Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Road Rage

The following guest-essay by Lev Lakritz was originally published in Russian-Jewish Samizdat, and is reproduced here with the author’s kind permission.


Road Rage: Ode to Madness for Politically Incorrect Russian-Jewish Choir
by Lev Lakritz


We are back where we started, getting used to the idea of hitting the road again. We google the earth, check our suitcases’ zippers, locate the steel needle and whatever is left of the thread.

Road RageWe thought we were done with the road when we landed at JFK during the Carter presidency. We carried all our worldly possessions in two suitcases per person, filled with such necessities as a volume of Pushkin poetry, a rubber enema, a needle and two spools, one black, one white, to cover all our sartorial emergencies. After thirty years, the indestructible Soviet sewing thread is still our first choice for mending a rip, the excellence of this planned-economy product as much an accident as the twice-a-day accuracy of a broken clock.

Back in Carter’s America, we were thousands upon thousands of émigré Soviet Jews exhaling a collective sigh of relief: we were finally in a place where we not only could live in peace but also die of old age — both in the same country!

Of course, we were blind. As blind and irrational as we had always been. Imagine a picture right after Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland. The half of us running from Russian into German land jeering at the other half of us who were running from Nazi territory into the USSR. Two currents of fools scurrying on the same bridge in opposite directions, everyone with the same fervent prayer: dear God, let us escape this evil place. Which one? If I were God, I’d be confused, too.

In Carter’s America, we were unaware of the sorry state of the economy, inflation, and unemployment. We were undaunted. We rose. We always rise (unless we’re killed and burned first). We rose, no matter the economy, the language, the distance of our generation from the shtetl or the Holocaust. We rose. We relaxed. We began to believe that the road was the thing of the past. A road became a means of getting from New Jersey to Wall Street or from Los Angeles to Silicon Valley. We were here to stay. No more prayers to God. We had confused him with our previous requests anyway. He needed a break.

We had it so good that we couldn’t spot the looming danger. We were as blind as we had always been. But it was right there, in our homes, packaged in the perfect skin of our children, their inquisitive eyes, their precociousness. We attributed their early intelligence to our affection and diligence. We were deluded into thinking that reading Russian books to them made an iota of difference, that our children would suffer irreparable damage if we didn’t teach them chess, give them piano and violin lessons, that they would sue us for negligence if we didn’t cram their day until it bursts at the seams. We were fools. As always, we were blind fools.
- - - - - - - - -
We moved to suburbs or to other states, boroughs, districts, streets, villages, and mountain tops in pursuit of the best schools. We thought it was the school that made a difference. We were fools. Teachers simply sat and waited for great students to gather around, so we obliged by moving our kids.

The school did make a difference, but not in the way we had expected. It wasn’t the absence of drugs (absence? really?). Our kids didn’t often succumb to them, anyway. It was not the overwhelming amount of homework. No — it was something old that was new again; that was why we didn’t recognize it right away.

When our kids came back from their first semester at the better American colleges and universities, we began to get suspicious but not alarmed. Kids were kids. Surely, they were just trying to fit in, to repeat the nonsense they heard without processing it on the higher level. They were uncritical in believing that it would do us good to have our jobs outsourced to India, Russia, and China. It certainly would do someone good, but not us. They were too young to discern a connection between the lack of part-time jobs in the town around campus and the presence of their beloved migrants (God forbid, we forgot that we were in our own homes and called them illegal aliens instead). Our children had become our bullies, empathetic to everyone except us. But they were just trying to fit in. It would pass.

We waited until the next semester break.

And when the next semester break rolled around, we got it: our kids weren’t trying to fit in. They were the ones with whom the other kids were trying to fit in. Wasn’t life grand! We should have been proud, except we were not. There was nothing to be proud of. We felt guilty for missing the early clues. We were horrified: our kids had become our enemies because they had become the enemies of their future kids, our grandkids. This was the time when the notion of loving thy enemies came in handy. We needed to keep repeating the words to ourselves when we saw our kids. How so?

While we had been reading to them about Ivanushkas, while we had been praising them for standing their ground in their arguments with us, while we had been encouraging them to read The New York Times, we had been oblivious to the possibility that malignant ideas could infect them. Could indoctrination even exist in a capitalist society? We had expected bubbles and bursts. We had been prepared for those. But who would’ve thought that ideas that had suffered fiascos replete with human sacrifice on an industrial scale in every single place they were tried could still be around? While we had been living the good life, expecting our kids and grandkids to live the good life, the seeds of the next disaster were being sowed in whitewashed classrooms.

We were guilty of dropping our defenses, for expecting only the material good and bad, for expecting either to have or to have not. Of all people, we should have known better. Our kids are repeating the story of the first Soviet generation of Jews, the first generation that went to public schools en masse, the first generation to be molded in the image of the educational committee that couldn’t care less about what family wanted their kids to believe in. That generation, too, was taught that all people were created equal. They, too, were taught that the notion of charity starting at home was passé. They, too, were taught that fairness was justice. They, too, were taught to yearn for all the workers to unite, for the international solidarity to trump ethnic and familial ties1, 2. For cooks to govern and for cows to fly.

The first Soviet Jews bought it. When duty called, they even informed on their parents; they made fun of their parents’ backwardness, their parents’ benighted beliefs in keeping the fruits of their labor for themselves, in loving their kin more than strangers, in loving the friends and neighbors they had more than humanity at large. They wanted fairness for the little people, who were, remarkably, never themselves but always someone else, someplace else, someone worse off, the more remote and unseen the better.

They wanted to lift up the downtrodden. After all, had they not been the downtrodden themselves just several years before? Had they not been able to rise up in the world through education and opportunities? If they could do it, everyone could. If they could become doctors, scientists, teachers, and engineers — everyone could do the same. Just give others a little push, a little opportunity, a little start.

All people are fools, but even in their foolishness, people vary. Ours is a peculiar kind of madness: we think everyone is smart or could be made so. God is having a good laugh at our expense. “Look at these fools. I chose them and groomed them with a purpose in mind. I even told them so. Yet, they go around, thinking they can outsmart me, that they can be God, that they can make other peoples into what they are not. Fools. Only I can do that.”

The first generation of Soviet Jews — the tiniest of minorities in the country — advanced to become a sizeable group, if not the majority, in science, government, and art. If only they could help — remember the word “help,” we’ll need it later — those worse off, if only they could pull up the peasant ethnicities (who happened to be the majority of the population). If only they could! How they rejoiced at the numbers of other peoples they had been able to promote each month, each year. How delighted they were by their own good deeds, by being magnanimous, by sharing their good fortune. The fools. The blind fools. Numbers don’t make a country function. Numbers don’t teach and heal. Numbers don’t fly and land airplanes. Numbers don’t maintain nuclear plants. People do. People who have learned to win at their own game.

Even fools differ by their abilities. Even the educated fools differ. If one fool jumps over a ravine and lands on the other side, a second fool jumping over the same ravine may land down or across. Little children know this much. They know this much before they get educated in school. That’s why they test their prowess, learn their limitations. If a kid lands in the ditch more often than not, he’ll search out different kinds of games. Games he can win. And he must keep searching until he finds such a game. If he can’t spit gum as far as his friend, maybe he can read more words in a minute. If he can’t carry a tune the way his friend can, maybe he can catch more fish.

Little children know this much: you don’t pull your rival by his shirt-sleeve out of the ditch and pretend he’d done it all himself. You don’t patronize your competition. You let them win or lose honestly. It makes everyone feel as having had an equal chance. But that’s not what the first Soviet generation of Jews did: they had pulled so many of the downtrodden out of the ditch, the landing became overcrowded. Someone had to go. Guess who? We’re sure you’ll get an A for answering this question. The Jews were no longer necessary. The majority could now pull their own by the shirt-sleeve. Jewish help was no longer needed. The first generation was excused. Dismissed from the landing. Cast out.

And so it dawned on the Soviet Jews, after their fall: maybe there was some truth to blood being thicker than water, to one’s own shirt being closer to one’s own skin. They’d finally caught on to their arrogant foolishness, but the deed had been done. Or rather, they had become undone. By their own hands, no less. Their helping hands.

They were no longer the magnanimous majority in governing bodies — they had become pariahs in their own country. Lucky pariahs, because the unlucky ones hadn’t survived the pogroms — oh, pardon us: they were called purges that time around. The names change as victims multiply: pogroms, purges, GULAGs, gas chambers, ___. Fill in the blank for the next one.

You’ll say, wait a minute, how are all these killing fields related except that they are expressions of boring old wars or anti-Semitism. We say, look closely and you shall find: they were all done in the spirit of mending the world. The old way of doing it had included such outdated notions as working harder and thinking smarter, finding a niche for oneself, being charitable to your neighbors and friends. The new way scrapped those old notions: no, you can mend the world by simply shifting peoples around, elevating some, pushing some down, some of them down below. The new way wrapped displacement, dispossession, replacement, and run-of-the-mill annihilation in the tinsel of fairness, so the sheep wouldn’t think they were led to the slaughterhouse but to better tomorrow. Better tomorrow for whom?

So, finally the arrogant fools, the first generation of the Soviet Jews — let’s call them our parents — comprehended how much they’d screwed up. When we appeared on the scene, they, having finally grown wiser, primed us so well against propaganda, that no amount of whitewashing could breach our defenses. And this was how it came to pass that our generation was spared the idiocy of the brotherhood of man. We were inoculated. We were healthy in our cynicism, we were immune to all things Soviet, we were sure that nothing good would or could ever come from a socialist state. We had benefited from our parents’ misdeeds and mistakes.

The most destructive piece of paper the Soviet economy had ever produced — at the time when it couldn’t even produce enough toilet paper to scratch our sorry asses — was the paper our exit visas were printed on. We weren’t needed anymore. Or so the titled majority thought. We decided that it was foolish to enlighten them this time. We didn’t tell them who worked behind the scenes, behind the figureheads, who actually managed factories and industries, wrote songs and performed them, taught in schools and operated on their children, maneuvering around their stupid five-year plans, the decrees and demands that came down from the top. No, for once we played dumb and left. They only caught on to what had happened when the country began to fall apart in earnest: they had numbers ruling and managing them.

We escaped to America where everything was possible. Where we were allowed to love ourselves more than other people without mortally offending them. And for that, we were grateful. And for that we loved the people we met in America, for our freedom to love them or not.

We were in Paradise. The snake was nearby, of course, but we were oblivious to its hissing, fools that we were. We frolicked in the woods, we splashed around. We forgot that inoculating children against brainwashing is the highest duty a parent has. That no matter how whitewashed the school seemed, it might be the most dangerous place of all.

If we understood English the way we do now, if instead of reading to them we read their textbooks to ourselves, we’d catch on when their brainwashing could still be arrested. We’d see that our kids were indoctrinated in the religion of equality of outcome, in always blaming someone or something for not succeeding in life.

And now it’s too late. Our children have been pulled into the doomed equality project with all the zeal of the previous generations of Jews. And we watch them marching alongside American streets with signs, “Yes, we can!” (What? When? Where? Why? And, most importantly, to whom? Here, we are compelled to pay tribute to the Russian community organizers who wouldn’t think of getting away with such truncated stuff. Though their constituency were illiterate proletariat and peasants, the revolutionary agitators worked hard to come up with slogans that, at least on a superficial level, made sense.) And we watch our children cheering and applauding a high public official who advocates in Congress for keeping skilled whites away from public opportunities and goods. Our children are blind fools. They might be imagining themselves to be green workers, for what we know.

We get what we deserve: a symbol for president, propaganda for information, conformity passing itself off as anti-establishment, groupthink camouflaging as idiosyncratic thought.

We are back where we started. Our children will surely learn what our parents had learned. But for now, they are oblivious. They feel so lucky to have been accepted by all the Ivies and other bindweeds that they pay no attention — because it’s we who pay their bills — that no matter their merit, scholarships don’t go to them. No matter their sky-high GPA, GRE, LSAT, GMAT and any and all acronyms, they are not courted by medical, law, and business schools. They don’t need to be. They come, study, graduate, and succeed no matter what.

Eventually, the admissions will go by the way of the scholarships. The promotions the way of admissions, and the hiring the way of promotions. They will become numbers whose numbers are to be controlled. They, too, will lose their idealism. They too will inoculate their kids to become cynical and distrustful of the state and what it could do to the Jews. And then our grandchildren will become like us, once again searching for ways of getting out, of hitting the road again. But where will they go? And if we are still alive then, where will we go?

Is there a country that hasn’t been touched by madness? Is there a country where one is free to fail? Has foolishness gone global? Is there not a place to hide anywhere?

But if we ever get out of this place alive, if there is a planet that would take mishuganas like us, the first thing we should check before settling there is if they handle their children with care and assure their offspring they are all unique. Unless they have a law on their books that makes the demand for equal outcome illegal, we should keep looking for another place to go. Ideally, it should be a planet that requires citizens to sign a consent form:

We, the undersigned, have been informed that all people are created different and that engineering equality of outcome is a crime against humanity punished by execution or exile.

It has always been like that anyway, but this time we want it in writing so future generations are forewarned. Amen.


Notes:

1. “We in the Ukraine have too many Jews. To carry out power, the real Ukrainian workers and peasants must be enlisted.” From the speech on December 1, 1922 by Grigory Zinoviev (born Ovsei-Gershon Radomyslsky), a member of Central Committee of the Communist Party. Executed in 1936 during Stalin’s Great Purge. Rehabilitated by the Soviet government in 1988. Quoted from Gennadiĭ Kostyrchenko, Tainaya politika Stalina: vlast’ i antisemitism published by “Международные отношения,” 2001 ISBN 571331071X, 9785713310714, p 54
2. “From the XII Congress and on, we are intensifying the removal of Jews from important positions.” 1926. Abram Merezhin (born Avraam Moishe Grubshtein). Chairman of Jewish Sections of the Communist Party. Executed in 1937 during Stalin’s Great Purge. Quoted from Kostyrchenko, Tainaya politika Stalina: vlast’ i antisemitism, p.54

77 comments:

The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon said...

This article is a bunch of hideous nonsense. Comparing idealism in Obama's America to idealism in the Soviet Union is absurd. This immigrant should be thankful that his children haven't inculcated too much of his political nonsense into their thinking. But the tone of the article feeds the paranoia rampant on this site.

Throw in a little bit of "lock the barn doors, Katie, I'm inside now" know-nothing xenophobia for further odium.

Repellent

gitardood said...

At least they were LEGAL immigratns... who have contributed much to your nation Gordon ...and paranoia isn't paranoia when it's truth ...you're not paranoid to think the crap is gonna hit the fan when it already has started

Avery Bullard said...

We moved to suburbs or to other states, boroughs, districts, streets, villages, and mountain tops in pursuit of the best schools. We thought it was the school that made a difference. We were fools. Teachers simply sat and waited for great students to gather around, so we obliged by moving our kids.

Such modesty!

In a nutshell this whole post is about shirking responsibility for their own contributions to the evils of the 20th century and playing the victim card.

Gordon:Throw in a little bit of "lock the barn doors, Katie, I'm inside now" know-nothing xenophobia for further odium

In the long run xenophobia is more adaptive than 'we are the world' humanist claptrap. That is all that matters.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Within three comments we get: They were jewish so they shouldn't complain about communism. They were immigrants so they shouldn't complain about immigration. See the byline, dismiss the message and replace it with your own petty paranoias and prejudices if you like.

They ask how they could have been so blind. The answer is right here in this comment section. We blind ourselves with the lies we tell in our own minds, the little things we ignore or inflate to satisfy our own egos. Don't blame me, it's their fault. It's all a lie. You're paranoid. The jews did it. It'll be different this time. It isn't socialism, it's justice. We have a duty to the world. You're just a racist. I wouldn't be so stupid to believe something bad.

Lie to yourselves then, if it makes you feel better.

IoshkaFutz said...

Wasn't the state of Israel supposed to take care of the Mishuganismo and Braggadocio of the this type of ever-wandering Lev Lakritz Jew?

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

I thought of something while I was driving back from the shops.

Avery: Such modesty!

You, sir, obviously refuse to see the very dark humour behind the statement.

Félicie said...

The article is exactly on the money.

Félicie said...

"In a nutshell this whole post is about shirking responsibility for their own contributions to the evils of the 20th century and playing the victim card."

Nonsense! How do you know that the author was in any way responsible for the evils of the 20th century.

His generation of Jews in the Soviet Union WERE the victims. They were not admitted into universities, not hired for jobs they were qualified for, not promoted, not allowed to travel abroad. His generation was basically squeezed out of the Soviet Union. They were not officially expelled, but what do you do when your children cannot get higher education and there are no economic or career perspectives for your family? You go somewhere else. It was another great exodus. And he is not too wrong in seeking in it the explanation of the Soviet Union collapse. "I'll bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you."

Afonso Henriques said...

Now...

I liked those comments.
I also liked the article. It was a wonderfull story, it was good "literature" to me. But I'm thinking how much it relates with reality...

I am wondering now, what will be the next wonderfull story?

An African-American and Honduran one?

Or a German and an Italian?

Russkiy said...

90% of My grandfathers family which was large (they were wealthy farming family or "Kulak") were sent to gulag and perished there. At the time the Gulag machine was run by these Soviet Jews. That was before Stalins repressions on Jews.

Almost unthinkable destruction of Russian culture took place during the Bolshevik revolution, Russian Intelligentsia was destroyed entirely. It is true there were large inequalities in Russian at the time, but things were getting better. The Bolshevik Revolution 80% Jewish in nature (300 out of 380 top Bolshevik officials were Jews).

Now I am supposed to fill sorry for this man?

He complains that Russia got rid of the Jews and suddenly things went from bad to worse... They were the ones that caused the problems to start with.

In the 90s almost all Oligarchs and Mafia bosses were Jews, how did that happen? Why was Boris Yeltsin taking orders from Boris Berezovski? The Oligarchs owned Russia in the 90s.

How can people not be anti-Semitic when they see that 80% of the countries wealth is in the hands of the Jews who only make perhaps 2 to 5% of the population in Russia.

I dont know what the numbers are now, but in the 90s thats what they were, people like Berezovski, Khodorkovski, Abromovich, Gusinski, and many more.

Félicie said...

You must have a very low opinion of your fellow Russians if you think that a group constituting 2% of the population can control them.

The demonization of an entire people doesn't do you any credit. And it's an intellectual cop-out in the form of magical thinking.

And why should this particular Jew be responsible for some Jewish communists who participated in the repression of your grandparents? There is nothing that connects them. Jews are neither a political force nor a united front. You might as well blame all bald men or all people with glasses.

And what about the fact that Jews are also quite prominent in the anti-jihad thinking? If you blame all Jews for communism, are you willing to give all Jews credit for being at the forefront of the anti-left struggle? And if so, does one compensate the other?

Russkiy said...

I would like Jews to accept some responsibility. They never do that. Germans, Whites, Russians, everyone else but them.

They are always the victim never the perpetrator.

This man talks about his parents being the Communist Jews, but he doesnt mention the fact that those communist Jews created great missery. He only complains that those people were naive, and then evil russians purged them from power.

Up to 40 million russians and other ethnicities died in the gulag, Jews died there too, but untill Stalin Purged great many of them from power, they made up the rulling elite who administered represions against every one but them.

UntiSemitism was a capital offence in the Early Soviet Union. You could get executed if you were to acknowledge the fact that jews were controlling the Communist Party.

Russkiy said...

I dont hate Jews, but I would like them to acknowledge what they are as a group responsible for. That what germans did, thats what is expected of Russians, thats what is expected of Muslims, and thats what I expect a minority group to do as well.

Baron Bodissey said...

Russkiy --

There’s no disputing that Jews were over-represented amongst the Bolsheviks (and the Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Anarchists, and virtually any other extreme-Left organization).

But were they there because they were Jews? Or were they simply part of the intellectual vanguard which assumed the leadership of the “proletarian” revolution?

As I have often pointed out, socialism is by and large a disease of the intellectuals, and Jews are over-represented among intellectuals, due to a high native intelligence and a tradition of giving their children as much education as possible. Jews were also over-represented amongst musicians, physicists, and capitalist entrepreneurs.

In other words: are Jews more responsible for communism, based on their proportional representation amongst the intelligentsia, than any other intellectuals?

I think it would be more appropriate for intellectuals (and I am one) to admit to a major portion of the blame for the series of inconceivably murderous atrocities that were committed during the last century in the name of human progress.

Socialism infects intellectuals like rust afflicts tobacco leaves, and as yet no inoculation has been devised to prevent it.

Félicie said...

"I would like them to acknowledge what they are as a group responsible for"

Explain "as a group." Why are they responsible for anything "as a group"? I think you misunderstand the concept of group responsibility. You can talk about Israelis responsible "as a group" for some actions of Israel as a country and political entity. Equally, you can talk about the group responsibility of all Soviet citizens - Jews, Ukrainians, or Russians - for the actions of the Soviet regime. But specifically the Jews of the Soviet Union were never a group in any meaningful sense, and they don't bear any responsibility "as a group."

Russkiy said...

Baron,

I have amongst my friends a real untiSemite, and I end up arguing with him all the time on the extent of colaboration of Jews amongst themselfs, and normally my arguments are similar to yours.

What my friend argued, basing his argument on some of the research done by David Duke (I know he is not to be taken seriously) that Trotskiy was a friend of Roschild and they infact played Chess together in Viena cafes. They ask a question what could a proletarian like Trotski and Capitalist like Roschild have incommon?

The other argument is that a man who was a great influence on Karl Marx's views were infact a Zionist and that there was not a great divergence in opinions of people like Marx who advocated egoletarian society with no borders etc. and Some of the founders of Zionist movement.

Both movements were initiated by Jewish intelectuals for the protection of their people, one movement to create a home land, and the other to create a society in foreign lands where jews would not be discriminated against. Both of this movements were created for the world Jewry. That what people like David Duke argues, and when I look at the arguments he presents it is hard not to agree.

No one wants to be labeled an UntiCemite, and I dont want that label either. I normally tend to sympathise with Zionists because every people need their homeland and be a majority in their own country. Being always a minority is not healthy for the minority or majority population. However some people argue, Duke included, that Zionists Jews and Communist Jews cooperate. For example in US majority of jews support Democrats and Socialist agenda. Those are the same Jews who do contribute to the Jewish Lobby organisations who often support Israel.

The argument goes that Jews want an ethnic homeland to themselves yet actively push for multicultural society in Western countries.

There is lots of conflicting information and its hard to make ones mind, and I still havent made my mind up. I still support Israel, But I dont know for how long. The neoconservatives, it is argued are pushing for Zionist Goals too but at the same time they are pushin multicultural agenda in US and In Europe.

Félicie said...

Just to add. Do Serbs bear a collective responsibility for the corrupt behavior of Governor Blagojevich? If not, why not?

Top Kafir said...

I must have read a different article than most of the commenters -- with the exception of the excellent Baron and the insightful Felicie. I found the most emblematic and representative quote to be:

"Little children know this much: you don’t pull your rival by his shirt-sleeve out of the ditch and pretend he’d done it all himself."

So, what's to disagree?

Avery Bullard said...

s I have often pointed out, socialism is by and large a disease of the intellectuals, and Jews are over-represented among intellectuals, due to a high native intelligence and a tradition of giving their children as much education as possible. Jews were also over-represented amongst musicians, physicists, and capitalist entrepreneurs.

But they are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority only those that weaken that majority. That is why they've been expelled from so many very different countries over so many centuries. Yet with the possible exception of Albert Lindemann (Esau's Tears) they never want to know the reasons why they've been so disliked in order to prevent more tragedies in the future. Instead they dismiss all antisemitism as scapegoating.

In other words: are Jews more responsible for communism, based on their proportional representation amongst the intelligentsia, than any other intellectuals?

If they are over-represented in the intelligentsia then they had disproportionate influence in the direction the intelligentsia took. Many Russian intellectuals were Slavophiles. Before Jews could access the most important US universities the old WASP intelligentsia in the US was much more traditionalist. (Incidentally, they still bitterly complain about how WASPs used anti-Jewish quotas to keep them out of power but as Russkiy says everybody else is supposed to forget about anything the Jews have done). Without them the left wing radicals of the past century would've remained ineffectual malcontents on the fringes.

Avery Bullard said...

Just to add. Do Serbs bear a collective responsibility for the corrupt behavior of Governor Blagojevich? If not, why not?

Is there a pattern throughout the history of the Serb diaspora in the US, Canada, Australia, and Sweden acting like Blago? Did Blago use his power to enhance the interests of Serbs as a group at the expense of other ethnic groups in the US? No, Blago's just another crook. If I'm not mistaken he didn't even care about his fellow Democrats bombing Serbia.

The argument goes that Jews want an ethnic homeland to themselves yet actively push for multicultural society in Western countries.

They are entitled to a homeland where they are masters. Europeans and Anglo-Americans who want the same are 'white supremacists' and Nazis! Just look at how Jewish groups are reacting to the European elections.

laine said...

Russkiy and anyone else who's interested in this issue might have a look at Kevin Macdonald's writings, a Professor of Psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

"A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (1998), and his most recent: The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.

He believes Jewish and European white interests conflict in N. Am and Europe. He takes an evolutionary view and therefore does not blame Jews for doing that which they feel promotes their survival but he thinks whites should have the same care for their own survival as the two agendas often conflict. For example, official multiculturalism made Jews feel safer as one of many competing minorities diluting a dominant Christian majority who could no longer threaten them as in Germany. However, multicult may be fatal to white Christians in the long run.

For Felicie, I believe he stipulates that many diaspora Jews are not involved and know nothing of these agendas but enough movers and shakers are that they have had considerable success.

Macdonald has been vilified like all who think there may be links between actual Jewish behavior and some instances of anti-Semitism (not all).

Professor George Michael, a political scientist at the University of Virginia-Wise, has written an academic article summarizing Macdonald's writing on Judaism. It also reviews some of the criticisms leveled at his work, and contains an interview with him.

Michael, G. (2006). Professor Kevin MacDonald's Critique of Judaism: Legitimate Scholarship or the Intellectualization of Anti-Semitism? Journal of Church and State, 48(4), 778–806.

Hope this helps as a better reference than David Duke in an area where there should have been more open discussion. If Jews are allowed to pursue their own self-interest, then non-Jews should have the same privilege without being unjustly called antisemitic when they discover that there is not perfect concordance between Jewish and non-Jewish interests.

PRCalDude said...

In general, I don't believe in Jewish conspiracy theories and such, but - come on! If Jews are overrepresented in murderous movements like Bolshevism (which killed more people than the Holocaust by a factor of 10 at least), how do they get to claim victimhood?

Karl Marx was ethnically Jewish on his mother's side but he hated Jews.

I believe the Holocaust happened on the magnitude claimed, I believe German antisemitism was a Bad Thing, but I also agree with Russkiy: Jews have to own up to what they do also. They've been over-represented in neoconservatism. An Israeli (for crying out loud) is now Obama's right hand man. Jews have heavily supported immigration, even when it means moving tons more antisemites into the country, and from my own interactions with them, they are generally intellectual bullies. I went to UCLA, so (believe me), I've had quite a few interactions with them.

I don't see much diversity of opinion in Jewish thought. They vote overwhelmingly Democratic and bully those who think otherwise (again, I speak from extensive personal experience). No one can sit here and tell me I haven't had these experiences or that Russkiy didn't either.

And I'm sick - SICK! - of seeing 10 Nazi films come out every Christmas. Don't tell me it doesn't happen.

My buddy works in show business and has met Ari Emmanuel. You can add him to the list of elite, intellectually bankrupt Jews.

Félicie said...

"If Jews are overrepresented in murderous movements like Bolshevism (which killed more people than the Holocaust by a factor of 10 at least), how do they get to claim victimhood?"

The Jews who were overrepresented in Bolshevism in the 20-30ies were not the same Jews who were victims of the Soviet state antisemitic policies after the war. The majority of the latter were not even the children or descendants of the former. Why should they be responsible? It again goes back to the notion of group responsibility that I see no desire to broach on the part of many commenters. It is a lot easier intellectually to identify the Jews as the mono cause to all the world's evils. Amazing that such a small group can manipulate such a large majority and cause so much destruction. They must have supernatural powers.

This IS called scapegoating. I strongly recommend Rene Girard's writing on this topic for some anthropological perspective. Imposing a collective responsibility on all Jews, at the same time, is just intellectual laziness and fuzzy, unsound thinking.

The Jews became a big presence in world's leftist politics after they were emancipated. But what about evil gnostic (Eric Voegelin's terminology) movements where the Jews were not a strong presence? And what about all those Jewish capitalists that got blaimed for exploiting the working class? Weren't they on the opposite side of the left? They were clearly not the same Jews. So should Jews be collectively responsible for the left Jews or for the anti-left Jews? And it has, of course, been pointed out many times that the Jews who support Israel's right to exist are, in general, not the same Jews who fight nationalist movements. Emmanuel might be part of Obama's administration, but if he stands by and does nothing while Obama implements his murderous anti-Israel policies that lead to the its extermination, can we really call Emannuel an Israeli supporter? No, he is a traitor to his country of origin.

I am willing to bet that Jews are also overrepresented in the anti-jihad movement. Should all Jews collectively get credit for that? Should all Jews be credited by the Jewish contrbutions to sciences, philosophy and arts?

The problem of Jews is the problem of an active, overachieving minority in a multi-ethnic state. They will stick out and be over-represented and cause resentment. This is why I oppose multi-ethnic states and support monoethnic nationalist states.

There is also a specific problem of Jews as Jews. A number of early Jewsish Zionist writers called Jews a sick people, because they haven't had their own state for such a long time that it affected their capacity to empathize with a normal human feeling that people feel toward toward their national state and toward their land. Because of their small numbers, I don't believe that Jews can be a serious destabilizing influence. (Unless you demonize and exaggerate their power while belittling everyone else). But they could put an irritating foreign face on an anti-national movement, causing resentment. This is why I think that disloyal and treasonous Jews should be deported without further ado.

But this is an entirely different question from the one of collective Jewish responsibility and Jewish apology "as a group."

PatriotUSA said...

Very interesting article and responses.

PRcaldude said:
I don't see much diversity of opinion in Jewish thought. They vote overwhelmingly Democratic and bully those who think otherwise (again, I speak from extensive personal experience). No one can sit here and tell me I haven't had these experiences or that Russkiy didn't either.

I have to agree with him on this and surprise, I am a Jew. An extremely conservative Jew that bucks the trend of being a democrat and voting along liberal/leftist lines. I was raised in an extremely liberal family and learned early on the trappings of such thought and actions. My family is originally from Lithuania and I can assure you the holocaust was very real. My family lost many in the camps. Many of my relatives were freedom fighters during WWII and beyond. A fierce and somewhat crazed lot, of which I have inherited alot of those traits.

It is an odd place to be when you are attacked and villified by other Jews and liberals you know because you don't fit that liberal/democratic
stereotype,and do not fit in. Believe me, I do not fit in. I am cast as an enemy and a traitor, branded a racist and anti-semitie because of my strong feelings about Islam and being a counter Jihadist. I refuse to hide who I am
or what my beliefs are. I can see both sides of the comments posted here and perhaps put myself at risk
posting as I do. So be it.


As to the Jews in the mullah obamaham's administration; I see these Jews as JINOS. Jews in name only, and they are a bread crumb tossed into the mix to appease the millions of stupid American Jews who were blinded and dumbed down to vote for Obama.


Baron, I think your comments were spot on:

I think it would be more appropriate for intellectuals (and I am one) to admit to a major portion of the blame for the series of inconceivably murderous atrocities that were committed during the last century in the name of human progress.

Socialism infects intellectuals like rust afflicts tobacco leaves, and as yet no inoculation has been devised to prevent it.

I consider myself an intellectual though I am sure there are many who might mot agree and again, that is OK. My grandfather made it very clear to me that to stop or quit learning and educating oneself throughout one's lifetime is a truly wasted life. I will stop now as this has run on pretty long.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Claiming that Jews are over-represented amongst the leadership of socialist movements ignores the fact that: first, socialism is predicated partly on anti-semetism from it's very foundation in Marx - and though it is easy to point out that he has jewish roots it's a little harder to ignore the fact that he hated jews alongside capitalism - and second: that jews are always over-represented amongst the victims of socialism's inevitable activities.

It is an injustice to take one side of this and ignore the other and then use it as a cudgel to beat the jewish people.

Félicie said...

"I don't see much diversity of opinion in Jewish thought. They vote overwhelmingly Democratic and bully those who think otherwise "

I don't believe the 80% figure though. I just don't, shoot me. It seems vastly overblown and contradicts my personal experience. Historically, 67% of the Jews voted Democratic. There are many studies on it, you can Google. There is also a trend of young Jews/new Jewish voters turning more conservative. All of a sudden, 80% of Jews vote for Obama? And we are supposed to believe this? While I personally know life-long Democrat Jewsish voters who voted Republican for the first time. I think that, on the contrary, fewer than usual Jews voted for Obama this past election.

I believe that the truth will surface eventually.

Afonso Henriques said...

"I am willing to bet that Jews are also overrepresented in the anti-jihad movement."

I am so tired of this pseudo-argument.
Why is it? Please, explain to me...

Is it because the Jew's country and holly land is the one who's really in danger? Who do muslims really threaten to destroy?
Who will benifit the most if NATO or the "West" is turned against the muslims?

No topic, and I repeat, NO TOPIC is more critical to the existance of the Israeli State as the "anti-jihad" or anti-muslim sentiments in general.

I see everybody worried about maintaining a Jewish State in the Middle East. But nobody worries about the maintenance of one Christian state there. Especilly if one considers that NATIVE Christian comunities are more than one fifth of Syria and more than one third of Lebanon. This while the vast majorities of Jews in Israel are COLONISTS.

So, who will benifit more for anti-muslim sentiments?

It is so damn offensively stupid to believe that Europeans are more threatened by muslims than the Jews. ANTI-JIHAD, BEFORE BEING AN EUROPEAN INTEREST IS ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE A JEWISH INTEREST.

Yet still, the Jews who are all across the West will support muslim immigration towards European handed land.

Felice, are you Jewish or something? Do you honestly think that because I said all this I'm Hitler's encarnation and want to destroy all Jews?

If so, what is scapegoating to you?

Afonso Henriques said...

Archonix,

Socialism and Communism can be viewd exactly as Jewish Nationalism.

It had nothing to do with "Anti-Semitism" as we're thinking of it. Marx and his buddies were all blood sucking "Semitic" "Supermacists" if you want. What they despised was the religeous aspects of Judaism, the Jewish religion.

Jewishness is not merely a religion (yeah, I bet the perspicacity of all Western-freedom-fighters here is ready to state that islam is not a religion, it's mere politics. What I don't get is how the people who say this cannot see Jewishness as something more than one religion), it is an ethnicity.

So, one can not to be a Christian and be a white Nationalist.
But if one is Jewish, if he does not adhere to the Jewish religion he cannot be a Jewish "Nationalist"?

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

There’s no disputing that Jews were over-represented amongst the Bolsheviks ... But were they there because they were Jews?

The answer is yes. I refer back to what I wrote in a very interesting thread last year (a thread that I recommend people to read in full):

About the nature of Jews:
"Internationalism is at the core of that nature, and becomes re-generated in many different forms. Two sources for this internationalism, which goes deep into their identity in spite of other affiliations: i) how their cultural identity has been formatted during two millenia without a homeland, ii) how they are culturally trained towards transcendent loyalty."

Felicie backed up my reasoning with this comment:

"You might find it interesting to read some older books on Zionism, where this question is raised. I can't give any specific recommendations, since the ones I read were from the library, being out of print. But before the PC era, the question of "what's wrong with the Jews" was discussed widely and honestly by Jewish writers. One point that was driven home was that for 2000 years Jews did not, on the whole, cultivate land. They were engaged in a very specific subset of professions that, in Marxist terms, had to do with the superstructure rather than the basis. This was not normal, and it was not a healthy thing for a nation's psyche. Zionists considered the Jews a sick people that could only be "cured" if they take possession of their own land and create a harmonious, professionally diversified and self-sufficient society. I think that there is a lot of truth to this assessment."

Internationalism comes in many forms, but it is always within internationalism that we find Jews highly represented and even as a major motor, such as Bolshevism or neo-conservatism. Swinging across the whole spectrum of economical left to right, but always sticking to the culturally left side (as a group).

Jews, quite as Christians, take all sorts of disparate life decisions on a personal level (such as becoming an atheist). But their deeper nature remains, quite as for Christians, and that's where the internationalism comes from.

Becoming an atheist does not reverse this nature, neither for Jews nor for Christians. It just makes the deranged altruism and the inversion of values worse. To reverse it Christians need to reconnect to their ethnic identity, which is just under the surface, and replace Christianity with proper morality and mythology based on that identity. For the Jews, Israel is the similar project, quite as Hertzl and the early Zionists pointed out.

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

I'm not going to argue with your reasoning here, but I want to see a statistical basis for it. I need facts.

If one controls for intelligence and education, were (are) Jews over-represented among the leaders of International Socialism?

For example: considering the group of all people with IQs over 125 and having at least a university education, is the percentage of Jews (a) more, (b) the same, or (c) less than their percentage amongst the Bolsheviks?

Until this question is answered -- and I mean answered with verifiable statistics, not simply assertions -- all the rest of these arguments remain speculation.

Unfortunately, this is a very difficult question to answer. I have neither the time nor the skills to do so, although perhaps some of our readers can tackle it.

But until I have an answer for it, my opinion on all the rest of the arguments must remain agnostic -- I don't know.

Conservative Swede said...

Felicie wrote:

Explain "as a group."

I can explain "as a group". It means how a social group acts as a group due to their general nature. It does not imply however that every individual in that group follows in that direction. But in spite of individual differences, when you put them together in a group they will without exception go in that direction.

Take female and male nature for example. At an individual level we will always be able to find a pair of a woman and a man where the roles are reversed in one or several aspects. But when you put 20 women in a room, or 20 men, due to the overall disposition of the group and the group dynamics, we will be able to make social predictions about how they will act. Same with Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.

Liberals love to deem reasoning about groups as invalid and defunct. It's one of the most important taboos upon which the whole PC regime rests. But we all know that this is Orwellian nonsense. As a Swede going to Spain, e.g., such group differences are easily observable, well even striking! There are certain ways in which a Spaniard will always react and a Swede never, and vice versa. In spite of the many individual differences.

Conservative Swede said...

Felicie,

Explain "as a group." Why are they responsible for anything "as a group"? I think you misunderstand the concept of group responsibility. You can talk about Israelis responsible "as a group" for some actions of Israel as a country and political entity. Equally, you can talk about the group responsibility of all Soviet citizens - Jews, Ukrainians, or Russians - for the actions of the Soviet regime. But specifically the Jews of the Soviet Union were never a group in any meaningful sense, and they don't bear any responsibility "as a group."

What you write here is absurd. You say that the Soviet citizens (as defined by Lenin, Stalin etc.) have responsibility for the actions of Lenin, Stalin etc. I.e. anyone that was forcibly hijacked into their totalitarian project was responsible for it. That's truly absurd.

You apply the typical liberal paradigm, the social contract based thinking, and only acknowledge states -- which are quite often forced and not voluntary -- as the basis for a group. While dismissing the ethnic groups, that have been forged voluntarily over centuries and millenia. This is truly upside-down.

A consequence your reasoning is that it would be invalid to speak of the Ummah as a group. That we could only speak of Iraqis, Pakistanis etc. as groups, when it comes to group responsibility. The consequence of our reasoning is that we cannot speak of group responsibility among Muslims. I find this absurd.

Afonso Henriques said...

After reading all the comments, I just want to highlight how the gross majority of people here continue to see Jews as semi-Gods.
Jews can't do nothing wrong. And this appear to be more so in America.

Maybe it is because in America you can be conservative and you can see that a women of European descent is raped by an African-American every 15 mnutes and say that America is a better place now that blacks are liberated, compared to the racist 50s where blacks were 2nd class.

In America, you can be a conservative and be against the illegal Mexican invasion on the grounds that it is purely "illegal". If it's legal, we're all okay with that.

America has become too Universalistic. It elected Obama... It is 66 to 75% white only and Europeans will soon be a minority there. America's nevralgic centre - its biggest cities - are all or most of them majority non-white. I think the America of the 50s is irreversibly being extinguished. Unless the Tea Parties end up in successfull secessionist movements.

"Conservative and Capitalistic" America spent all the time from the WWII onwards expelling the whites from every country in Africa and Asia. And even was able to do so in Kosovo!

And has been one of the major forces compelling the whites to bring multiculturalism home, destroying the European countries.

I'm not saying Europeans don't have a share of blame, I'm just saying America's share is way bigger.

-----------------------------------

But you see, we don't have to be like you. In fact, we'd be better if America didn't preassure us to be like that.
Therefore, Jews in Europe were/are not merely individuals. They were a different ethnic community which many times were balantantly agains the Nations that wellcomed them.

For instance, see the whitewash (even!) Fjordman has made about the Jewish behaviour in the Peninsula during the Reconquista and muslim rule.

Pick a Portuguese or Spanish Jew, he'll tell you that the Jewish Golden Age was when the muslims were in power. Not to mention that the Jews were expelled once the Christians controlled the whole Penninsula and Jews actually fought along side the muslims when they first arrived.

I've also seen a pseudo-genetic paper that contradicted all others claiming that Portugal and Spain had 20% Jewish bloodlines (more than North African ones). Astonishingly, that one was the only paper that was mediatised.
I think here, we're not talking of a "Semitization" or "Jew-i-sation" of Portugal and Spain as much as we're talking of an Europeanisation of the Jew.

The thing is that it is very difficult to Europeanise the Jew once the Jew has always been the outsider in Europe. And the Jew has behaved like that. That's why the Jew has been expelled from every single European Country with a noticable History. Hitler's account was just the most recent one.

-----------------------------------

But in the XIX century, the fragmented Central European space started to unite due to both German and Italian Nationalism. In the East, Pan-Slavism was the order of the day.
Therefore, the Jew got stuck. And because the Jew knew that he would become even more second class citizen in explicit ethnic-based Nations, he developed its blow to European Civilisation:

LEFTISM. It is Jewish Nationalism with the purpose of eroding the European peoples.
The Jews had to destroy Europe so that they could be part of that. And they were successfull in Russia in 1917. That's it.

But this goes against the American Universalistic purpose that states that it is all about individuals and that groups don't count. Sorry Felice and others, in Europe we have ethnic groups with a shared homeland, a shared History, shared genes, shared Culture, Character to some extent and the same way to deal with the transcendent. We would be better withot inter-Civilisational multiculturalism.

But similarly to what happened to Czarist Russia, someone has destroyed Europe in America too. Guess who?

Afonso Henriques said...

Churchill take on the Jews - READ IT!

Churchill states that there are three kinds of Jews. This is, three political thoughts among Jews:

1) National Jews. Jews who are Jews but who are loyal to the country they are at.
2) International Jews. The Jews who will destroy European Civilisation.
3) Zionist Jews, the Jews who want to go to Israel and have their own place like everybody else.

Churchill says, referring to Internationalist Jews:

"From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstituition of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing."

Lessons to learn:
1) Jews tend to be Internationalistic.
2) It is very difficult for a Jew to be a loyal National Jew because the Jew will not be part of the Nation. Therefore, the more probable thing is that the Jew can only be loyal to the State. This leaves very few Jews to suport a Nationalistic State.
3) Jews who want to be true "Nationalists", are Zionist Jews and they desarve their homeland like everybody else.

Therefore, the fewer Jews you get the better, because Jews will tend to ovethrown your Nation.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

If one controls for intelligence and education, were (are) Jews over-represented among the leaders of International Socialism?

I don't know why you expect to find that, and express this as a litmus test. Jews (as a group) will stick to internationalism (which comes in many forms). Yes we saw them highly overrepresented in Bolshevism, even as a major motor behind it. But once Stalin turned against the Jews, international socialism was no longer a good place for them.

Today you find them mostly as culturally left-leaning liberals. The 80% of the voting for Obama for example. And highly represented in liberal media. And equally internationalist as the Obama people are the neo-conservatives, another group with suits the nature of the Jews.

As the example of Bolshevism shows, and how it ended with Stalin turning against the Jews, and today with the support for mass immigration (of Muslims etc.), Jews never succeeded well in looking after their best interests. Jews act according to their nature, not according to what's in their interest. All conspiracy theories about Jews fantasize about how the Jews are extremely clever in controlling things at a global level to turn it into their advantage. This is nonsense of course.

It's the same line of thinking that makes people think that we need to dissolve the network Al Qaeda to solve the problem of "Islamism". But there's no concerted effort that is the real problem here. Islam is a distributed system of many small groups acting independently, the thing that keeps it together is their common nature, something that has been forged over many centuries. Same with Jews, and same with Christians (there is no PC conspiracy, only the common nature of Westerners, having Christian ethics as the core grammar of their thinking).

Internationalism has to be fought and defeated in all it forms and shapes, wherever it comes from. My issue with the matter of Jews is only regarding sanity of thinking -- and we'll certainly need that for clarity regarding our hard future ahead of us. This means that we'll have to drop all sorts of myths that makes us (as a group!) flip-flop between one-sided victimization/idealization or one-sided demonization of Jews, and virtually nothing in between. Jews are an ethnic group, just like any other. And that's how we should speak about them. That shouldn't be too hard, we just need to drive out a few demons first.

Conservative Swede said...

Missed a little key on my keyboard.
Should say:
The 80% of them voting for Obama for example.

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

This means that we'll have to drop all sorts of myths that makes us (as a group!) flip-flop between one-sided victimization/idealization or one-sided demonization of Jews, and virtually nothing in between.

I completely agree. Jews are an ethnic group like any other, and should be subject to the same scrutiny as all the others.

And I’m all for deconstructing myths. Take, for example, the following myth:

The Jews created Bolshevism.

But is this demonstrably true?

It’s undeniable that:

European intellectuals created Bolshevism.

If two-thirds of European intellectuals in the early 1900s were Jews, then only the latter need be true, even though the former would appear to be true. Occam’s razor would then invite us to discard the myth.

As a corollary, given the increasing globalization of political ideologies, we would expect any future noxious intellectual fads to be dominated by the Chinese, since (a) there are so many of them, and (b) they are more intelligent and well-educated than Europeans.

We shall see.

Félicie said...

"I can explain "as a group". It means how a social group acts as a group due to their general nature. It does not imply however that every individual in that group follows in that direction. But in spite of individual differences, when you put them together in a group they will without exception go in that direction."

OK, but can we apply the idea of group responsibility to this nature-based definition of a group? Are all men responsible for men who rape women? Should blacks apologize for the desproportionate rate of black-on-white crime and black crime in general? To me, the thought is absurd.

Baron Bodissey said...

What’s interesting about the Obama phenomenon (the “Phenobamenon”…?) is the fact that a majority of non-Hispanic whites did not vote for him. So all the golden haze surrounding the Messiah-loving white suburban yuppies was in fact a media-driven illusion — most white people didn’t want him to be president.

In fact, no Democrat presidential candidate since 1964 has gotten a majority of the white vote.

This is not a good situation. It’s a sign (as if we needed one) that racially-driven politics will be the downfall of this country. And, also needless to say, it is primarily the left-liberals who create, sustain, and encourage racially polarized political thinking.

God help us all.

Félicie said...

"You apply the typical liberal paradigm, the social contract based thinking, and only acknowledge states -- which are quite often forced and not voluntary -- as the basis for a group. "

Group responsibility IS based on some idea of a symbolic, political, and social belonging. This would tie it to the notion of a social contract, you are correct. But the social contract is not the only conceivable framework. You could also think of another, organic (Heideggerian?) paradigm of society in the context of which the idea of group belonging and group responsibility is meaningful. The important thing is the concept of belonging. This belonging is symbolically recognized and acknowledged and accompanied by power-sharing. You officially belong to a group to which certain benefits accrue. You are a partaker in these benefits. You therefore share responsibility with other participants.

Atheist Jews in the Soviet Union did not belong to any group. They were an aggregate of separate individuals. The same is true of secular Jews in the West. Why on God's earth should Bat Ye'or be responsible for Noam Chomski? Can you tell me that? They have similar DNA, but SO WHAT?

Your example with the Ummah is inapplicable. By being a muslim, you "subscribe," if you will, to a certain doctrine. You have joined a group that has arrogated to itself certain benefits (in which you share) and claims certain rights. It fits the idea of the social contract.

Afonso Henriques said...

Felice,

"Should blacks apologize for the desproportionate rate of black-on-white crime and black crime in general? To me, the thought is absurd."

It was not an apology what I had in mind...

Nonetheless, in my opinion, when one thinks like you do, I think one has became an extremist in that individuality thing.
I see it as a comunity deliberately attacking another comunity. To me, this is genocide. A tolerated genocide.

Why should all the muslims pay for what the extremists do? (See the dual standards? Jews and African Americans are "forginven" by you whereas Russians, Germans and Muslims are not) Well... because they aloud the extremists to attack other communities. Just like, in my view, African Americans (and most shockingly, European Americans) aloud those rapes to take place. Did it happen in the 50s? Why?

In my opinion because in the 50s American Society resmbled more a "Nation".

You see people in a society as lose individuals. The Communists did so as well.

But I think that a society can only function if that society is organic, if the individuals willingly form a group that sustains society. A group that shares some similarities. That's why famalies are the base of society, in my view, instead of lose individuals.

Of course that people are individuals, but societies are not. I am not taking individual responsability out of the equation.

The truth is that a function society must have some background. And the most perfect background is constituted around ethnic groups. Thus, when one ethnic group attacks another sistematically, it's a war that is going on. It should not be tolerated in one's own home.

Felice, I think many of the problems of America derive from that individualistic notion of itself. America was not created from individuals out of thin air. Those individuals were insered in something bigger than them: Family? Culture? Civilisation? Freedom? You chose it. But it was not an atomised and rather selfish individualism.

Félicie said...

"While dismissing the ethnic groups, that have been forged voluntarily over centuries and millenia."

At one point in history, they might have been formed voluntarily. But in the Soviet Union, you had a passport with your "nationality" (ethnicity) stamped in it. You couldn't change it, you were stuck with it. You had your officially recorded ethnicity, your Jewish surname (which you also couldn't change), and on top of it your often recognizable Jewish looks. You were a marked man. ;)

Félicie said...

Afonso, if you read carefully what I wrote, you would not write what you did. Please go back and re-read my argument. I especially explained the infelicitous analogy with muslims. It's also funny to read about the "gross majority on this blog treating Jews as demi-Gods." Talking about a straw man argument. Go back and re-read the comments.

Afonso Henriques said...

Felice, I also happen to think that in your recent reply to Conservative Swede you focus too much in Religion and forget ethnicty once more. The ethnic groups will pursue what best suits them as a group. If they are a minority or if they are not in their... "own space", they most likely will colide with the National group.

Marx was an atheist Jew. I personally prefer religious people to atheist ones. So, I think a minority of Religious Jews would be better than a minority of atheistic Jews.
Did you read the words of Churchill I provided? Please do so.

Religion - even the islamic one - will give a person some moral conduct and some vallues according to each that person will try to act.
An atheist Jew will have nothing of that. Only his "Jewishness". And that is destructive. The Jew will discover that he still is a Jew while not adhering to the Jewish faith. He'll then want to be part of the Nation he's in and as such he will try to erode the fundaments of that society. To form a new one where he's accepted.
In my view, this is the foundation of Bolchevism or Marxist thinking in general. Communism can be seen as Jewish Nationalism. As the forging of a way to transform an European Traditional Society into one that the Jew can be part of, just like everybody else.
In a way, that's what "magically" has happened to the West.

The vast majority of Jews will continue to be anti-European because the more leftist and multicultural a former European society/Nation is, the better they are, and the better they fit in.

And Jewish Nationalism has little to do with Europe. It is Israel. There is Jewish Traditionalism and then there is another very different thing that is European Traditionalism, according to each National variation. The Jewish Traditionalism, it is different.

Afonso Henriques said...

Felice,

"At one point in history, they might have been formed voluntarily. But in the Soviet Union, you had a passport with your "nationality" (ethnicity) stamped in it. You couldn't change it, you were stuck with it. You had your officially recorded ethnicity, your Jewish surname (which you also couldn't change), and on top of it your often recognizable Jewish looks. You were a marked man."

But you can not chose your ethnicity. You are just born with that and that's it. You also cannot change it.

The thing you can do is repell it. If you want, you can mix with people of another race or a too different ethnicity and then your children will cease to be what you were. And by doing that, you've shown that you do not intend to perpetuate your ethnicity.

Me too has thought about sending all the far-leftists to Madagascar due to their lack of respect towards their own ethnicity/culture.

Anyway, by mixing you are efectively and willingly repelling your ethnicity. And thus you are creating a new one for the future. You're ethnicty is one and will stay one. But you "wilingly" opted to "form" a new one. Again, you are thinking in an extreme-individualistic level. A Nation's History and culture is not the product of individuals but the whole ethnic group. With some individuals contributing more than others.

After some time that ethnicity you opted to form will stabilise and you will have your own specific culture. That's pretty much it. Nations are not born from scratch, States are.
The Kurds, Shia and Shiites in Iraq opt with whom they want to procreate. They opted to stay within their ethnic groups instead of within their State. Like pretty much everybody else.
What the Kurds and others would like, was a State of their own.

And that's why a Germam-Jew will want to live in a Jewish Germany and will push the agenda to erode the Germanicity of Germany.

Félicie said...

"The ethnic groups will pursue what best suits them as a group. "

This is where you are wrong. This is not very applicable to atheist and assimilated Jew who see themselves as individuals and pursue their individual interests. If a lot of shorter people congregated on the shallow side of the swimming pool would it be because they were protecting their group interests as short people?

Those Jews who are not secular and those who belong to particular Jewish organizations do bear collective responsibility for what their organizations and synagogues are preaching and doing. I am still on the issue of collective responsibility. I don't want to get side-tracked into the question of whether Jews are good or bad for the West. It's an entirely different question.

Afonso Henriques said...

No Felice, I'm not wrong. Unless you think that African-Americans and brown Hispanics don't pursue what best suits them. I bet that African Americans and Hispanics also do see themselves as individuals. They vote in block because they think that vote will serve them AS INDIVIDUALS.

Therefore, the ethnic vote is based on individual interests. Although people go to vote thinking about what will suit them best as individuals, they end up overwhelmingly voting the same as their ethnic group. The group thing functions as Conservative Swede explained to you.

You can be an individual atheist, but if you also belong to a given ethnic group, even without paying much atention to it, you will act as part of that group.

"If a lot of shorter people congregated on the shallow side of the swimming pool would it be because they were protecting their group interests as short people?"

No. Because short people potentially do not share nothing appart from being short and the experiences that come with it.
People who form an ethnic group, form it because they share much things with each other. Many of those things are not unimportant material things like height.


"I don't believe the 80% figure though. I just don't, shoot me."

Three out of four voting Jews voted for Obama.

PRCalDude said...

"Should blacks apologize for the desproportionate rate of black-on-white crime and black crime in general? To me, the thought is absurd."

I dunno. Again, if they were to stop asking for reparations for slavery and stop marching as a hive mind every time a black person with a mile-long rap sheet gets beat up by the cops, I would say, "No." But again, if we were to apply the same standards to them as they to us, they answer should be, "Yes."

Personally, I'd be happy if they just stopped with the interracial crime. I'd have to worry less about my pretty white wife.

PRCalDude said...

It again goes back to the notion of group responsibility that I see no desire to broach on the part of many commenters. It is a lot easier intellectually to identify the Jews as the mono cause to all the world's evils.

I hate Blogger. Comments always disappear.

No one here is identifying the Jews as the "mono cause to all the world's evils." What we are asking for is that they apply the same standards to themselves as they apply to white Gentiles.

Most Jews DO believe in group responsibility, which is why we see 10 anti-german Nazi films appear in theaters yearly. Speaking of the Nazis, I recently had a Jew tell me that he would never buy a BMW for its involvement in the HOlocaust. "We never forget!" he exclaimed. I remember wondering if he was going to apply the same standard to his beloved Democratic party, which has always been chock full of antisemites, from FDR to Grand Dragon Byrd. I already know the response beforehand, so I didn't bother to ask.

Every ACT! for America meeting I've attended thus far has included tons of discussion of and fretting over Israel. Don't bother to guess the ethnicity many of the participants. I am a staunch supporter of Israel and believe that the Jews deserve their own Lebensraum just like any other ethnic group, but "ACT! for America" is not "ACT! for Israel." Israel is, in fact, a different country than the US and I don't plan on moving there.

Afonso Henriques said...

Félice,

Concerning Individual vs Group Responsability it is very simple in my opinion:

First and foremost: All and every person is and should be responsabile for their actions.
In relations between people, only individuals can be responsabilised by individual acts.

But, when concerning something bigger like Nations and interactions between Ethnic Groups, the groups must be responsabilised by the way they behave.

If individuals belonging to an ethnic group attack and destroy another, and if the ethnic group to each those individuals belong is okay with that and tolerates that, then, the attacked ethnic group has the right to responsabilise the entire other ethnic group.

Once the Jews are a topic too hot, I'll talk about Albanians.
There are Christian Albanians who have nothing to due with the behaviour of the muslim Albanians. However, those Christian Albanians do not form a different ethnicity and somewhat consider the muslims as their own, as Albanians.
The Albanian elites and the majority of Albanians are muslims.

In my view, Albania and the muslim Albanians are anti-Europeans.

If the Serbs invade Kosovo tomorrow and start killing muslim (many of whom, I bet, innocent) Albanians, the Christian Albanians will percieve that as an attack against Albanians. And the Albanians will fight the Serbs alongside the Anti-European muslim Albanians.

That is why I see Albanians as anti-Europeans. Because, Christian or muslim, if the time comes, they will actively destroy Europe, like they did to Kosovo.

------------------------------

For instance, here in Gates of Vienna there is a Jewish commenter that I am rather found of. She's Laine and I believe she understands what I am saying and agree with a substantial part. She is a very atypical and pro-American Jew.
Now imagine Americans start to attack anti-Zionist Jews, do you think that the Zionist Jews like Laine would feel safe?
I am sure if I were a Zionist Jew, I wouldn't.

---------------------------

I think we diverge because you underestimate the biggest force that there is in terms of the political: Ethnicity.

The Jewish Palestinian conflict is nothing more than an ethnic collision over land. The IRA, also. The Balkans, idem.

Ethnicity is so powerfull that the only place where multiculturalism can thrieve is Switzerland. And this is so because Switzerland is a very especial place with many if not all of the prospects of a Nation.

Ethnic Groups end up with a sense of belonging that encopasses their members. They don't like to see their people mistreated by others because no one likes to see ours mistreated by others. Groups shall be responsabilised when they fail to maintain the cordiality and good relations between groups.

Do you agree with me or what?

Conservative Swede said...

Felicie,

I'm not the one that is so keen on speaking of group responsibility in this thread. I think the concept has limited usefulness. My point has been in stressing the importance of speaking of groups as groups. Should be a no-brainer, but once the topic is the Jews (and with other sorts of liberals also several other groups) lots of people end up in a mind warp, with all sorts of doublethink and rationalizations, where ethnic groups do not really exist etc...

You however have talked about how group responsibility apply to Soviet citizens and Israeli citizens. Next you say that group responsibility means that every single one in the group is responsible. So by conclusion you say that every single Soviet citizen was responsible for the actions of the Soviet Union, etc.

To me, the thought is absurd.

I leave this for you to sort out with yourself.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

As a corollary, given the increasing globalization of political ideologies, we would expect any future noxious intellectual fads to be dominated by the Chinese, since (a) there are so many of them, and (b) they are more intelligent and well-educated than Europeans.

Are the Chinese also "European intellectuals"?

Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

Ho! You're a clever one, aren't you?

It will be interesting to discover whether the political fads of the well-educated Chinese intelligentsia are any less pernicious than those which the European diaspora has used to all but destroy itself.

Félicie said...

" dunno. Again, if they were to stop asking for reparations for slavery and stop marching as a hive mind every time a black person with a mile-long rap sheet gets beat up by the cops, I would say, "No." But again, if we were to apply the same standards to them as they to us, they answer should be, "Yes."
"

I don't think we should ask this - for precisely the same reason. There are black leftist professors who are demanding reparations for slavery. They are probably not committing a lot of crimes. Then there is your average black in the street, who is committing a disproportionate number of crimes. And then there is somebody like Thomas Sowell, who is neither committing crimes nor demanding reparations. Why should Thomas Sowell be responsible or apologize for crminal blacks?

There is a separate question of whether whites and blacks are compatible neighbors. White nationalists, if they come to power, might answer this question in the negative. They would be in their right to decide whether they want the blacks to stay where they are or whether they want to encourage them to repatriate home. In the second case, they may also decide whether they want all blacks to leave, most of them to leave or some of them to leave. But that would be an entirely different issue from the one of collective reponsibility, which I have been trying to hammer home.

The same logic is valid for Jews. If Euro nationalists decide to expell Jews, it would be their prerogative, and it would have nothing to do with collective punishment but with their right to self-determination and their decision as to who they want to see as members of their nation.

Conservative Swede said...

Baron,

Ho! You're a clever one, aren't you?

Well, that comment of mine was a result of being in a rush. So I tried to apply humour. Whenever I find the time (I'm in a rush again) I will explain properly the issue I have with that comment of yours.

Félicie said...

"No one here is identifying the Jews as the "mono cause to all the world's evils." What we are asking for is that they apply the same standards to themselves as they apply to white Gentiles.

Most Jews DO believe in group responsibility, which is why we see 10 anti-german Nazi films appear in theaters yearly."

The Grand Jewish Conspiracy is a well familiar "umbrella" of arguments that is recognizable in its various forms. Espousing it has its own dynamics - it tends to make reasonable people progressively deranged and descend into madness. In the end they are so consumed with discovering the "underlying truth of human history" that they choose to make a common cause with muslim against the Jews. It is basically another form of gnostic thinking (in Voegelin's terms). I don't think that anybody of those commenting on this blog is there yet, but I certainly see some commenters in danger of travelling this road.

Jews should apply the same standards to themselves as they do to white gentiles. No argument there. But are Jews who don't apply double standards responsible for those who do?

I personally hate, hate, hate the Holocaust cottage industry and never watch Holocaust movies. But speaking of collective responsibility again, does anyone blame ethnic Germans in the U.S. for the horros of the Holocaust? I've never heard such an argument made. So the blame and responsibility charge is not about the German ethnicity per se, is it?

linbetwin said...

Chinese intellectuals are bureaucrats serving whoever is in power. They rationalize the political actions of their masters and preach obedience to the system. There is no Chinese word for freedom.

Félicie said...

CS: "I'm not the one that is so keen on speaking of group responsibility in this thread. I think the concept has limited usefulness. My point has been in stressing the importance of speaking of groups as groups. Should be a no-brainer, but once the topic is the Jews (and with other sorts of liberals also several other groups) lots of people end up in a mind warp, with all sorts of doublethink and rationalizations, where ethnic groups do not really exist etc..."

Groups can be talked about as groups in different ways and different contexts. Women of childbearing age on the workforce can be thought of as a group because they, as a statistical group, will pursue certain goals (like try to get married and have children), which will affect their employers and economy in general.

Jews can definitely be talked about as a group in many different meanings. I just object to when they are talked about as a group in the context of group responsibility in CERTAIN situations (like those that have been raised). Forgive me for being pedantic in pointing it out in many different ways. I think this is a dangeroud line of thought that lies in the general vicinity of (although not necessarily leads to) the Jewish Conspiracy Derangement Symptom.

"You however have talked about how group responsibility apply to Soviet citizens and Israeli citizens. Next you say that group responsibility means that every single one in the group is responsible. So by conclusion you say that every single Soviet citizen was responsible for the actions of the Soviet Union, etc.
"

It still makes more sense than talking about collective Jewish responsibility for Noam Chomsky. As a Soviet citizen, one did not have much choice, because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime. In the same way, it was difficult for the average German to protest the Nazi regime. But some brave souls did it in both countries. One always has a choice to be heroic. One has freedom of choice. Choosing to me silent is also a choice. I am choosing to be low key about what is happening in Europe right now. I brought it up with some friends and was called a fascist. Some friendships ended. As a citizen of the EU, I accept part of the responsibility for what is happening right now in Europe because I am not vocal enough. Am I going to go to hell because of this? I hope not. Perhaps it will be some kind of purgatory for a limited time, and I won't end up with real villains on the 6th-9th circles of hell.

PRCalDude said...

The Grand Jewish Conspiracy is a well familiar "umbrella" of arguments that is recognizable in its various forms. Espousing it has its own dynamics - it tends to make reasonable people progressively deranged and descend into madness. In the end they are so consumed with discovering the "underlying truth of human history" that they choose to make a common cause with muslim against the Jews.

Aren't you making my point about intellectual bullying for me here? I've made some very reasonable points, I think.

For my own part, I blame Adam's sin for the reason everything is wrong in the world. I also can't help but notice patterns in my worldly experience thus far. You are essentially asking that I stop noticing patterns. I won't do it. Sorry.

But are Jews who don't apply double standards responsible for those who do?


To some degree, and only in a sense. The conservative Jew above DOES take responsibility: he tries to change the minds of lemming Jews, only to be vilified by them for doing so. If you interact with a group of your own people on a frequent basis, you are responsible for telling them the truth about what is happening to them or because of them. Everyone is obligated to tell the truth. I do the same in my interactions with liberal Gentile whites, usually to the same effect as our conservative Jewish friend above.

But speaking of collective responsibility again, does anyone blame ethnic Germans in the U.S. for the horros of the Holocaust? I've never heard such an argument made.

I wish I could say the same. Moreover, the Third Reich is the only part of Germania's extensive history that we hear about. That, in a sense, is a charge against the German ethnicity.

As an aside, and having visited Germany, I was disturbed to find out that there was much more historical exposure in museums of the Holocaust than of Charles Martel. In fact, I kept asking about him and kept receiving blank stares from museum docents. What a shame.

linbetwin said...

Felicie, there is also an Islamic Conspiracy Derangement Syndrome, but I'm not going to condemn it because it is the prologue of the backlash that is going to stop this much-feared Islamization of Europe. The Western elephants fear that the strength of the mice is in their numbers. But don't forget that a frightened elephant can trample hundreds of mice in a second. I know many people here think Europeans are pussies when it comes to immigration, but Europe will rise when Europeans will stoop to do the jobs that currently only immigrants are willing to do. Jihadists hope and anti-Jihadists fear that Europeans will watch in apathy as Muslims are taking over, but they are woefully wrong. It took decades to teach Europeans that the Crusades were war crimes, but it will take much less for that teaching to be reversed. Europeans put up with Muslim vandals and Jihadists because they need the har-working bulk of the immigrant masses, but this won't last forever.

Afonso Henriques said...

My friend, Charles Martel may have been "Germanic". But he was French, not German...

laine said...

Felicie said:

"I am willing to bet that Jews are also overrepresented in the anti-jihad movement. Should all Jews collectively get credit for that? Should all Jews be credited by the Jewish contrbutions to sciences, philosophy and arts?"

She would lose that bet unless she's counting Israel's territorial struggle against Palestinians as "anti-jihad". Diaspora Jews vote over 80% (documented in the USA by voter registration as Democrats) for leftist parties none of whom are anti-jihadist and many of whom actively enable the Islamic narrative and aims. It appears their leftism trumps their Jewishness in importance to them. If Jews were as active in the anti-jihadist movement as Felice wishes, then Israel and the rest of us would be breathing a lot easier.

Secondly, Jews HAVE in fact been collectively credited with a positive rep in the area of arts,philosophy, science etc. on the basis of the accomplishments of individual Jews. The argument many posters are making is that unlike any other people in the world since the Holocaust at least, it's forbidden to say anything negative about Jews individually or as a group on pain of being smeared as antisemitic. The majority of Germans did nothing active to promote Nazism. Did they get off as easily in world opinion as Jews sloughed responsibility for Bolshevism? Always victims, never perpetrators?

Now they are finally being blamed (unfairly in my opinion but not in the opinion of many outspoken leftist Jews in high places) for the Palestinian problem but still the connection to communism and leftist mischief such as multiculturalism in every western country remains off limits.

Baron, if you ask Russkiy for his source for saying "The Bolshevik Revolution 80% Jewish in nature (300 out of 380 top Bolshevik officials were Jews)" if it pans out, then you can lay to rest the idea that the unifying variable is intellectualism instead of Jewishness. Their collective IQ and education is not so off the map that it can account for a discrepancy this big considering their small numbers.

Lastly, have to agree with Conservative Swede on this one: "we'll have to drop all sorts of myths that makes us (as a group!) flip-flop between one-sided victimization/idealization or one-sided demonization of Jews, and virtually nothing in between. Jews are an ethnic group, just like any other. And that's how we should speak about them".

That's how Professor Kevin Macdonald whom I referenced in my first comment speaks of Jews, as a self interested group whom whites would do well to emulate in devotion to and strategies for survival.

For example, perhaps European whites need to recreate a country for themselves in future such as Israel is for Jews in a better neighborhood and minus the fifth column?

linbetwin said...

I meant "hard-working bulk" in the comment above.

As for the essay we're commenting on and digressing from, I've never seen a piece of writing that better illustrates the arrogance, historical revisionism and supremacist views of Jews. This entire oyvey-ist tirade can be summed up thus: "Why did God make us so smart and why don't these stupid, unwashed goyim don't like us?"

Félicie said...

"Aren't you making my point about intellectual bullying for me here? I've made some very reasonable points, I think.

For my own part, I blame Adam's sin for the reason everything is wrong in the world. I also can't help but notice patterns in my worldly experience thus far. You are essentially asking that I stop noticing patterns. I won't do it. Sorry.
"

This was in response to your comment that nobody is making the claim of Jews as the main satanic force in human history. The argument in itself is a familiar and popular argument, numerously rehashed in various forms. When one has heard the same narrative many times, one recognizes it from snippets and recontructs the whole. It's like if one heard the same joke many times, one recognizes it after a couple of sentences. I referred to it in shorthand as the "mono-cause."

Go ahead and notice patterns. Nobody is telling you not to. But people can take you to task for not making rational conclusions. Holding Jews collectively responsible is irrational, as I have tried to show, unless you convince me of your definition of group responsibility, which I haven't seen yet.

"The conservative Jew above DOES take responsibility: he tries to change the minds of lemming Jews, only to be vilified by them for doing so. If you interact with a group of your own people on a frequent basis, you are responsible for telling them the truth about what is happening to them or because of them. "

You already presume in this question group responsibility. What if a conservative but assimilated and secular Jew does not see other Jews as "his own people" in the strong sense that you mean and does not see it as his responsibility to change their minds? Why should he? What if to him all white European people are "his own people" and he tries to change the minds of all those around him without regard for their Jewishness?

"I wish I could say the same. Moreover, the Third Reich is the only part of Germania's extensive history that we hear about. That, in a sense, is a charge against the German ethnicity. "

You mean people routinely accuse German-Americans for the Second World War?

Félicie said...

""I am willing to bet that Jews are also overrepresented in the anti-jihad movement. Should all Jews collectively get credit for that? Should all Jews be credited by the Jewish contrbutions to sciences, philosophy and arts?"

She would lose that bet unless she's counting Israel's territorial struggle against Palestinians as "anti-jihad". "

I am talking about the visible blogosphere, not the Israel-Palestine issue. Are you telling me that there are 0.003% or fewer Jews in it, which would correspond to their percentage in the world population?

"it's forbidden to say anything negative about Jews individually or as a group on pain of being smeared as antisemitic. "

You know, I just returned from a very liberal conference where I heard a similar straw-man argument, namely that nobody can say (or it is forbidden to say)anything against Israel. I want to ask: who is this straw-man "nobody"? where is it "forbidden"? Who will smear you? A couple of harnmless commenters in the blogosphere? It has been fully acceptable for a long time now.

As far as I am concerned, people should have a right to love or hate whomever they please. I abhor "hate laws." People have a right to their emotions. So if they choose to dislike Jews, it's their prerogative. But when they state facts or articulate moral imperatives, they are bound by the standards of truth and reason.

Félicie said...

linbetwin: "I know many people here think Europeans are pussies when it comes to immigration, but Europe will rise when Europeans will stoop to do the jobs that currently only immigrants are willing to do. "

The sentiment I have seen in NUMEROUS British blogs is that they will precisely not give any jobs, even the most menial and low-paying, to native Britons. They prefer to give them to immigrants. It's a catch-22 situation.

PRCalDude said...

This was in response to your comment that nobody is making the claim of Jews as the main satanic force in human history. The argument in itself is a familiar and popular argument, numerously rehashed in various forms. When one has heard the same narrative many times, one recognizes it from snippets and recontructs the whole. It's like if one heard the same joke many times, one recognizes it after a couple of sentences. I referred to it in shorthand as the "mono-cause."

That about ends the discussion between you and I. No doubt we're further solidified in our conclusions because of it.

Afonso Henriques said...

Félice,

"What if a conservative but assimilated and secular Jew does not see other Jews as "his own people" in the strong sense that you mean and does not see it as his responsibility to change their minds? Why should he? What if to him all white European people are "his own people" and he tries to change the minds of all those around him without regard for their Jewishness?"

"What if to him all white European people are "his own people""

Isn't this the exactly definition of "Nazi" in the Jewish dictionary? Wouldn't this Jew be seen exactly as a Nazi self-hating Jew?

But let's imagine so. Do you know how difficult it is to find a "Conservative" Jew, right? What about what you describe?

And, on top of that rarity, let's imagine that that Jew really is in touch with the European Tradition and culture in which he is in.
Let's imagine that he does not act or pursue an active agenda against it's host Nation.

Then yes, I think this Jew is okay. He's not trying to decarachterise it's host Nation.
How many Jews are like this? 2, 1%?

It's not representative of the Jews as a whole. Therefore, Jews as a group are not that great. Individually, I bet a good share of Jews are wonderfull people.

P.S. - Do you know the old local saying here? That at night the Jews urinate at the doors of the Christian churhces after celeberating the crucification of Jesus in the Synagogues? That's how much the Jew is mistrusted. And now, we have the opposite with Jews being considered untouchable semi-Gods. With neither of the situations we will end well.

Snouck said...

Baron,

It seems to me that the point Lev Lakritz is trying to make is that secular Jews or at least Russian secular Jews have a tendency to support Leftism: first the generation of the parents of the generation of the author and then the generation of their children. Mr. Lakritz also distinguishes between native born American of the same age group of their children "And when the next semester break rolled around, we got it: our kids weren’t trying to fit in. They were the ones with whom the other kids were trying to fit in".

I read it to mean that the children of the Soviet Jews were uniquely foolishly internationalist/leftist.

Mr. Lakritz ends it with a call for a vow against egalitarianism.

The next thing that you do is to try to argue away the ethnic dimension of the Evil done during Bolshevik rule. And re-label it as intellectual evil.

It does not quite add up.

Baron Bodissey said...

Snouck --

That's because I wasn't arguing with the author, or making points based on the author's essay. I was responding to various commenters.

I have my own opinions, which may or may not differ from those of our guest-essayists. I like to present a variety of viewpoints here. I learn a lot from reading diverse well-thought-out material, including things that I may not entirely agree with.

My point, such as it was, was that Western intellectuals in general -- not just Jews -- have a tendency to adopt destructive leftist positions. Until I joined the Counterjihad 5 years ago I knew one -- mind you, only ONE -- fellow intellectual who shared my hidebound reactionary politics.

Since then I have had the good fortune to become acquainted with a number of others.

Armance said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

CS --

Actually, I was applying humor to the situation myself.

I don't expect the Chinese ever to construct anything as grandly destructive as Bolshevism. The conceptual framework of their political philosophy is quite different from our European one.

Armance said...

I mean, I can even accept that the Jews are always the victims of somebody - the Americans, the Russians, the Germans. etc., but it's beyond my power of comprehension to swallow the pathetic distortion of truth that 78% or 60% or 50% of the Jews, plus their most representative organizations, are not real Jews, but some sort of misguided atheists. To choose a random example, does somebody here doubt the fact that the members of the French Socialist Party, with their suicidal pro-immigration policies, are not real French because most of them are atheists and don't go to church on Easter? Does somebody here doubt the fact that Segolene Royale, the lemming who hugged the parents of the Muslim French rioters, telling them that "you are part of the solution, not of the problem", is a real French, in spite of the fact that she is a Socialist and an atheist? Then why do we admit that Segolene Royale is a French lemming (which she is), but we perform such a mental gymnastics to prove that Rahm Emmanuel or the ADL (the same people who condemn "the extremist" Geert Wilders) "are not real Jews", but atheist or leftists or misguided folks or whatever?

We should be consistent and loyal to the truth, that's all. We should try to think outside the curent favorite words of the new world order - such as "racist", "xenophobic", "anti-Semitic" and so on. We say: not all Muslims are terrorists, but the overwhelming majority of today's terrorists are Muslims, which means that's something inside Islam that triggers and favors terrorism. Not all Christians are cowards and dhimmies, but the Cristian churches, at least their high-rank representatives, express unbelievable pro-Islam and pro-immigration views, which means it's something rotten or anachronic at the very heart of Christianity. Absolutely logical, a conclusion of common sense. Then why are we so afraid to say: not all the Jews are leftists or disloyal to the majority of the countries they live in, but they are so over-represented in any leftist or anti-majority movement, that we have to ask ourselves: is it something in Jewishness that triggers this?

PRCalDude said...

Not all Christians are cowards and dhimmies, but the Cristian churches, at least their high-rank representatives, express unbelievable pro-Islam and pro-immigration views, which means it's something rotten or anachronic at the very heart of Christianity.

Yeah, I think the definitive essay on that topic is here. Schaeffer's "The Great Evangelical Disaster" is also good.

Armance said...

Wasn't the state of Israel supposed to take care of the Mishuganismo and Braggadocio of the this type of ever-wandering Lev Lakritz Jew?

Regarding the author of the article, I completely agree with the above post. If this American Jew is so disatissfied with any country he used to live or lives in and he is not able to direct his fury towards Axelrod, Rahm, the Jewish pro-Obama voters or Kaganovich (in the past), but blames the whole situation on some sort of abstract catastrophe coming from the sky, then I think Israel is the best option for him. What is the reason to stay in a country where you feel so miserable, particularly when you deny any responsibility of your people regarding this misery? I mean, I agree completely with the "we support Israel" stuff, but wasn't Israel specifically created for people who feel persecuted, like him? Because otherwise we will live in a state of eternal mutual misery: he will always feel persecuted for some reasons (even when people are punished by death or prison for expressing anything resembling "anti-Semitism" - of course, not Muslim anti-Semitism, because it is protected by the ADL and the European Jewish Congress), we will always feel miserable as the bad Gentiles who make him feel persecuted.

Baron Bodissey said...

Armance --

Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.

Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.

----------------------

Armance said

This article is quite embarassing, really. The poor wandering Jews, victims in the Soviet Union (I have to remind you that in the Soviet Union the public expression of anything considered or related to anti-Semitism was a crime punishable by death, including in Stalin's time; the Jews were the only ethnic group whom the Soviet Union wanted to protect through a special law), and now the poor American Jews victims of Obama's administration, with Axelrod as the chief of Obama's campaign staff and Rahm Emmanuel as the second man in the current Democrat administration, plus 78% of the American Jews voting for the Messiah (yes, according to 78% of the American Jews, Messiah has finally come).

OK now: I can understand the Jewish obsession of always being the victims, even if, as a non-Jew, you can be punished (by death, sometimes) if you say anything, even the mildest criticism, regarding the Jews as a group.

But please: can any Jew in this world be critical at least regarding their OWN decisions? If most of the people here admit that the Jews were over-represented at least in the first phase of the Bolshevik movement, that 78% of the American Jews voted for Obama, that Axelrod and Emmanuel are Messiah's left and right hands, that Elie Wiesel (a Holocaust survivor) explicitly, in a very emotional statetement, in the very building of Washington DC Holocaust Museum, asked Bill Clinton to bomb Serbia (do you remember? "Please, please, Mr. President, stop the bloodshed in that country"), that the Jewish organizations all over the world asked the Clinton administration to intervene in Yugoslavia in favor of Muslims, that even now the ADL and the European Jewish Congress condemns in strong terms Geert Wilders' success in Holland as "the success of such rabid groups such as The Freedom Party in the Netherlands..." (see here: link:), etc., etc., well then, isn't it the time the ask the Jews to be a little bit critical about themselves, as a GROUP?

Baron Bodissey said...

After receiving an email from the author of this post, I have closed the comments on this thread, at least temporarily, pending further communication.