ethny = monomania

    Blaming all leftism, everywhere, on The Puritans = cold, indisputable logic

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “So why the need to attack people interested in understanding this, or who come to a different conclusion than you about the degree to which “Jewishness” explains Jewish behavior?” — You have initiated every ‘exchange’ on the topic, to the best of my recollection.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    If we’re going to talk about Jewish influence, you’ll need to use a better measure than votes, which only captures raw numbers and isn’t going to convey the real reach of the Happy Merchant as much as I think you intend to. George Soros only got one vote (or none; I’m not actually sure if he’s a US citizen) but he’s more significant for the JQ than anything your voting data can tell us.

    I couldn’t find a link to aggregate votes in your source, but I’m fairly confident that even if 100% of Jews voted for FDR and for some reason earnestly believed this would spelled the end of Wyatt Mann, they would still have had far less of an impact on the actual outcome of the election than that 72.8% of Catholics.

    Maybe we should be talking about gassing the Catholics instead.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 4:07 am Reply | Quote
  • n/a Says:

    “You have initiated every ‘exchange’ on the topic, to the best of my recollection.”

    I’m not just talking about your interactions with me. I’m talking about your hysteria on this question in general.

    “You have initiated every ‘exchange’ on the topic, to the best of my recollection.”

    You have less than perfect recollection. E.g., here: http://www.xenosystems.net/chaos-patch-59/#comment-204488

    I reply to someone else:

    As I recall, Derbyshire started off his “rebuttal” of MacDonald by explaining how he’d discovered that “getting the Jew thing” is bad for one’s career and that therefore he’d resolved not to “get it”. Now that he has less of a career to worry about, he seems to have less trouble getting it (linked by Nick Land above):

    “4.Not Good for the Jews. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that in bringing about big cultural changes in our country, Jewish elites in the media, arts, show business, and the intelligentsia have immensely disproportionate influence.

    For complex historical and cultural reasons written up by Kevin MacDonald and others, American Jews have been energetic proponents of multiculturalism and white race guilt.”

    https://www.vdare.com/articles/john-derbyshire-the-american-political-system-can-solve-the-race-problem-for-a-given-meaning-of-solve

    You reply to me:

    I suspect the Derb wants to demonstrate that it’s possible to face some obvious facts without going completely out of your mind.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Just to let you know, since you have no detectable capacity for self-reflection, you’re incredibly blind to your own obnoxiousness (continuous accusations of lying, twisting words, false attribution of arguments, it’s endless …) and incredibly insensitive to the vaguest slights. (Taken in combination, its a stereotypically Jewish style of irritability, by happy coincidence.)

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    >a stereotypically Jewish style

    Careful, you’ll get blood all over your comment section, and who would have to clean it up?

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    Admin,

    Why are you wasting your time with “N/A”? You are Nick Land; I think you have better shit to do than deal with such pathetic, hysterical, juvenile comments..

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 4:50 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @n/a

    The Occident, European & Middle Eastern ethnicities, through monotheisms & modernity, enslaved or massacred half the world. Yet they continually overlook their own barbaric initiatives & the consequences of those initiatives, claiming that because others ‘talk with their mouths full’, this serves as more than adequate justification for any Occidental depredation. True be(lie)vers indeed! Could this be why Native Americans say “White man speak with forked tongue!”?

    Using your logic: a devout European kneels down to pray in the Middle Ages.
    This is a germinal weather event causing Ghenghis Khan to conquer half the world.
    Let’s all talk about European devoutness, not to do so isn’t objective.

    Do the historical actions of your “own people” inhabit some, residually theological, zone of neutrality, allowing you to objectify everyone else, but not that to which you have a “partiality”?
    If your pretence of ‘objectivity’ derives from such a blatantly partisan neutrality, how does it differ from any other fundamentalist belief?
    If your pattern of ‘objective’ consideration is informed by such a derivation, are not its elisions & discontinuities characteristic of the Platonist dogmatism characterising Puritan ideologies?

    (Or), is all that “not applicable”?

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    “The Occident, European & Middle Eastern ethnicities, through monotheisms & modernity, enslaved or massacred half the world. Yet they continually overlook their own barbaric initiatives & the consequences of those initiatives.”

    They don’t actually overlook any of the above. It’s very hard to overlook something your lefty teachers have been guilt tripping you about since you could tell the time. Your invective against whites is entirely misconceived here because the ones that aren’t totally brainwashed about the Original Sin of rayyyycism and colonialism are the ones that quite openly acknowledge the legacy of European Empire but refuse to be emotionally blackmailed by such yellow history. Do you yourself actually care about the ‘barbaric consequences’ of modernity, or can you admit that you’re only interested in rhetorically weaponising it?

    You’re talking around the main point, which is whether, and to what extent, Shlomo Steinbergstein dindu nuffin, or George Soros has no agency and the Puritans/Brahmin elites made him do Crimea, Ferguson et al.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 5:37 am Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    In my view, this is where right-wing movements fail: they try to have an ideology like the left does, when the basis of the right is practical realism + transcendental thinking.

    White Nationalism tried to make itself into a competitor to Marxism through a strategy of race-first leftism, but that appeals to no one because of its obvious similarities to the present regime. Changing masters only makes sense if the new master is competent, and beer-soaked angry internet people do not quite have that gravitas.

    Libertarianism provides at least a basic change in approach which is a shift from ideological government.

    Obviously that is not enough, as it does not address the question of social values or leadership, leaving those to the same regimen as is being currently applied, the leftist “anything goes” policy.

    But it at least gets us out of the ghetto of having government as a replacement God.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 6:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • an inanimate aluminum tube Says:

    of course i had to spell it wrong, heh

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 11th, 2015 at 11:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    “The opposition to the Cathedral looks pretty plebian right now, while the Cathedral and the outer party look pretty elite driven.”

    The ‘elite’ are not in any way monolithic.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    I wonder who could be behind this post.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    That’s one way of conceding the point – which is that the elite are not monolithic. Well done!

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    If there’s ANY group in history that is monolithic and nakedly, insecurely obsessed with its own advantage, that is the shekel counters.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    The elite are not monolithic… but the politically active ones do seem to be, on average, even more progressive than the plebs.

    Making Erebus’s point about the nefarious pleb influence rather questionable.

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    What the hell is an “elite”? I keep seeing this word tossed about, but I can’t recall ever using it, and to me it seems to have a very vague and amorphous definition. Is it code for Jews? For Harvard alumni? The wealthy? People involved in politics? The New York Times editorial board? What, specifically, does it mean? (As far as I know, we don’t need to speak in code here?)

    By any reasonable definition, I can guarantee you that there are far more of those “elites” than there are people who associate or identify with the alt-right. And it’s quite likely that there are more “elites” than people in opposition to the Cathedral, in a general sense. The opposition to the Cathedral is in any case not “plebeian” by any definition of the word — it is not driven by the populace in general — one could call it “fraternal” instead, as only a very small group of people, who tend to recognize each other, know what you mean when you say “the Cathedral.”

    To clarify: For “plebeian influence on politics” read “Democracy” — from the foolish idea that power should be placed in the hands of the most ignorant classes, to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat we would have if it were sincere and effective, to the comic sham-democracy the USA currently exhibits and promotes. (Government by bureaucrats, marching to the beat of the Cathedral’s drum, with a circus side-show they call “representative democracy” for sake of distraction.) Democracy itself does more to promote universalism than the “elite”, whoever they are. And universalism, that dogged belief in equality despite all evidence to the contrary, is at the root of most of the problems of modernity.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    “(As far as I know, we don’t need to speak in code here?)”

    Amen. It really baffles me why we are still referring to the Synagogue as the Cathedral.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    No, I wasn’t talking about the Jews.

    You were talking about the plebs, which is a pretty broad category. I countered by talking about an equally broad category of elites; people who are not plebs. Your contention was that plebs were the problem.

    My contention is that in the United States the plebs have, at least in recent years, tried to act as a brake on the Cathedral, using their votes, but have been out maneuvered by elites who use their greater sophistication to get around the roadblocks put up by the plebs.

    For example, the plebs might pass a ballot initiative or referendum trying to stop benefits for illegal aliens or gay marriage and elite actors might overrule that using the courts. Or plebs might elect a nominally conservative group of legislators with a mandate to stop some policy, but elites might buy off those legislators.

    Claiming that the problem with Democracy is plebeian influence is misleading, in the current environment, because the plebs are the ones who want stuff that is sane, like building a giant wall, stopping the boats and putting an end to birth right citizenship. Plebeian influence would be a moderating force, limiting the ways in which our insane and evil elites could put their insanity and evil into public policy.

    Democracy has obviously failed, but it was not because of plebeian influence. It was because the plebs were not sophisticated or savvy enough to hold onto power and fend off power hungry elites… so democracy collapsed into oligarchy. And it is hard to imagine that plebs could ever hold onto that power for long, making the long term prospects for Democracy questionable. That’s pretty conventional poly sci.

    This is not an academic question because Western democracies are currently in the process of dismissing the people and electing a new one. If the plebs are doing this to themselves, then we can only shrug.

    But, of course, they’re not. The plebs oppose it, albeit rather ineffectively. Elites are responsible for the ongoing efforts to elect a new people. Not all elites, but a certain rather large set of them. And so, despite the deep systematic problems with Democracy, getting rid of the bad elites by any means necessary (including something as uncool as voting) seems like a really desirable outcome, albeit one that will be very difficult to achieve.

    vimothy Reply:

    I’ve always found the neoreactionary take on elitism rather hard to parse. Criticising the dominant social order for not being more of a deracinated, post-national, meritocracy where a man’s worth is determined by his marginal contribution to GDP doesn’t seem especially reactionary.

    Erebus Reply:

    We differ on a single point: You see the plebs opposing the elites. I see them enabling those same elites. Everybody who votes for the inner party does so openly; the rest do so by their cowardice, their ignorance, or their listlessness.

    See, here’s the thing: We both know that the plebs have no political power. None. Maybe they did at one point, but it was long gone by the mid 20th century. The only power they still have is as a symbol or totem, a powerful one, something more-or-less analogous to Japan’s current Emperor. By this I mean, of course, that in theory the American people are the embodiment of all sovereign power; all of the powers of government belong to the people, and all civil servants serve the people…

    …But how theory and reality differ here! In reality, the plebs do nothing more than serve and legitimize the elite by participating in the ritual of voting — by participating in a political process which has grown, malignantly and over centuries, to manipulate them, outwit them, and keep them a few steps behind.

    As you’ve mentioned, the only way the plebs could possibly serve as a moderating force would be via a sort of direct democracy. (See California’s Proposition 8. Then take that system and extend it into something much more regular, and which encompasses the entire nation.) This would certainly be “a monstrous product of mediocre brains and their envy” — but the sham representative system combined with judicial activism is far worse, and is broken beyond all hope of repair. That the plebs don’t seem to have realized this by now indicates, to me, that they just don’t care, and, furthermore, that any pretense that they can or should contribute to their own government is foolish and harmful. They’ve become a rubber stamp. And a great deal of harm is done in the name of “the people.”

    I agree that we should remove the insane and evil elites by any means necessary. Won’t happen by voting. The elites are the professional civil service, the politicians, eminent professors, the media, and the very wealthy donor-class with a stake in the status quo. The overwhelming majority of them can’t be voted out of power. AAA is probably the best way forward — when the time comes, we should do everything we can to encourage left-wing agitation and violence. If the outer-left is good for anything, it’s removing elites.

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 12:04 am Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    @

    Sorry, needs editing.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 7:31 am Reply | Quote
  • Meow Blitz Says:

    NRx: “It was the Protestants!”

    WN: “Jews played a huge role in bringing about these changes. They’ve been a leading intellectual vanguard in leftwing movements, from communism through whiteness studies. These jews specifically saw themselves as advancing jewish interests while pathologizing the healthy functioning of gentiles (psychoanalysis) and intentionally calling for the destruction of European civilization.”

    NRx: “Oy vey! You anti-Semites are so obsessed. Take your medication.”

    WN: “Jews routinely blame Whites for everything that goes wrong and are prone to paranoid persecutory delusions, it sounds like jews are projecting their own neurosis onto Whites as an ethnocentric defense mechanism.”

    NRx: “Yeah, well you’re just insane. Stop blaming a specific group of people. It was the Protestants.”

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Oh sure, it’s just like that.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    Admin – the anti-semite you are replying to has obviously not read much Moldbug.

    [Reply]

    M. Reply:

    The actual response is something more along the lines of: “Jews didn’t contribute so much to progressivism qua being Jews. Your actual enemy is ‘people with high verbal intelligence,’ of whom Jews are merely a subset, because verbal intelligence is correlated with left-leaning belief in general.” There’s a lot more to it than that – for instance, correcting your display of WN’s unfortunate habit of treating Jews as a hive mind – but that’s where I’d start.

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    “Your actual enemy is ‘people with high verbal intelligence,’ of whoirm Jews are merely a subset, bhtt rigecause verbal intelligence is correlated with left-leaning belief in general.””

    Would that suggest that wing bigots are intellectually & verbally challenged?

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 3:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • Artxell Knaphni Says:

    “Your actual enemy is ‘people with high verbal intelligence,’ of whom Jews are merely a subset, because verbal intelligence is correlated with left-leaning belief in general.””

    Would that suggest that right wiing bigots are intellectually & verbally challenged?

    [Reply]

    Artxell Knaphni Reply:

    keyboard issues

    [Reply]

    Exfernal Reply:

    Being persuasive without proper insight into issues one is concerned with is quite dangerous. Procedural and spatial aspects of intelligence help building more accurate mental models. Someone relatively deficient at mental model building and at the same time gifted at verbal persuasion is more likely to spread falsehoods than the opposite case.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 5:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    Do neoreactionaries do requests? I would be interested to read their take on Christopher Lasch’s Revolt of the Elites, which is a very crisp statement of the problem, in my view. Here is a little flavour:

    Ortega [y Gasset, author of “Revolt of the Masses”] and other critics described mass culture as a combination of “radical ingratitude” with an unquestioned belief in limitless possibility. The mass man, according to Ortega, took for granted the benefits conferred by civilisation and demanded them “peremptorily, as if they were natural rights.” Heir of all the ages, he was blissfully unconscious of his debt to the past. Though he enjoyed advantages brought about by the general “rise in the historic level,” he felt no obligation to his progenitors or his progeny. He recognised no authority outside himself, conducting himself as if he were “lord of his own existence.” His “incredible ignorance of history” made it possible for him to think of the present moment as far superior to the civilisations of the past and to forget, moreover, that contemporary civilisation was itself the product of centuries of historical development, not the unique achievement of an age that had discovered progress by turning its back on the past.

    These habits of mind, it would seem, are more accurately associated with the rise of meritocracy than with the “revolt of the masses”. Ortega himself admitted that the “prototype of the mass man” was the “man of science”–the “learned ignoramus” whose mastery of “his own tiny corner of the universe” was matched only by his ignorance of the rest. But the process in question does not derive simply from the replacement of the man of letters by the specialist, as Ortega’s analysis implies; it derives from the intrinsic structure of meritocracy itself. Meritocracy is a parody of democracy. It offers opportunities for advancement, in theory at least, to anyone with the talent to seize them, but “opportunities to rise”, as R. H. Tawney points out in Equality, “are no substitute for a general diffusion of the means of civilisation,” of the “dignity and culture” that are needed by all “whether they rise or not.” Social mobility does not undermine the influence of elites; if anything it helps to solidify their influence by supporting the illusion that it rest solely on merit. It merely strengthens the likelihood that elites will exercise power irresponsibly, precisely because they recognise so few obligations to their predecessors or to the communities they profess to lead. Their lack of gratitude disqualifies meritocratic elites from the burden of leadership, and in any case, they are less interested in leadership than in escaping from the common lot–the very definition of meritocratic success.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 7:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    @Lucian of Samosata

    “It really baffles me why we are still referring to the Synagogue as the Cathedral.”

    Well, you’re easily baffled.

    By the way the Jew who invented the term Cathedral explained why Jews are not to blame for originating most of Progressive ideology. I don’t expect you to read Moldbug, as it would interfere with your preconceived notions; so, feel free to soak yourself in smug self-righteousness but please refrain from indulging in any delusion that informed discussion of nuanced NRx matters would benefit from your input.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 8:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jack Says:

    Leftism resides within the gap between high verbal IQ and low performance IQ, so characteristic of Ashkenazim and some (by no means all) people on the autistic spectrum. People who can convince themselves of anything, rationalize every absurd notion, are of the Left. Detail-oriented individuals tend to lean further to the Right than abstract thinkers. Some folks really are “natural Progressives”.

    Psycho-biological root causes > cladistics / meme theory. Yes, an inborn sense of morality acutely differs between races and is responsible for the diversity of cultural norms; yes, lesbianism/female androgenization is an apt explanation for Feminism (particularly of the radical variety); yes, Jews really are shitty artists. It is better to observe reality without reflecting upon it than to reflect upon reality without observing it.

    [Reply]

    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    “Yes, an inborn sense of morality acutely differs between races and is responsible for the diversity of cultural norms; yes, lesbianism/female androgenization is an apt explanation for Feminism (particularly of the radical variety); yes, Jews really are shitty artists. It is better to observe reality without reflecting upon it than to reflect upon reality without observing it.”

    Yes, every single idea here is generally true. That does not mean that Progressivism is primarily due to Jews.

    Our contributions to mostly every field of human endeavor more than compensates for our shitty art. By the way.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 10:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    @Jack

    “Leftism resides within the gap between high verbal IQ and low performance IQ”

    What’s performance IQ? You mean spatial IQ?

    Question – does high verbal IQ help much in economics, medicine, physics, or chemistry?

    Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% in medicine, 26% in Physics, 19% in Chemistry, 13% in Literature and 9% of all peace awards.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 10:34 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    @Jack

    @Jack

    “Leftism resides within the gap between high verbal IQ and low performance IQ”

    What’s performance IQ? You mean spatial IQ?

    Question – does high verbal IQ help much in economics, medicine, physics, or chemistry?

    Overall, Jews have won a total of 41% of all the Nobel Prizes in economics, 28% in medicine, 26% in Physics, 19% in Chemistry, 13% in Literature and 9% of all peace awards.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 12th, 2015 at 10:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2015/10/11) | The Reactivity Place Says:

    […] the “wrong kind of white people” really are the wrong kind of white people. They need edification. Not collectivism. And certainly not a right to “vote” for their […]

    Posted on October 14th, 2015 at 7:45 am Reply | Quote
  • Lex Corvus Says:

    There’s an almost perfect anticorrelation between degree of Jewishness and degree of leftism. Reform Jews are disproportionately leftist, Conservative Jews much less so, Orthodox Jews hardly at all. I can’t recall having seen this observation even acknowledged, much less addressed, by those who believe that Jews (overwhelmingly Reform, obviously) are the prime movers in a calculated effort to destroy Western Civilization.

    [Reply]

    Lucian of Samosata Reply:

    I’d say it’s acknowledged and addressed about as often as the blueness of the sky is.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 14th, 2015 at 5:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lex Corvus Says:

    I wrote “I can’t recall…”, which acknowledges that I could be wrong. I’ve looked, and I haven’t found. (If it’s in CoC, I missed it.) In this context, references would be much-appreciated.

    [Reply]

    Posted on October 14th, 2015 at 7:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scapegoats prevent victory Says:

    […] Nick Land writes, the scapegoat psychology takes a pseudo-xenophobic […]

    Posted on October 15th, 2015 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • A Response/Rebuttal from Reactionary Expat - Henry Dampier Says:

    […] about history as a way to hunt for scapegoats and Scooby Doo villains is also counter-productive. For every actor, there’s an […]

    Posted on October 16th, 2015 at 12:31 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment