More on Peter Beinart

The Peter Beinart event continues to reverberate within the Jewish community. (See here.) The whole thing is rather surreal. Critics focus a great deal on why American Jews might be excused for carving out a special place for ethnic nationalism while holding on to their liberal attitudes in the US. James Kirchick writing in Foreign Policy is among many who say it’s all the Palestinians’ fault.

There’s never any mention of the possibility that the liberalism of American Jews is a strategy that is well suited to Jewish ethnic aims in the Diaspora but is quite unsuited for Israel. Jewish liberalism in the Diaspora is a sign that Jews are morally superior people who have been forced by circumstances to accept a certain amount of illiberalism in order to have a Jewish state at all. As I noted previously, the reality is that the most prestigious and powerful Jewish communal organizations, such as the ADL, see no problem at all in supporting the most extreme forms of ethnonationalism in Israel while at the same time framing their advocacy of liberal policies in America as stemming from the very nature of Judaism as an ethically superior group — despite the fact that these liberal policies conform to Jewish group interests in the US and effectively undermine White identity and interests. Beinart is a bit more honest in at least feeling a tad of cognitive dissonance in this state of affairs.

In general, there is very little mention of one of Beinart’s main points–that the entire Jewish community in Israel and in the Diaspora is likely to become more religious and more nationalistic over time because of demographic trends. Simply put, the orthodox and nationalist elements are the ones having the babies. In his critique of Beinart, Steven M. Cohen writes that the main factor influencing the lack of involvement of young Jews is intermarriage — the “departure from all manner of Jewish ethnic ‘groupiness,’ of which Israel attachment is part.” Beyond that, secular Jews have fewer children than their religious/nationalist brethren, with the result that the Jewish community in general is moving in their direction.

As an evolutionist, I see this as natural selection for ethnocentrism within the Jewish community. In traditional societies, even the less ethnocentric Jews were more or less forced to marry within the community. Marrying a non-Jew effectively removed one from the community. It also carried huge penalties to the entire family that remained behind–a blot on their name for as long as communal memory remained. But since the Enlightenment, Jews have been able to marry outside the community, and many have done so. In the same way, traditional pressure to marry kept genes for homosexuality in the gene pool because people with homosexual tendencies got married and had children. There is doubtless strong selection pressure against homosexuality now — ironically, because gay activists have succeeded in making homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle  in the West. Intermarriage was seen as a serious problem by the early Zionists who viewed the creation of a Jewish state as preventing intermarriage and allowing Jewish ethnic continuity. As Cohen implies, liberal, secular Jews cannot maintain Jewish group ties over the long haul. The demographic engines both in Israel and the US are the more Orthodox and conservative elements–precisely the people who have aggressive, nationalistic attitudes toward the Palestinians.

So Cohen agrees with Beinart that American Jewish activist organizations will be run by nationalist Jews and the entire American Jewish community will be increasingly nationalist. And I predict that American Jewish nationalists will continue to advocate liberal policies in America. Psychologically, greater ethnocentrism would be expected to be linked to seeing issues more in terms of what’s good for the Jews–and rationalizing whatever  is good for the Jews in terms of whatever principles place them in a positive light. As Beinart notes, the Conference of Presidents continues to insist that  “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace” — despite the obvious reality that Israel is an apartheid ethnonationalist state. The more ethnocentric one is, the less cognitive dissonance one will feel for holding such attitudes.

Bookmark and Share

Share:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

51 Comments to "More on Peter Beinart"

  1. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 29, 2010 - 9:08 am | Permalink

    KMcD: Psychologically, greater ethnocentrism would be expected to be linked to seeing issues more in terms of what’s good for the Jews–and rationalizing whatever is good for the Jews in terms of whatever principles place them in a positive light.

    …which, of course, involves a loss of objectivity, which equates to truth, and where truth is the source of evolutionary adaptation, this involves a loss of adaptivity.

    In other words, because Jews cannot pick up their true reflection in a mirror – their true place in the natural and social environment – they are maladaptive. Constituting an evolutionary pathology, they are unfit to parameterize the further evolution of mankind under their own liberal, egalitarian assumptions.

    Psychologically, this amounts to an incapacity for objective (valid) metacognition, which in turn amounts to a profound limitation on intelligence; despite the putative Jewish IQ advantage, Jews are notoriously poor at certain essential cognitive functions. In the evolutionary context, this form of mental debilitation outweighs any putative racial IQ advantage on the observed scale.

    Is the Jewish incapacity for honest metacognition genetic and inescapable, or is it an hysterical illusion temporarily adopted for purposes of racial competition which can be shed after “victory” is achieved? Either way, it is necessary to ask whether the Jews, given their tendency to such hysterics, can finally adapt to the state of “evolutionary victory”…a state in which they are finally and permanently atop the heap, and in which Orthodox Jews – homely, smelly, and backward as they may be – can breed like cockroaches at the expense of non-Jewish Whites.

    The answer would appear to be no; Jews are inherently parasitic, being adapted for survival within host populations from which they can siphon their wherewithal through economic and political coercion. The paradox of Jewishness is just that of internecine parasitism; the parasite, being unaware that it is not a perfect organism but a suicidal abomination which is destroying itself along with its host, can survive only while suffering an endless sequence of population catastrophes due to its destructive effects on its host. Its metacognitive incapacity stands forever in the way of its stable, continuous existence.

    The metacognitive, or equivalently, the moral incapacity of the Jews is nowhere more evident than in their tendency to ask “What is good for the Jews?” rather than “What human adaptations are sustainable?”, i.e., “What is good (or at least sustainable) for mankind?” From the viewpoint of the human race, Jewishness is therefore profoundly maladaptive and should be eliminated.

    This does not mean that the Jews, as living beings, should be eliminated. However, it does mean that Jewish exceptionalism should be eliminated, permanently and with great prejudice. Let us therefore hope that Jewish maladaptive metacognitive incapacity is not genetically fixed.

  2. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    May 29, 2010 - 9:26 am | Permalink

    They just pretend they’re unhappy with intermarriage. They benefit from it and always have.

  3. Tom Watson's Gravatar Tom Watson
    May 29, 2010 - 9:36 am | Permalink

    I’ve read from a number of sources including Alex Linder’s VNN Forum, that MTV is family entertainment in Israel—no Blacks hanging all over White women, and visa versa in the Jew homeland.

    Almost like the Chinese not serving alcohol to Mongolians & Blacks during the Olympics. LOL.

    Dr. MacDonald should research it. Adds to his position in a big way if true!

  4. May 29, 2010 - 9:58 am | Permalink

    MacDonald: “The more ethnocentric one is, the less cognitive dissonance one will feel for holding such [hypocritical] attitudes.”

    Or the more sociopathic one is, the less cognitive dissonance. Sociopaths feel no more guilt over hypocrisy than, say, an alpha male ape beating a competitor to death for trying to get over on a female ape — something the alpha male does himself every day.

    I think, to a certain extent, that’s MacDonald’s point — that ethnic tribalism is the best we can hope for, because it’s inevitable.

    But that’s where Christianity starts entering in, and the concept that we should aspire to more than apedom, and are capable of more than apedom.

    I think where we have common ground, though, is in the belief that by tolerating self-serving Jewish tribalism/nationalism, we are setting our own society up for failure as other tribal sociopaths follow in their wake. I think Jewry’s plan to deal with this is a totalitarian police state to enforce the hypocrisy (eg “hate laws“ and the “Dept. of anti-Semitism”), like the Bolsheviks used in the early Soviet Union — a police state that will make it illegal to notice that a hypocritical, Pharisaic Jewish caste is running the country. But this can only last for so long, as the disintegration of the Soviet Union proves.

    Wouldn’t it all be so much easier to just repatriate Jewish nationalism to Israel?

  5. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 29, 2010 - 10:31 am | Permalink

    “Wouldn’t it all be so much easier to just repatriate Jewish nationalism to Israel?”

    I’m afraid not.

    Without being able to attach its siphon to at least one producing nation, Israel will implode in an orgy of mutual (self-)parasitism. But “attaching its siphon” means maintaining a functional population of its own ethno-nationalists in the host nation(s).

    Therefore, Israel and its supporters will resist geographic containment with everything at their disposal…and specifically, with the entire political systems of the US and Europe, and (thanks to their grand sugardaddies the Rothschilds) every participant in the global economy.

    But then, you probably already knew that.

  6. May 29, 2010 - 10:52 am | Permalink

    @ eurodele,

    I know that Jewry is setting up a self-serving supremacist caste, and if you analysis is correct, and history repeats, that caste will suck the country dry, and if my analysis is correct, we’re also on the road racial tribalism as an additional consequence, all of which means the end of America.

    So anyone opposed to the disintegration of America or with something to lose by the disintegration of America (and that’s a lot of people) has incentive to act.

    I mean, aren’t we quickly approaching the juncture of either action or enslavement? Are you suggesting that enslavement is inevitable?

  7. May 29, 2010 - 11:43 am | Permalink

    Don’t you think the true-blue Jews might just breed themselves out of existence, like the ancient Spartans did?

  8. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 29, 2010 - 12:28 pm | Permalink

    “Are you suggesting that enslavement is inevitable?”

    Absolutely not, unless we (the goyim) fail to rediscover our brains and our collective testicles in a big, big hurry. Unfortunately, I put the odds of such a failure at “high enough to be scary”.

    Absent such a rediscovery, I’m afraid that our slavery is already here, thanks in no small measure to coercion and surveillance technologies that White people discovered and formerly applied in a limited way to our advantage, but which the defectors among us gladly sold, for Jewish-controlled money, to people obviously bent on using it to enslave us. (I naturally hesitate to call this “poetic justice”, but a hint of irony is unavoidable.)

    At worst, the Jews will succeed, in which case the society they parasitically mold around themselves will inevitably collapse due to their intransigent idiocy and terminal narcissism. In that eventuality, my worry is that not enough will be left of this planet to permit the regeneration of human civilization.

    At that point, our genome may be too impoverished, and too many critical resources may have been used up, to let us rebuild…not to mention the likelihood that the Jews, in a well-deserved orgy of self-loathing, will have left behind them nothing but a radioactive cinder uninhabitable even by insects.

    No doubt about it…it’s got to be now or never.

  9. May 29, 2010 - 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Eurodele says:

    “Without being able to attach its siphon to at least one producing nation, Israel will implode in an orgy of mutual (self-)parasitism.”

    Funny, that’s just what a lot of jews are thinking…

    20% of able bodied Israelis do not work
    When people talk these days about Israel’s economy, they use words like booming, resilient, even “miracle.”

    Weaning itself off socialist-influenced policies that once brought 400% inflation and 60% income-tax brackets, Israel’s economy is now growing despite the international financial slowdown. Debt is manageable, the currency is strong; Israel’s high-tech sector is admired worldwide.

    But one Israeli economist is warning that beneath Israel’s back-patting lurks a hidden peril — fueled by demographic trends and political choices — that could eventually mean an end to the country.

    Armed with a Power Point presentation he’s been showing to lawmakers, newspaper publishers and anyone else who will listen, Dan Ben-David, executive director of Jerusalem-based Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, says the problem is simple: Not enough Israelis are pulling their own weight.

    According to Ben-David, nearly one in five Israeli men between the ages of 35 and 54 — a group that he believes has “no excuse” for not working — are not part of the labor force. That’s about 60% higher than the average among nations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, an international forum fostering market-based economies that Israel joined Monday.

    Officially, Israel’s unemployment rate is about 8%. But that doesn’t include Israeli citizens who are not trying to find work, either because they feel disenfranchised, such as many Arab Israelis, or because they’ve chosen a life of state-subsidized religious study, such as many ultra-Orthodox Jews.

    Nearly 27% of Arab men and 65% of ultra-Orthodox Jews don’t work, government figures show. The non-employment rate for ultra-Orthodox men has tripled since 1970, Ben-David said.

    “We support a lifestyle of nonworking that is pretty unparalleled in the Western world,” said Ben-David, who is also a Tel Aviv University professor. “On the one hand, we have this state-of-the-art part of the economy. Then there is the rest of the country that is like a huge drag.”

    What worries Ben-David most is that the nonproductive part of Israel’s population, which survives largely on welfare, is also the fastest growing.

    Today Arabs and the ultra-Orthodox together make up less than 30% of the population, but they account for nearly half of school-age children. If trends continue unchecked, Arab and ultra-Orthodox children could make up 78% of Israeli classrooms, recent studies have shown.

    “Eventually it’s going to break the bank,” the economist said. “We’re on trajectories that are not sustainable.”

    But not everyone agrees with Ben-David’s dire predictions.

    “He’s been very successful at scaring everyone,” said Beni Fefferman, director of the planning and research office in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor. According to Fefferman, Ben-David’s analysis “grossly overstates” the extent of the problem, becausedata over the past decade suggest employment rates among Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews are improving.

    But Ben-David said the government has relied too heavily on a quick fix. With heavy lobbying from ultra-Orthodox parties that often prove crucial in forming government coalitions, Israel has increased welfare payments fivefold since 1970, while the standard of living has doubled, he said.

    Nearly a decade ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was then finance minister, won praise for slashing welfare payments, including monthly per-child allowances. But last year Netanyahu, in a nod to his right-wing coalition partners, agreed to nearly double some child allowances.

    Reasons differ for the non-employment of Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews.

    Over the last 30 years, the percentage of working ultra-Orthodox men has decreased because of government programs that subsidize their religious study, experts say.

    Such programs are now facing a backlash from Israel’s secular and non-Orthodox citizens. A radio talk-show host recently described ultra-Orthodox Jews as “parasites.” Tel Aviv’s mayor said the fast-growing ultra-Orthodox community was “endangering” the economic strength of the “silent majority.”

    But defenders of the ultra-Orthodox credit them with preserving Israel’s Jewish identity, saying that without the high birth rates of ultra-Orthodox families, Israel could see an Arab majority in future generations.

    “Some people drive a taxi, others pray,” said Robert Zwirn, 63, a former doctor from Brooklyn who moved to Israel 20 years ago and gradually gave up his practice to adopt an ultra-Orthodox lifestyle. “But the Messiah won’t come on the merit of you driving a taxi. It will be on the merit of our prayer.”

    For their part, many Arab Israelis say they want to work but are often shut out due to discrimination, poor schools and inadequate government services.

    “If I were Jewish, it would have been much easier to find work,” said Salwa Idreis, 30, an Arab Israeli from Jerusalem who, despite earning a law degree, has been unable to find a job for five years.

    “People don’t trust us because we are Palestinian,” said the mother of four. Even Arab-owned law firms won’t give her a job because they think Jewish attorneys will draw more customers, she said.

    With a rising rate of non-employment, many working, tax-paying Israelis are opting to leave the country.

    Computer technician Avner Coopman, 40, and his librarian wife joined the flight six months ago, quitting their jobs and moving their two children, 9 and 11, to a Vancouver suburb. They say they’re confident Canada offers more security, better education and a higher standard of living.

    “The math was simple,” Coopman said, predicting that tax and poverty in Jerusalem will soar in the coming years. “It wasn’t so much about me, but about what my kids will face in 30 years.”

    Ben-David said Israel should act now to prevent a financial collapse that a nation with many enemies can ill afford.

    “In this neighborhood, you don’t get many chances,” Ben-David said. “For us [the opportunity to create a state] only comes around every 2,000 years.”

    edmund.sanders@latimes.com

  10. May 29, 2010 - 12:36 pm | Permalink

    eurodele’s post reminds me the fable of The Scorpion and the Frog. The frog (the West) has already been stung. It will die and sink soon—with the Jews aboard.

    @ “This does not mean that the Jews, as living beings, should be eliminated. However, it does mean that Jewish exceptionalism should be eliminated” – eurodele

    @ “Wouldn’t it all be so much easier to just repatriate Jewish nationalism to Israel?” –CM

    If the frog can indeed find the antidote in a sea of political correctness (I doubt it) before it’s too late, as an Iberian white my favorite solution could be a variant of what the Spaniards did in the 15th century: You guys either go to Israel or stay on the strict condition to misceginate with gentiles in a future ethno-state where both Judaism and Islam are absolutely forbidden (BTW all Muslims would be expelled since phenotypically they don’t look white). It worked in 15th century Spain when the Jews were becoming influential. A variant of what the Catholic kings did could work again. After all, wasn’t the golden century of Spain (and Shakespearian England too) Jew-free?

  11. Finrod's Gravatar Finrod
    May 29, 2010 - 1:10 pm | Permalink

    I wonder if the decreased pro Israel identification among young might simply reflect TOTAL victory. Zionist power in the US government is at its apogee. They completely control congress and most of every other part of the government. The war is over. The footsoldiers have been disbanded. Now they can even sit around and critisize Israel, fully aware that it will have no impact.

    The evolutionary thinking of the article is stimulating and on target.

  12. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 29, 2010 - 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Chris Moore said: 
May 29, 2010 at 10:52 AM
@

    ….and if my analysis is correct, we’re also on the road racial tribalism as an additional consequence, all of which means the end of America. 
So anyone opposed to the disintegration of America or with something to lose by the disintegration of America (and that’s a lot of people) has incentive to act.
I mean, aren’t we quickly approaching the juncture of either action or enslavement? Are you suggesting that enslavement is inevitable?



    Yes, we are on the road to tribalism and the end of racially mixed, multicultural America. That is a very good thing. The reason is because if America continues as it is, complete mongrelization of the races is the only outcome. The war for tribalism to establish ethnostates is going on right now.

    The only Whites who oppose the breakup of America are the ones motivated by money and the availability of cheap labor. If they act, or even if they don’t, they will be violently opposed by the racially aware Whites. I doubt that the libertarians will anything too rash—they could get hurt and then they wouldn’t be able to spend all of that money they value so much. Fortunately for racially aware Whites, there aren’t very many libertarians, so there’s not much they can do since their program serves a very narrow range of interests. That’s why their numbers are so small and they rarely win any elections.

    If the anti-discrimination laws were abolished you’d see very quickly how much Whites want tribalism. They would express it explicitly and quickly!

    BTW, Chris, you still haven’t answered my question to you. I’ll ask it again (and again, and again): Do you feel that as a matter of personal freedom that Whites in America or anywhere else should be permitted to interbreed with Negroes?

    If your answer is ‘yes’, do you see anything wrong with the complete mixing of the races?

  13. May 29, 2010 - 2:27 pm | Permalink

    @ Mark,

    I thought I’ve been pretty frank on all of that: whatever works best for returning to and perpetuating the America as envisioned and actualized by the founders and laid out in the Constitution. Do I put the attainment of white nationalism at the top of the priority list in getting there? No, because institutional White nationalism is at odds with the Constitution. But I absolutely support the White consciousness movement, and respect the right of free speech and free association to those who oppose race mixing, and I recognize White consciousness is essential to getting us back on the road to what we once were and can be again.

    I can see there are a couple of factions at cross-purposes on this site: those that want to see the disintegration of America (as epitomized by Mark) to hasten the onset of a White nationalist homeland, and hence are (strangely) allied with organized Jewry, as Jewry and their machinations are the primary force that is (unwittingly) driving that outcome; and the faction of those who want to solve the Jewish question and preserve the country.

    Mark, are you a supporter of Jewry because it is destroying the America you hate? Are you in any way aiding Jewry to hasten the outcome you desire? At what point does that kind of thinking and behavior become treason against White interests in the same way that Dispensationalists aid Jewry in their agenda to hasten Armageddon, End Times and the return of Jesus? And treason in the same way that Hitler’s fanaticism destroyed so many Whites? He could have and should have destroyed Bolshevism by building a force of allies. Instead, he let his megalomania and fanaticism take over.

    It is my position and seems to be the position of many here that America is salvageable. Mark, you’re pretty frank in your position that it’s not. Doesn’t that make you temporary political bedfellows with organized Jewry?

  14. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 29, 2010 - 3:38 pm | Permalink

    @ Chris Moore,

    What difference does it make now what the Founding Fathers wanted back in the 1700s? The U.S. Constitution served their interests at that time. It does not serve White survival interests now.

    Yes, White Nationalism is at odds with the U.S. Constitution and so in the interests of White survival the U.S. Constitution needs to be tossed. It is not a sacred document.

    Organized Jewry is not aligned with White Nationalism. I don’t know what you’ve been smoking. Your faction is very small here. You, Chris, and all libertarians are outsiders here. This is a White Nationalist website. The owner of this website is a White Nationalist. The White Nationalist movement is opposed by the Jews because the dominating plan in the WN movement is to remove them from White societies everywhere. The libertarian movement is filled with Jews.

    Here is the Libertarian Party platform: http://www.lp.org/platform

    The platform planks below say that they consider racial discrimination to be “irrational and repugnant”. They are opposed to a White-only homeland and believe that the government has no business making laws against homosexuality, sex change operations, homosexuals adopting children, transsexuals adopting children, transsexuals obtaining child custody, either of those two groups serving in the military, etc.

    From the Libertarian Party platform:

    1.3 Personal Relationships
    “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

    Presumably, they would include race when it comes to marriage, custody, adoption, etc., though it isn’t mentioned specifically.”

    3.5 Rights and Discrimination
    “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.”

    You know, somehow I don’t your Founding Fathers would have agreed with that. The Founding Fathers were, however, slave-owners and race-mixers.

    No, America is not salvageable in a form that is acceptable to White Nationalists and that is also compatible with White survival. And, no, Jews do not agree with my position. The White Nationalists and the Jews are trying to destroy America, but for different reasons. It’s kind of like the feminists and the fundamentalist churches are against pornography, but for entirely different reasons. The feminists and the fundamentalist churches are not each other’s allies.

    So that we can clear this up, you are against the government enacting laws against race-mixing. Is that a correct statement?

  15. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    May 29, 2010 - 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Why would a nomad people incorporate the idea of a fixed dwelling? Isn’t it a possibility that Israel is a temporary solution to the dissolution of ethnic tensions and the intermarriage problem? That Israel will provide for a temporary heaven for marriage between ethnocentric jews and then be dissolved in a very shocking and brutal way that will solidify the bonding between the surviving israeli jews, who will then become the backbone of the diaspora? For all I see, the jews are investing a lot in making their image odious again, and they know a reaction to it is coming. Since they dominate the understanding of the hate-guilty gentile cycle, they know how to profit from that reaction and how to bring the hate against them to a halt: sacrifice the lives of the less gifted jews in Israel. Force gentiles to destroy Israel after the bonding of gifted jews reach an optimum stage and they are slipped off the country.

    As noticed by Eurodele why would they opt for self-parasitism? Why would they toil in the land when they have already reached how to open the doors to power gentile guilty? They need the corpse of Israel the same way they need the corpses of the holocaust. They (and us) are not creating this surreal situation for nothing.

  16. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 29, 2010 - 5:54 pm | Permalink

    In this thread, people are talking a great deal of nonsense, without facts or understanding, and substituting hostile feelings towards Judaism or Jews for study.

    To correct all the errors would be a laborious work. To pick just one: yes Jews are really unhappy with intermarriage. They don’t see it as a benefit.

  17. May 29, 2010 - 8:09 pm | Permalink

    @ Mark: “This is a White Nationalist website. The owner of this website is a White Nationalist…The White Nationalists and the Jews are trying to destroy America, but for different reasons.”

    I would be interested in MacDonald’s reponse to this. Yes, I would like him to clarify his position on this. I don’t think you speak for him, and I don’t think the speak for this web site. But I would like to know if the majority of the writers on this web site are in agreement with you on this.

  18. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    May 29, 2010 - 9:30 pm | Permalink

    “To correct all the errors would be a laborious work. To pick just one: yes Jews are really unhappy with intermarriage. They don’t see it as a benefit.”

    If it were not a benefit, why are they doing it at the rate of over 50%? Are they famous for hurting themselves, for shooting themselves in the foot? I’ve seen no reason to believe so.

  19. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 29, 2010 - 9:53 pm | Permalink

    @Chris Moore
    “But I would like to know if the majority of the writers on this web site are in agreement with you on this.”

    I’m for whatever works. If some level of collapse is neccessary to wake people up then fine but for me it’s a tactic not a goal.

    The US constitution is a highwater mark in many ways and a good foundation but i think it’s flawed through not explicitly including ethnic genetic interests. There’s a nod to that idea where it mentions “for our posterity” but it lacks explicit protections (unsurprisingly) from things the authors hadn’t thought of.

    A remade America, of whatever geographical extent, would be well served taking the constitution as a base but to prevent the problem repeating explict EGI ideas need to be incorporated. If we win i think the European nations should do the same.

    I’ve only recently started thinking about this but i’m wondering that there might need to be some economic constraints based on EGI as well.

  20. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 29, 2010 - 10:22 pm | Permalink

    Chris Moore quoted mark with:

    “The White Nationalists and the Jews are trying to destroy America, but for different reasons.”

    When I say “destroy” America, I mean that we (most WNs) want to get rid of the political, social, and economic orders and replace them with new ones that put race before everything else. The Jews are trying to destroy the traditions of European Americans and along with that their genotype.

    No, I don’t speak for Dr. MacDonald, however he has indicated a need for an all-White area to be established if Whites are to survive. For White survival to occur in that situation, non-whites would need to be excluded from that area and so laws would be enacted to prohibit non-white entry—much to the chagrin of the libertarians.

    There would also be lots of laws against such things as libertarian-types who are manufacturers having their products made in non-white areas and then shipped into White areas to be sold to those Whites. In all likelihood, however, there would be a partnership between government, industry, and the people that would render labor unions unnecessary. Such cooperation would prevent certain people from looting White society and would have a stabilizing effect on the nation.

    I take it that you agree with the planks of the Libertarian Party’s platform that would prohibit government from establishing laws against destructive behavior including race-mixing, right?

    So you are in favor of the government permitting race-mixing. That’s what the libertarians stand for.

    You know, the type of program you are promoting is a theory of governmentonly. There is no place on Earth where you can find a government that operates by anything even closely resembling the Libertarian Party platform. There isn’t going to be either.

  21. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 29, 2010 - 10:52 pm | Permalink

    @Mark

    “much to the chagrin of the libertarians.”

    If you set libertarian ideas above everything else then i don’t think that is compatible with ethno-nationalism but i’m in personally in favour of libertarianism inside the constraints of EGI: anarcho-fascist or libertarian nationalist or somesuch term.

  22. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 29, 2010 - 11:12 pm | Permalink

    On-topic.

    I think it’s possible for a group of jews who all believe in the primacy of “is it good for the jews” and all equally paranoid about non-jews to have different ideas as to what constitutes the best path at any particular time. Sometimes it may be because jews in different circumstances see the world differently e.g established banker vs recent poor immigrant in 1880′s London, or simply because sometimes there might be two paths which both seem equally viable but conflict somehow.

    If you accept that jewish group strategy pretty much boils down to

    “discriminate against the host population more than they discriminate against jews”

    then the only way the long-term success of that strategy can fail is if the host population notices. If the host population notices before jews have taken complete control of the state then the jews get expelled (again). If the host population doesn’t notice until after the jews have taken complete control of the state e.g the Soviet Union, then the jews will panic and go on a murdering spree of unimaginable scale.

    So it’s important not to be noticed.

    And the thing about Israel is it’s like a gigantic flashing neon sign with added sirens.

    Personally i think jews in the west are completely split. There are those who put the survival of Israel above all else and those who’d actually quite like Israel to go away because it makes jews too visible.

    I wonder if that’s what lies behind the Podheretz type neocons. The worry that the invisible jews in the west might one day decide to cut the cord.

  23. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 29, 2010 - 11:48 pm | Permalink

    Barkingmad says: “If it were not a benefit, why are they doing it at the rate of over 50%?”

    Jews in America have intermarried at high rates because the liberalism that leads to that is profitable individually, because it licenses you to do anything you want and thus to cash in to the maximum on the Jews’ advantages, and it’s good for the Jews as a whole, because it does a terrific job of breaking up and sterilizing the potential enemies of Jews; and yet it’s so poisonous on a family and community level that you can’t make widespread use of it without suffering negative effects.

    This is like asking why soldiers would harm themselves by handling Agent Orange. The servicemen who did this were trying to poison the jungle, not themselves. Only later did the full extent of the risk become obvious.

    Barkingmad says: “Are they famous for hurting themselves, for shooting themselves in the foot? I’ve seen no reason to believe so.”

    Yes, they are famous for shooting themselves in the foot. High levels of Jewish cultural aggressiveness to non-Jews have often brought significant negative consequences to Jews. Aggressively breaking up non-Jewish White culture with something that turns out to have lesser but still serious social toxicity for Jews is par for the course.

    Excessive celebration of the advantages of wealth and success, which in a sense is what Jewish liberalism is, has also been a regular problem. Jews are well aware they are better off with non-Jews not knowing or at least not thinking about how very well the Jews are doing, especially when times are tough for the non-Jews, but over and over Jews can’t help themselves. They have to rub their success and specialness in the non-Jews faces. They have open out their mouths and be big shots. They have to boast about how clever they are. If the goy next door has a Christmas tree up, a Jew may feel that his Hannukah celebrations have to be bigger, even though Hannukah is only a minor festival and there is no need for it to be a competition. Whatever the non-Jew has, the Jew is eager to enjoy more of.

  24. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 30, 2010 - 12:05 am | Permalink

    Re: Wandrin, May 29, 2010 at 11:12 PM: see, ESTHER, in your Bible. That’s the dynamic in it’s religious, paradigmatic form.

  25. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 30, 2010 - 12:46 am | Permalink

    Wandrin says: “I think it’s possible for a group of jews who all believe in the primacy of “is it good for the jews” and all equally paranoid about non-jews to have different ideas as to what constitutes the best path at any particular time.”

    Sure. And Jews like anybody else have different feelings about what’s good for them personally. If you’re doing so well that it would be easy to make aliyah, maybe you’re doing so very, very well that it would be hateful to you to give up the network of connections, wealth and power that you and yours have worked to weave over generations.

    Maybe instead of moving to Israel, you can find some way that the place where you are right now and the resources you have your fingers on now can serve Israel, and in that way you can satisfy your conscience.

    That’s natural. A lot of people are very satisfied with that answer. They do a lot for Israel every year, not only by giving but through influence.

    However, it’s tougher if you’re doing well compared to non-Jews but not all that well, and your soft liberal life and education haven’t prepared you to be the much harsher and directly dominating you that you’d have to be in Israel, and you can’t see anything you could do that would help Israel to be stronger than its neighbors. It already is stronger than its enemies. You’re superfluous.

    It’s easy for young Jews to become disconnected and not think about the Jewish homeland at all.

    Yet if there was a war in which Israel was endangered – not just a bit less successful than expected, but actually threatened, existentially – masses of those supposedly disconnected young Jews would discover that they are far more ethnically, religiously and emotionally connected to Israel than they realize. They would get a shock, and discover that they are not superfluous but part of a whole that must and will crush its evil enemies.

  26. Daybreaker's Gravatar Daybreaker
    May 30, 2010 - 5:42 am | Permalink

    Also, Barkingmad, on that “over 50%,” refer to the archives here for “Ted Sallis: Jewish Intermarriage”.

  27. May 30, 2010 - 7:11 am | Permalink

    KMacD: “In the same way, traditional pressure to marry kept genes for homosexuality in the gene pool because people with homosexual tendencies got married and had children. There is doubtless strong selection pressure against homosexuality now — ironically, because gay activists have succeeded in making homosexuality an acceptable lifestyle in the West.”

    John R. Bradley in his new book Behind the Veil of Vice makes a similar point. The last chapter discusses homosexuality in the Islamic world. The Koran condemns it, but, uniquely, lists no punishment. There has never been any vast crusade or moral panic involving it. It is presumed that every boy is involved in it, and some may continue to “indulge” as adults, but as long as certain rules are followed, above all, shutting up about it, no one cares or notices.

    But “ironically,” as you say, the only problem arises when “gay activists” arrive and demand that homosexuals separate themselves out into an “oppressed minority,” put on silver hot pants, and march. There’s an amusing anecdote about some press-whore who’s made a career in Western media as “the only gay man in Algeria.”

    The same thing happened in India, where anti-homosexual attitudes were brought over by the Victorians.

    The biggest irony: as long as the West is dominated by Judaism, the incursion of “the West” or “modernity” or “progress” will mean the imposition of the crude customs of a forgotten tribe of Bronze Age nomads.

  28. May 30, 2010 - 7:22 am | Permalink

    KMacD: “So Cohen agrees with Beinart that American Jewish activist organizations will be run by nationalist Jews and the entire American Jewish community will be increasingly nationalist. And I predict that American Jewish nationalists will continue to advocate liberal policies in America.”

    This is what I have characterized on my blog as “The Judaic Two-Step.” The Jew always wins, because he’s on both sides of the issue; heads he wins, tails you lose.

    Notice how every “debate” seems to be Jewish Liberal vs. NeoCon? For example, there’ll be a shrill Judaic Dyke demanding “gay marriage” and a paunchy “White” guy from a Neo Con think tank defending “Judeo-Christian family values.”

    Some choice!

  29. Finrod's Gravatar Finrod
    May 30, 2010 - 9:03 am | Permalink

    On the point of intermarriage, I believe I have some insight. Jews have ambivalent feelings. They don’t want smart, influencial Jews to intermarry. They don’t mind for dumb, low class Jews to intermarry. It’s a sort of positive eugenics technique. They strengthen the core of loyal Jews in this manner. Plus, as others have discussed previously, they have valuable inroads into the gentile populations for influence, a platoon of useful idiots.

    The status of half-Jews is ambiguous and frequently in flux. A smart, successful person of mixed blood is Jewish. If not, then not. Philip Markoff is half Jewish, and as such, is NOT Jewish. Justin Jinich, shot by a non jew in a faux “hate crime”, is half Jewish, but in all but the earliest media pronouncements is Jewish, because they want to showcase “hate crimes” against Jews for political purposes.

    Half Jews clearly benefit from the nepotism, strengthening their loyalty to Judaism. Take a look at Hollywood’s cadre of stars of mixed blood: Shia Leboeuf, Emile Hirsch, Jake Gylennhall, Gweneth Paltrow, Jack Black, and many more.

  30. Finrod's Gravatar Finrod
    May 30, 2010 - 9:12 am | Permalink

    It’s like a family. Everyone claims their rich relations, and fails to mention the members from the wrong side of the track!

  31. maxsnafu's Gravatar maxsnafu
    May 30, 2010 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    @eurodele
    You are a fountain of good sense.

  32. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 30, 2010 - 9:53 am | Permalink

    Wandrin said:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:52 PM

    @Mark
    “much to the chagrin of the libertarians.”

    If you set libertarian ideas above everything else then i don’t think that is compatible with ethno-nationalism but i’m in personally in favour of libertarianism inside the constraints of EGI: anarcho-fascist or libertarian nationalist or somesuch term.

    The libertarians DO set libertarian ideas above everything else. That’s why they are willing to permit any form of degeneracy—so that there will be a minimal number of laws and they will be “free” to loot society, i.e., to set an economic agenda that permits them to steal that societies assets. The Libertarian Party is in favor of the complete racial mixing and mongrelization of the races. Did you see the link and the platform planks that I posted above to the Libertarian Party?

    Libertarianism is an individualist ideology. Racialist thinking, folkish thinking, White Nationalism, or what ever you want to call it, is a group/racial ideology. The two ideologies are mutually exclusive.

    Any ideology that is suitable for, and compatible with, White survival, must serve racial interests above all else. That is why libertarianism won’t be permitted to see the light of day in any future White Nationalist nation. In fact, given the nature of a folkish society, it is doubtful that there would even be any libertarians in it. I believe that libertarians WANT to live in a White society and that there will be attempts to alter any future White folkish society by the libertarians to suit their beliefs. Such attempts will be punishable by death.

    The really hypocritical thing about libertarians is that they claim to be “self-made”. But they’re not. Everything they do is done in a communal context—a group or groups of people working together. It’s just that the libertarians want to claim the credit, along with nearly all of the money.

    The “ethno-nationalism” and “anarcho-fascist or libertarian nationalist” that you speak of are mutually exclusive. They will never coexist because their goals, interests, and core beliefs are different.

  33. HA's Gravatar HA
    May 30, 2010 - 11:39 am | Permalink

    KM describes normative white society by “muted individualism” and “hierarchic harmony,” and finds that whites are predisposed to market exchange. That means white libertarians will get some of what they want in a WN state: in particular, they can make lots of money in the approved private sector (if they’re any good). If that’s not enough, if they demand all of what they want, as in absolute individual autonomy, they’ll have to emigrate. They may be happier living in offshore financial centers, left alone with their money, with no communal obligations. We’ll definitely be happier without them.

  34. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 30, 2010 - 12:48 pm | Permalink

    HA said:
    May 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM

    “KM describes normative white society by “muted individualism” and “hierarchic harmony,” and finds that whites are predisposed to market exchange. That means white libertarians will get some of what they want in a WN state: in particular, they can make lots of money in the approved private sector (if they’re any good). If that’s not enough, if they demand all of what they want, as in absolute individual autonomy, they’ll have to emigrate. They may be happier living in offshore financial centers, left alone with their money, with no communal obligations. We’ll definitely be happier without them.”

    Yes, there will be “market exchange”, but the economic system established in a tribal folkish White nation could be best described as “limited enterprise”, not free enterprise. By definition that means that it will not be libertarian. Taxes will be high on those who make the most of the “limited enterprise” system and they will certainly incur military obligation since they have the most to lose financially if something seriously threatens that society. They will be required to be the first to defend that society against all threats and will occupy the most dangerous positions in the military.

    Libertarians won’t exist in that society and, yes, they will live in a different geographic location. The moment they see that they will be required to defend the nation, they will scatter like cockroaches. Living “offshore”, they will not be permitted to interact with, or try to profit off of, that White society.

    The good news is that there aren’t many libertarians. That’s why there’s little if any chance of them implementing their program. You have no doubt noticed that they rarely win an election. There is no place on Earth where there is a society like the one that would result from the implementation of the Libertarian Party platform.

    Dr. William L. Pierce on “Tribes”
    Text file here: http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs9812a.html
    Listen to the audio file of it here: http://www.natall.com/cgi-bin/audio.cgi?year=1998
    Scroll down to 12/5/98.

  35. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 30, 2010 - 12:54 pm | Permalink

    @mark

    “The libertarians DO set libertarian ideas above everything else.”

    Yes but i don’t. I put libertarian ideas second to blood. As long as preservation of the genetic interests of the nation are incorporated into a constitution as a kind of “prime directive” that always over-rides other arguments then each nation could experiment with all sorts of different government forms.

    For example my anarcho-fascist state would be a police state on the borders but the opposite inside the borders.

  36. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 30, 2010 - 1:42 pm | Permalink

    @Barkingmad
    “If it were not a benefit, why are they doing it at the rate of over 50%?”

    I think it is a benefit with attached risks. jewish group competition works much better when they are invisible as a group. Therefore looking physically similar helps and *some* intermarriage is a benefit. Hollywood is a good example where generations of intermarriage makes it increasingly possible for jews to use jewish actors instead of needing to import non-jews.

    (I assume there’s a substantial amount of this going on in SE Asia at the moment as jews move over there.)

    However if there’s too much of it there’s a risk of the group fragmenting.

    @Barkingmad
    “Are they famous for hurting themselves, for shooting themselves in the foot? I’ve seen no reason to believe so.”

    Seems to me their whole history involves shooting themselves in the foot. The underlying mechanism for their group strategy is paranoia. The behaviour created by the paranoia eventually provokes the host nation into a reaction. The reaction adds another chapter to the lachrymose history which fuels the paranoia.

    @Daybreaker
    “Yet if there was a war in which Israel was endangered – not just a bit less successful than expected, but actually threatened, existentially – masses of those supposedly disconnected young Jews would discover that they are far more ethnically, religiously and emotionally connected to Israel than they realize.”

    That is no doubt true however i still believe that *at the moment* there is a growing ambivalence to Israel not based on disconnection from their jewish roots but on a cost-benefit analysis of “is it good for the jews?” simply because Israel makes them too visible. I think you’re right that this attitude if it exists would likely be swept away by emotional attachment in the face of a future endangering war but i think it exists at the moment.

  37. May 30, 2010 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    Mark’s straw man arguments totally ignore both the libertarian-Christian founders and libertarian nationalism.

    Racial authoritarians like Mark are a Bolshevik’s wet dream. Following pied-piper programs like his would just get tons of Whites labeled treasonous, terrorist and killed off or arrested and sent to the gulag.

    There is no conflict between libertarian nationalism and white consciousness. Just because Whites have let things go so far before finally starting to organize doesn’t mean they should or will go rushing into the arms of absolutists. In fact, absolutists make it harder for Whites to organize because they are so polarizing, and they lack perspective and judgment.

    The kind of unthinking dupes who would fall for rhetoric like Mark’s are of the red-faced types who went off half-cocked following 9/11 screaming and yelling that we’re in a Judeo-Christian clash of civilizations death struggle with Islam.

    The Zionists played them for fools, too.

  38. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    May 30, 2010 - 2:20 pm | Permalink

    @Chris Moore
    “In fact, absolutists make it harder for Whites to organize because they are so polarizing, and they lack perspective and judgment.”

    Some libertarians are absolutists also and it’s important to recognize that globalist open borders type libertarianism will increasingly be promoted as an ideological weapon by people who only care about the freedom of billionaire oligarchs.

  39. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 30, 2010 - 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Chris Moore said:
    Mark’s straw man arguments totally ignore both the libertarian-Christian founders and libertarian nationalism.

    Yes, it does, and they should be ignored. The society they created served their needs at that time. They had little concern for the future of their race. That’s why they mixed with the Negroes.

    Chris Moore said:
    Racial authoritarians like Mark are a Bolshevik’s wet dream. Following pied-piper programs like his would just get tons of Whites labeled treasonous, terrorist and killed off or arrested and sent to the gulag.

    Tons of people now in the USA are labeled “treasonous” and “terrorist” and are given long prison terms. Every nation has its standards for what is “treason” and “terrorism”. You’re just looking for a situation where you and your allies can legally steal the assets of the society. It’s not likely that there will be any libertarians in the “gulags” since they won’t be permitted entry into the folkish White nation.

    Chris Moore said:
    There is no conflict between libertarian nationalism and white consciousness.

    Yes, there is. The term libertarian nationalism is an oxymoron. Those two terms are in conflict. Libertarianism is an individualist ideology. Nationalism assumes group-think. White consciousness is even a stronger form of group-think.

    Chris Moore said:
    In fact, absolutists make it harder for Whites to organize because they are so polarizing, and they lack perspective and judgment.

    Why would YOU want Whites to organize? According to your Party platform such thinking is “bigotry”, and is “irrational and repugnant”. See here: http://www.lp.org/platform

    From the Libertarian Party platform:
    3.5 Rights and Discrimination
    “We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.”

    You’re trying to create a state where the races will be permitted to blend completely—playing right into the Jews’ hands.

    There is no place on Earth where there is a society like the one that would result from the implementation of the Libertarian Party platform.

  40. May 30, 2010 - 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Mark, you’re basically attempting to lay the pathologies of Statist-Corporatism, Statist-liberalism and cultural Marxism, which subsidizes and encourages many of the things that you are complaining about, on libertarianism.

    The Libertarian Party doesn’t speak for all small ‘l’ libertarians. The Christian libertarianism of the founders worked well for America for decades before the country was infiltrated and corrupted by subversives, and it can work again through libertarian nationalism that respects the American people, and protects American sovereignty.

    You apparently believe that because the country was corruptible, the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater, and only a narrow, institutional racism can work. But that ignores the thousands of years of success of Western Civilization which had no hard and fast uniform policies of institutional racism, and the success of America before it was systematically and subversively attacked by money worshippers, Zionists and Leftists.

    Besides, the kind of racial authoritarianism you fantasize about simply isn’t practical or attainable in the modern world without setting up some kind of Israeli-like police state and then systematically manipulating, controlling and brainwashing the citizenry, and pitting it against the rest of the world as the Zionist leadership has done to Jewry. The very best outcome that could even be hoped for under such a “vision” would be the nightmarish world of Orwell’s 1984 where a few police state super powers wage perpetual low level war on each other and keep their populations manipulated, controlled and guarded like cattle.

    I won’t bore readers by continuing this pointless back and forth because Mark continues the bad will tactic of setting up straw men and putting words and policies in my mouth that I don’t subscribe to.

  41. Phil Tracy's Gravatar Phil Tracy
    May 30, 2010 - 6:58 pm | Permalink

    As Peter Beinart notes, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations continues to insist that “Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values . . . ”

    The Conference may be right, though not in the way it suggests. Hillary Clinton just reaffirmed that the United States reserves the “right” to act unilaterally in its own (read: ruling class) interest. Sounds a lot like Israel to me. As those who had been reading their Marx would know, existence determines consciousness.

  42. mark's Gravatar mark
    May 30, 2010 - 8:25 pm | Permalink

    Some libertarian psycho-babble snipped….

    Chris Moore said:
    The Christian libertarianism of the founders worked well for America for decades before the country was infiltrated and corrupted by subversives, and it can work again through libertarian nationalism that respects the American people, and protects American sovereignty.

    “Libertarian nationalism” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. Those two terms are opposites.

    It isn’t imperative that it works again. Every country has and has had a constitution and at times it becomes necessary to establish a new one. What worked for the Founding Fathers was fine for its day, but history goes on and the needs of a country change and so should the political structure. What the Founding Fathers wanted and needed during their time is irrelevant now. You’re living in the distant past.

    You people are in favor of permitting American manufacturers to relocate their facilities overseas, and for businesses that must operate in the USA, because it might be a service business, you favor complete open borders that can only result in the flood of the USA with Mexicans and other third-worlders.

    Here it is in the Libertarian Party platform plank 3.4, Free Trade and Migration:

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration
    We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.

    When they speak of “individuals” and “human capital” in the plank above, that includes, and mostly results in, non-white “individuals” and “human capital” entering into and remaining inside of White living space.

    You are in favor of allowing the complete racial mixing of White with non-whites and are opposed to any government intervention to stop it. I asked you specifically this question and you have avoided answering it forthrightly.

    I was listening to a libertarian on the radio today and he was discussing the minimum wage law and how horrible it was because without it he would be able to put several more people to work. I know a libertarian personally and he has told me that if he were able to hire people for $1.00 per hour he would be able to give these people a fair amount of job training, etc. This is what the libertarians want to establish. You can see it on their website. This is the kind of thing that serves the interests of a very tiny portion of society and that’s why the libertarians rarely win an election. They want a country where people, except for their crowd, are living in poverty, serving in the “all-volunteer” military (see plank 3.1 in the Libertarian Party platform) which the libertarians are in favor of, knowing that they won’t be putting themselves or their family members in harm’s way by joining.

  43. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    May 30, 2010 - 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Regarding Section 3.5 “Rights and Discrimination” being condemned as “irrational”. Watch out for that word! It’s a favorite of the Randites/Objectivists.

  44. ben tillman's Gravatar ben tillman
    May 31, 2010 - 7:28 am | Permalink

    If it were not a benefit, why are [Jews intermarrying] at the rate of over 50%?

    They’re not, or at least there’s no reason to think they are. There really hasn’t been any serious study since the 1989 study by Medding et al., which is cited in SAID or CoC. That study showed just a 14% intermarriage rate for first marriages.

  45. eurodele's Gravatar eurodele
    May 31, 2010 - 10:15 am | Permalink

    Exactly. The vast majority of Jewish first marriages are intra-racial precisely to bestow a full Jewish pedigree on the children. Only after the lineage is assured does the matrimonial eye of the typical (divorced) Jew rove in a goyish direction.

  46. Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
    May 31, 2010 - 10:47 am | Permalink

    About 7 or 8 years ago a rabbi was publicly wailing about the “51%” rate of intermarriage. I didn’t make this up. It has just now occurred to me that maybe they want us to think this is the case.

    However, while I don’t hang around in jewish circles, I do know a fair number. I would say that 75% of these couples are jewish/gentile.

  47. Gussie Fink-Nottle's Gravatar Gussie Fink-Nottle
    May 31, 2010 - 11:27 pm | Permalink

    About 7 or 8 years ago a rabbi was publicly wailing about the “51%” rate of intermarriage. I didn’t make this up. It has just now occurred to me that maybe they want us to think this is the case.

    Maybe it’s not just for our sake but for their sake as well. A sense of threat is good for maintaining a strong group consciousness. Exaggerate the threat posed by out-marriage, increase the support by American Jews for Israel, or for Jewish organizations in the US.

  48. Bob in Idaho's Gravatar Bob in Idaho
    June 2, 2010 - 4:07 am | Permalink

    Here is a question I guess for Dr. MacDonald. The second paragraph mentions “… liberalism of American Jews is a strategy that is …”.

    My question is what is the definition of the term “strategy” within Dr. MacDonald’s discipline? Disciplines often give to terms, meanings which are more specifically defined than in their everyday usage.

    In particular, many in the public, when they read “liberalism of American Jews is a strategy” presume that the above article is referring to a conscious, planned, intended, strategy in the minds of Jewish people. My guess is that the discipline says no such thing about the meaning of the term. The term “strategy” may, in this case, be conscious, or it may not be conscious, among people in the Jewish group. Or it may be conscious among some de facto leaders within the Jewish group, or it may not be. This is my guess as to the usage of the term within the discipline.

    Of course readers of an article may always, on their own, decide or believe there is conscious willfulness among some in the Jewish group, even though the article itself is not making any such assertion.

    (For the general reader, let me say that the reason some terms in a discipline are required to have a more specific meaning than in everyday usage is because the methodology of the discipline is only meant to produce true statements when such terms have that specific meaning.)

    Here is an example of a strategy basically wholly outside of consciousness. I used to know a cat. When I was walking one day, I saw it nestled to the ground, completely still as a statue, except its tail, which, every three or so seconds, whipped like an upside down pendulum from one side to the other. About three feet directly in front of the cat were a few birds. I think the cat’s focus was almost totally on the birds, whereas the birds’ focus was on the tail, circling back and forth every few seconds behind the statue. With the birds’ apparent poor visual mental ability at seeing a cat almost on top of them, the shifting tail was a powerful, successful distraction strategy. I think the cat was barely conscious of its tail, let alone that this was a strategy.

  49. admin's Gravatar admin
    June 2, 2010 - 7:09 am | Permalink

    Re Bob in Idaho: Activist Jews and Jewish historians have often commented on the fact that Jews made alliances with Blacks and attempted to advance the rights of other minorities, including sexual minorities, because of the belief that any intolerance against one group would translate to other groups. That is, they felt that by helping blacks they would help themselves. This was quite explicit. The same goes for making America a non-White country by immigration. They believed it was in their interest as a minority to do so. However, you also see them framing it in terms of high-minded commitment to human rights as the essence of Judaism–a non-starter in my opinion. Kevin M

  50. Kratos's Gravatar Kratos
    June 2, 2010 - 7:58 am | Permalink

    Would you qualify to be a “liberal” if carrying ulterior motives totally contrary to “liberalism”?

    I really never consider them “liberal” as they all defend Orthodox Jewish political positions. If “Liberalism” does not fit them at home, then it is fit for no purpose to anybody else.

  51. Bob in Idaho's Gravatar Bob in Idaho
    June 4, 2010 - 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Admin June 2, 2010 responded “Re Bob in Idaho: Activist Jews and Jewish historians have often commented on the fact that Jews made alliances with Blacks and attempted to advance the rights of other minorities, including sexual minorities, because of the belief that any intolerance against one group would translate to other groups. That is, they felt that by helping blacks they would help themselves. This was quite explicit. The same goes for making America a non-White country by immigration. They believed it was in their interest as a minority to do so. However, you also see them framing it in terms of high-minded commitment to human rights as the essence of Judaism–a non-starter in my opinion. Kevin M”

    1. Thank you. That completely clears up the question on how you were using the word “strategy” in this situation. You were not using the word in its evolutionary sense to refer to an evolutionary strategy of a group of creatures over a vast period of evolutionary time. You were using the word in its standard everyday sense.

    Maybe I should say to the general reader, that I am quite into looking carefully at the meaning of words, and then looking at the sentences they are used in and whether that sentence, with those meanings, is true in the situation being talked about.

    Quite often words have several different meanings, or sometimes different nuances of meanings, which are relevant to whether the sentences are true. Sometimes a sentence, or whole paragraph, can, on careful thought, surprise one with having different meanings, and that can only be due to some words somewhere having potentially different meanings where one assumed there was only one meaning.

    So it is good to specify things carefully. The trouble is that it would take pages of explanation for people to say even simple things, and even if the writer went through the trouble of writing the pages, the reader or hearer of the words would long since have lost track of all the information. So, whether one is a moth or a human, one still must absorb a vast number of imperfect pieces of information about the environment going on about one, and make repeated imperfect decisions about what to make of it all, and those decisions must constantly be made in very fast time frames. It is that way with a moth’s mental system deciding every say half second to the next, what action to take. It is the same with the human mental system as it reads across words on paper, every half second to the next, deciding what to do with the words it has just seen, and then moving onto the next several words. The mental system simply has no other choice, if it is not to spend an hour or more on every sentence.

    I hadn’t intended to get so detailed. But as I read Admin’s response, a large number of questions started to build on each other, and every way that I tried to phrase them, the issues remained complicated. So finally I decided to just write the above and go to the base of things.

    Each person has their own reading of any section of material that they read. There are similarities between different people, but differences too. I have a certain reading of Admin’s response and in that particular reading, certain questions come up. In other people’s readings, the same questions may have come up, or at the other extreme, other readers may not have any idea how such a question could have come up.

    Here are some questions that arose in my reading of Admin’s response.

    2. Look toward the end of the response. “However, you also see them framing it in terms of high-minded commitment to human rights as the essence of Judaism”.

    This part I am alright with. I indeed see the Jewish activists and so on as casting various things in terms of high-minded commitments and to human rights. I am alright even though the term “rights” is starting to come under question from various authors as being not defined and perhaps as not being able to be defined.

    Still I am alright with the quoted section and I accept that various Jewish activists etc have used the word “rights” without their saying too much if anything about what they mean by the word (and probably if they did say, they wouldn’t stick long to what they said. And that sort of thing makes it a nightmare in trying to nail down what they are talking about, in terms of it having a reference to something out in reality. It is, though, much easier if we use a picture of reality in which the Jewish activists etc use words more as objects without meaning, as objects used to trigger emotions in the hearer or reader, where giving the words a solid consistent meaning is not their goal. Interestingly, anyone making a statement to this effect can be set upon with the whipped-up threatening emotions of the others in whom the emotions were triggered in the first place. Again, the whole thing is a nightmare for anyone trying to get at a more accurate statement of reality.)

    Anyway, I go along with all of “However, you also see them framing it in terms of high-minded commitment to human rights as the essence of Judaism”.

    But what I have a hard time getting my arms around is the phrase “a non-starter in my opinion”.

    “However, you also see them framing it in terms of high-minded commitment to human rights as the essence of Judaism–a non-starter in my opinion.”

    Is the phrase “a non-starter in my opinion” constructed from the desire to have a sound-bite that captures some complicated ideas? Generally, without sound-bites, it would be too difficult to say things, because it would take too many words. Also, what is the intended specific meaning or meanings of the phrase?

    For now, I leave it at that. I will be moving most of my focus to other things, such as the current Palestinian Israeli event. But if there are comments, I will try to make an acknowledgment, probably much briefer than the above.

5 Trackbacks to "More on Peter Beinart"

  1. on May 29, 2010 at 8:17 am
  2. on June 13, 2010 at 2:07 pm
  3. on June 17, 2010 at 12:05 pm
  4. on June 18, 2010 at 10:09 pm
  5. on June 19, 2010 at 3:37 am

Comments are closed.