Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article ”Goyland: Where the Wild Things Are” gets at an important aspect of Jewish psychology — the bunker mentality of imminent threat. The next Holocaust is always just around the corner. They see their own history in the West as one long vale of tears, beginning with the Romans sacking Jerusalem and destroying the temple, then suffering at the hands of Christian fanatics in the Middle Ages, then being accused of acting as a state within a state in emerging European nations, then the evil Czar, and then Hitler. (A good recent example of this mindset is Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals?) As Connelly notes, Jewish life in the Middle Ages was far better than the great majority of people, and this has generally been true throughout Jewish history. And they never consider the possibility that their own behavior has anything to do with whatever bad things happen to them.
Psychologically, these traits show that Jews are on the extreme high end of ethnocentrism — what I have termed Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism. We all have this trait, but there are individual differences in ethnocentrism, and Jews are at the extreme high end. Ethnocentric people see the world in terms of ingroups (morally upright, possessed of positive traits; always the innocent victim, never the perpetrator) and outgroups (evil, merciless, sub-human, always the aggressor). Every affront to the group is exaggerated. There is a sense of imminent danger from the evil outgroup. In the words of a Jewish writer, ”Wherever we look, we see nothing but impending Jewish destruction. ”
This hyper-ethnocentrism is the most important aspect of Jewish psychology, leading them to be aggressive against their perceived enemies. As discussed in the above-referrenced article, in their minds, any criticism of Jews becomes a warrant for genocide. “Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because ‘the survival of Israel is at stake.’” Any sort of exclusionary thinking [such as opposing immigration of non-Whites] leads inexorably to a Holocaust. Recently several New York State legislators favoring same-sex marriage argued on the basis of their relatives being murdered in the Holocaust.
This hyper-ethnocentrism is a large part of why Jews are such formidable opponents. And it also implies that rational arguments are not going to be effective in swaying Jewish opinion. From their point of view, it’s a matter of survival.
Facing the Future as a Minority
This is a game the Jews play. In reality nobody says, hey, the Romulans hate us and will try to kill us, lets go immigrate to their country. Christians are not rushing to live in Saudi Arabia.
When Jews call us names or blacks protest that they “still have a long way to go” then the answer is obvious. They need to get out of Dodge and move to a place where there are no Christians or White people. What the heck do they want from us?
You don’t immigrate to Saudi Arabia with the belief that the Saudis must change everything to suit your needs. That won’t happen. So why do Whites not use this simple logic?
We should stop running from words and terms like racist, White Supremacist, anti Semite etc. We should say yeah its all true so you’d better leave.
From the Protocols – translated into modern English – http://www.rebelnews.org/books/nwo/9495-the-protocols-of-zion-in-modern-english-
If anyone claims that the above is immoral, let me ask them this: Suppose a nation has two enemies: an external enemy which is a neighboring nation; and an internal enemy represented by political rivals who might try to overthrow the nation from within. Well, if it is acceptable to destroy the other nation without any regard to morals, then why should it not also be acceptable to destroy the internal enemy? After all, it’s the more dangerous of the two and the more likely to succeed in destroying society.
One extraordinary failure in America is our Historians. They are as big a threat to us as “Journalists”.
They lie or they are silent about The Holocaust and other Jewish history. Why don’t historians write books or talk about the Russian Super Holocaust?
Why don’t Historians put Jewish fears into perspective by speaking to WHY people have been anti semitic? That would silence Jewish PR and BS.
I wish there was a way we could publicly raise awareness regarding the importance of Historians and the failure of ours.
“Hyper-ethnocentrism” makes Jewish thought processes sound pathological, but according to Mearsheimer’s ‘ offensive realism’ theory :-
“[A] great power that has a marked power advantage over its rivals is likely to behave more aggressively because it has the capability as well as the incentive to do so.”
What they are doing is perfectly rational.
I understand the discussion of “Where the Wild Things Are” is only a segue into the meat of Connelly’s article, but I think he’s projecting too much meaning onto this rather silly book. The question to my answer is how WTWA ever got to be such a children’s classic in the first place. It seems that my visual memories of elementary school classrooms consist largely of avalanches of WTWA and the Shelb Silberstein books charging down on me. Does anyone remember actually LIKING WTWA? I think maybe only the pictures are fetching to kids. But look how thoroughly these have eclipsed the classics of goyland, such as Dr. Suess.
If you give something a bunch of awards and make it ubiquitous, then it becomes academically respectable. On the other hand, look at the reception of the Harry Potter books by the academic establishment. I seem to recall all sorts of back-handed comments like “well at least they’re reading.” In what manner is WTWA superior to Harry Potter?
One sees a similar phenomenon with the way Catcher in the Rye and the various Howard Fast books have insinsuated themselves into youth reading lists, somehow placing themselves on a level with Mark Twain and Jules Verne.
On the other hand, brilliant, pointed article by Connelly. He’s my favorite writer on TOO.
Things haven’t changed over generations.
It is the same mentality.
Compare the treatment of the NS period of German history as depicted to the American public via school and media such as films and books and television with the reality of NS Germany’s treatment of Jews. Mr Connelly’s noting of the GOOD LIVES Jews had in Europe of yore, when all one would hear is of the POGROMS etc and it is the same story with NS Germany.
Hitler, personally approved Jews for General’s rank in the Wehrmacht. There was an office for doing these approvals which processed many Jews however it wasn’t functioning at the level needed, clearly. Jews whose loyalty to the German nation were cleared for sensitive positions and their extended families were also given full consideration as Germans.
Now why isn’t that taught in our universities?
OH that’s right, the TRUTH IS ANTI-SEMITIC.
Frankly a TOQ contributor said it best, writing in another venue, he stated:
I wish that whites were hyper-ethnocentric.
In the film ‘Ratatouille’ the rat protagonist is taken by his father to see a storefront filled with rat corpses in traps, and tells his son ‘this is what happens when rats get too close to humans’. Somebody should look into this film from an in–group/out–group perspective.
A Jewish “ally,” self-deceiver or other-deceiver?
http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/2009/10/exactly-what-is-steve-sailers-beef-with.html
Stix is a Righteous Jew, working “is it good for the Jews” from a WN-friendly angle.
“The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests.”
That is why people like Stix and Stephen Steinlight have not suddenly had a Road to Damascus experience. What they are doing is cover work for their tribe. Just as the review by Stanley Hornbeck of Dr MacDonald’s CoC was sabotaged by AR, which brooks no criticism of the Hive, with its sinister insertion of an end of review paragraph that mitigates the Jewish role in the destruction of the West and instead does a Steinlight/Stix snowjob. The NAACP was created by 2 Jewish brothers and was headed by Jews in every particular for most of its life. That is how these “respectable” “White” think tanks are, leading Whites down a path to nowhere, to extinction, all the while the poor chaps think they are following a “real hero” a “real fighter” for the race. No I think the leader referenced has spousal reasons for misleading our folk.
That AR enforces the see no Jews, hear no Jews, speak no Jews policy very stringently at its website is all that is needed to come to a conclusion about its usefulness.
Dr MacDonald, re-awakened me, through Hornbeck’s review. I can recall the day as if it were yesterday, it was like putting on the glasses in Carpenter’s film, They Live
Mo might be right, but I tend to think Connelly is on track. Besides, since the Jews like to read all kinds of negative, anti-white malarky into everything whites do, it’s time to do the same to them. I tend to see the sinister, always something ulterior in everything Jews do.
Did anyone actually like this book as a child? I couldn’t stand it, didn’t like the art either. I think it was pushed and promoted merely because Sendak had the weight of the tribe behind him. Walk through any bookstore and the number of Jewish authors one sees is staggering. No wonder most books are garbage. Uncle Ira the publisher gives his nephew’s friend Maurice a contract, it’s wonderful it’s. Despite this, most top selling authors aren’t Jews. It’s like Hollywood. The Jews jealousy guard the gates. Yet the few whites who get through demonstrate a keener sense of what actually sells for the most part. Look at the (actual) lists of the very top tier dollar grossing films (boxofficemojo.com). Dominated by gentile directors. Don’t think that the Jews don’t notice their authors, directors and more outperformed by the stupid goyim. I’d love to hear their rationalizations. They guard things jealousy in order to keep alive their carefully crafted myth of superiority in so many areas. Imagine if whites drove their children as hard in school and focused on certain areas of study and work – while being ethnocentric like the Jews. Whites need to raise their children to believe that whites are the outsiders. This would be a great start.
Shiva says:
“The best evidence that individuals have really ceased to have a Jewish identity is if they choose a political option that they perceive as clearly not in the interest of Jews as a group. In the absence of a clearly perceived conflict with Jewish interests, it remains possible that different political choices among ethnic Jews are only differences in tactics for how best to achieve Jewish interests.”
Yet this is not a very good standard, for a number of reasons. First, it requires a judgment about future events that can’t necessarily be made with any accuracy. Second, who knows or can know what someone else perceives? All we have to go by is what they tell us, and as KM says elsewhere, the best deceivers deceive even themselves. Third, who decides what are Jewish interests?
An example may illuminate. According to the above criterion, how would we evaluate this statement by Henry Ward Beecher, a white abolitionist?
“The negro is superior to the white race. If the latter do not forget their pride of race and color and amalgamate with the purer and richer blood of the blacks they will die out and wither away in unprolific skinniness.”
In advocating white genocide, Beecher clearly thinks he is acting in the interest of the white race. He hasn’t ceased to have a white identity. He just thinks that whites need to improve themselves by mixing their genes out of existence as a distinct race. So applied to Beecher, the criterion fails badly.
It would be much better if we could find a more objective standard. Something like: If X advocates a policy that will lead to decrease in the prevalence of the genetics of group Y in territory Z, and X is a member of group Y, then X has ceased to identify with group Y. But this is also problematic, not least because of the difficulty of defining human genetic groups objectively, but also because there might indeed be times when it is to the advantage of group Y to diminish in size relative to other groups. And of course, things are rarely as clearcut as in the Beecher example. Ordinarily, it might be very hard to tell if a certain course of action would lead to such a decrease in gene frequency of group Y in territory Z or not, or whether that might be a good thing for group Y or not. One could come up with cases where a short-term decrease would enable a long-term expansion. Finally, since only future events, unknowable even in theory, will be able to objectively determine whether a course of action will lead to increasing the prevalence of the genes of group Y in territory Z, we are thrown back once again to the question of how X perceives his own actions as helping group Y or not — and about that, very little may be known; X himself may not even know, since he may be deceiving himself. Hence, it appears that the question is irreducibly subjective, and we can have no way of knowing whether someone has ceased to identify with his own group.
Thanks for acknowledging me, Say the Numbers. Exactly. It’s no coincidence that Spike Jonze directed the movie,either.
I mean, Catcher in the Rye is not a terrible book, but I see no reason why it has become the perrenial youth classic that it has. Why is it one of the top ten grossing books of all time, when it was only published in 1951? Well, because it’s the only book that is read by every ninth grader in every classroom, ever single year, all across the US and Canada. Why? School board bureaucrats have made it so.
I am not a bitter anti semite, here, by the way. Isaac Asimov is one of my favorite authors.
If fear plays any role at all in the centuries-long destructive behavior of “The Jews” then it is only that fear of being discovered and retaliated against that any criminal suffers. I believe that Jewish behavior is of the will, intentional, purposeful, and if there appear to be exceptions, it is only because Jews are organized as a team, with different positions, roles to play.
I believe that Jews are entirely safe to carry on, as long as those best in a position to see them clearly are content to analyze them and rationalize their behavior, anything that will hold at bay a genuine confrontation.
And from your point of view it is NOT a matter of survival!?
How do you explain Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism when our Scripture is the source of Humanist Universalism?
Anti-Semitism – the congenital inability to attribute anything positive to the Jews.