Jewish Attitudes

The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part One

“Sexual morality — as society, in its extreme form, the American, defines it — seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”                                                                                        Sigmund Freud, 1908.

“There will be other forms in addition to our classic marriage…We will experience a broader spectrum of socially accepted forms of sexual life.”                                                                                                           Volkmar Sigusch, 2015.

sigusch

Volkmar Sigusch

Volkmar Sigusch (1940- ) may not be a familiar name to TOO readers, but for those concerned about the modern assault on traditional attitudes to gender and sexuality it should be. You might have encountered the term ‘cisgender,’ a Sigusch creation that is rapidly gaining traction in common speech. For those unfamiliar with it, it has come to replace “normal” and even the more deviant-friendly term ‘heterosexual.’ Specifically, the term refers to those “who feel there is a match between their assigned sex and the gender they feel themselves to be. You are cisgender if your birth certificate says you’re male and you identify yourself as a man.” The goal behind inventing such a bizarre and convoluted label for that which is natural and healthy is, of course, to further dilute the identity of the present and coming generations, and convince us all that there is no “normal,” only different positions within an ever more colorful spectrum.

By undermining the meaning of what it is to be male and female, one undermines the healthy concept of the family. And when the healthy concept of the family possessed by a given group is undermined, that group is pushed ever closer to genocide via (using the United Nations lexicon) “deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and “imposing measures intended to prevent births.” The bumper crop of terms like ‘cisgender’, cooked up with alarming frequency by the “sexologists,” helps reduce marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of children within that union, to a mere “option” on a veritable menu of possible sexualities, gender identities, and family structures. In this brave new world there is no “normal” or “ideal” since all “models” are allegedly valid and equal. Read more

Jewish thinking about Syrian refugees — again

Apropos of Douglas Murray’s warning the the Jewish community, this if from the JTA: “For Jewish groups, Syrian refugees are a reminder — not a threat

American Jewish organizations don’t see the Syrian refugees as a threat; they see them as a reminder.

With rare unanimity on an issue that has stirred partisan passion, a cross-section of the community has defended the Obama administration’s refugee policy in terms recalling the plight of Jews fleeing Nazi Europe who were refused entry into the United States.

“The Jewish community has an important perspective on this debate,” the Orthodox Union said in its statement. “Just a few decades ago, refugees from the terror and violence in Hitler’s Europe sought refuge in the United States and were turned away due to suspicions about their nationality.”

Echoed the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly: “We can sadly remember all too well the Jews who were turned away when they sought refuge in the United States on the eve of, and during, World War II.”

Eleven Jewish organizations joined another 70 groups in pleading with Congress to keep open the Obama administration’s program, which would allow in 10,000 refugees over the next year from among the 200,000 to 300,000 in Europe. Neither the Orthodox Union nor the Rabbinical Assembly signed the letter.

Among the signatories were mainstream bodies like the the Reform movement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the National Council of Jewish Women, as well as HIAS, the lead Jewish body dealing with immigration issues, and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella body for Jewish public policy groups.

Read more

Conservative Politician Punished for Pointing Out “France Is a White Country”

The Overton window appears to be shifting. The current migratory crisis has led to unusually explicit discussion of race in Europe even among our traditionally lackluster “conservative” parties (most spectacularly in Hungary). French conservative politician Nadine Morano recently argued during a talk show that France is a White country and should not become Muslim:

For there to be national cohesion, we need to maintain a balance in the country, that is to say its cultural majority. We are a Judeo-Christian country – as General [Charles] de Gaulle used to say – of white race, which is welcoming foreign persons. I want France to stay French. I do not want France to become Muslim.[1]

Morano did not explicitly say she wanted France to remain a White country, hiding behind quotes of De Gaulle, but that was pretty heavy dog-whistling. She later doubled down on her statement, citing De Gaulle’s Mémoires d’Espoir on Europe:

For my part, I have, since always, but today more than ever, felt that which is common to the nations which inhabit [Europe]. All being of the same white race, of the same Christian origin, of the same way of life, bound between each other since always by countless relations of thought, art, science, politics, commerce, it is in line with their nature that they come to form a whole, having in the world its character and its organization.[2]

Morano has naturally been subjected to massive media attacks and been condemned by her own political party. She defended herself in an interview:

To subject me to a media lynching, to crucify me in the media, because I dared to quote the statements of General de Gaulle, even as in our country radical Islam is establishing itself, where we see more and more veiled women at the end of the school day, which we did not see ten years ago, and nobody is questioning themselves![3]

It is important to note that Morano’s party, now called “Les Républicains,” claims to be the “Gaullist” ideological successor to the General. Les Républicains are led by quarter-Jewish former president Nicolas Sarkozy, who in the past has said France requires coercive miscegenation [métissage], that “Israel’s right to security [. . .] is the struggle of my life,” and that the Shoah means humanity has “contracted with the Jewish people a debt which cannot be extinguished.”[4]

Les Républicains were outraged at Morano’s statements, the party making the ludicrous claim — really a genocidal lie — that France has “always” been multiethnic, citing the existence of Black African colonies centuries ago. The party has decided to punish Morano by eliminating her candidacy in upcoming regional elections but, interestingly, she will not be purged from the party. Given that the regions have fairly insignificant powers, this can be considered a mere slap on the wrist.

It is unclear why Morano made her statement. No doubt the rise of the Front National, the migrant crisis, and the trickle-down influence of online nationalist media are putting pressure on mainstream conservatives. Importantly, several members of Les Républicains have discussed reform or elimination of birthright citizenship, which would tackle one of the root causes of the multiculturalist nightmare. Given that Morano has faced relatively minor political punishment — despite serious media punishment — more conservative politicians may well begin to explicitly condemn Afro-Islamic demographic change and voice the interests of indigenous Europeans.


 

[1]“Nadine Morano évoque la ‘race blanche’ de la France,” Le Monde, September 29, 2015. http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2015/09/27/nadine-morano-evoque-la-race-blanche-de-la-france_4773927_823448.html

[2]Charles de Gaulle, Mémoires d’espoir, volume I, 181. http://www.fdesouche.com/652791-race-blanche-les-pretendus-gaullistes-ont-il-lu-de-gaulle

[3]On BFM TV. http://www.fdesouche.com/652879-race-blanche-nadine-morano-persiste-et-signe

[4]Discussed in Guillaume Durocher, “Paul-Éric Blanrue and the Jews: From Celebration to Censorship,” The Occidental Observer, September 24, 2015. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/09/paul-eric-blanrue-and-the-jews-from-celebration-to-censorship/

On Jewish Privilege and the “Dictator Mentality”

It’s been noted previously at TOO that Jews are happy to be considered White when they benefit from it. Historically, Jewish efforts at crypsis and gaining acceptance among Whites were pursued in order to obtain significant political, social, educational, and economic benefits.[1] Efforts at being seen as White have varied over the course of millennia. Some of the earliest efforts involved abandoning phenotypic characteristics that marked them out as a very distinct population, and which provoked White hostility. Since the Enlightenment in particular, there has been a powerful trend towards abandoning special Jewish languages, modes of dress, styles of hair, and ways of dressing. Even in modern times, rhinoplasty, or nose reshaping, has been so common among Jewish female teens that Tablet argued it was at one point a Jewish “rite of passage” that fell “somewhere between their Bat Mitzvahs and their wedding.” Aside from alterations to outward appearance and behavior, prior to emancipation the Jews of Europe often saw conversion to Christianity as a meal-ticket to mass acceptance, and with it admission to the franchise, political office and commercial opportunities. These “conversions of convenience” were hardly sincere, but were sufficient for Whites to admit Jews into the ranks of their society. A major part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy is therefore the penetration of White society, assisted by the adoption of the outward appearance of conforming to White norms, thereby enabling the untroubled transfer of resources from Whites to the cryptic Jewish population.

The Jewish evolutionary strategy is also adaptive and responsive to cultural and demographic change, and humans more generally are “flexible strategizers” in pursuit of evolutionary goals.[2] Jews in particular have employed countless strategies involving crypsis in their bid to combat hostility from Whites and other ethnic groups. They have been assisted in this by their above-average IQ, and related talents in general purpose cognitive processes — enabling them to constantly adapt, shift and change posture in response to novel situations. One of the simplest and most basic of these strategies is what has been called the “shell game of Jewish identity.”[3] This is the game where Jews will describe themselves primarily as either an ethnic group or a religion, depending on the angle of the attacks, or the nature of the disabilities, they face. New contexts demand the need for new “games.” American demographics are shifting ever faster against Whites, and Leftist dogma has taken on a life of its own within some of the new minorities — on occasion quite apart from Jewish intellectual influence. In the new context, Jews are seen by minorities as too phenotypically and culturally similar to Whites to escape the accusation that, even if not White, they have enjoyed the fruits of that social unicorn, “White Privilege.” Read more

Does Jewishness matter?

A while ago, there was a minor media firestorm about a situation at UCLA that erupted when a Jewish student was being confirmed for a position on the student council’s Judicial Board. The student was asked a series of questions about whether her Jewish commitments would affect her performance on the Board. This, of course, violates a major taboo. From the NYTimes account:

“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

For the next 40 minutes, after Ms. [Rachel] Beyda was dispatched from the room, the council tangled in a debate about whether her faith and affiliation with Jewish organizations, including her sorority and Hillel, a popular student group, meant she would be biased in dealing with sensitive governance questions that come before the board, which is the campus equivalent of the Supreme Court.

The discussion, recorded in written minutes and captured on video, seemed to echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries, students and Jewish leaders said.

The council, in a meeting that took place on Feb. 10, voted first to reject Ms. Beyda’s nomination, with four members against her. Then, at the prodding of a faculty adviser there who pointed out that belonging to Jewish organizations was not a conflict of interest, the students revisited the question and unanimously put her on the board. …

“We don’t like to wave the flag of anti-Semitism, but this is different,” Rabbi Aaron Lerner, the incoming executive director of the Hillel chapter at U.C.L.A., said of the vote against Ms. Beyda. “This is bigotry. This is discriminating against someone because of their identity.”

The university’s chancellor, Gene D. Block, issued a statement denouncing the attacks on Ms. Beyda. “To assume that every member of a group can’t be impartial or is motivated by hatred is intellectually and morally unacceptable,” he said. “When hurtful stereotypes — of any group — are wielded to delegitimize others, we are all debased.”

The esteemed Dr. Block, whose Jewish identity is doubtless completely irrelevant to his statement, is going way beyond the evidence by saying that the proceedings assumed that “every member of a group can’t be impartial.”  The obvious reason for the questions was because there was doubt, not assumption. Anyone in his or her right mind would realize that it would not exactly be surprising if Ms. Beyda’s Jewish identity influenced how she voted on a lot of issues, most particularly Israel and the now common controversies over the BDS movement on campus. Read more

Ashkenazi Jews Are Not White

In Steve Sailer’s blog about Aaron Sorkin, he quotes a New York Times article:

And Libby Hill, writing for the AV Club, said: “Aaron Sorkin doesn’t understand who the victim is. He doesn’t understand how empathy works. And he, as a rich, powerful, white man in the United States, doesn’t understand that he is among the most privileged people in the world.” [Sailer’s emphasis]

So, according to Ms Hill, Aaron Sorkin is a White man. As Sailer points out, referring to him as “a rich, powerful, Jewish” would be career-ending.

It’s a nice example where Jews are considered to be White when they benefit from it — calling attention to Jewish, as opposed to White, power is definitely not a good career move. Read more

The German-Jewish Kulturkampf in the Weimar Republic

The beginning of the Weimar Republic (1918–1933) in Germany was characterized by a surge of the German Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) and revolutionary activities by the communists. The German emperor had fled the country, the empire was economically in tatters due to the Great War (1914–1918) and the political right was in disarray. It was not until the rise of National Socialism (NS) in the 1930s that the right regained the upper hand in Germany. A good example of this shift from left to right is the city of Breslau (600,000 inhabitants in 1928), where the SPD scored 51.19% of the popular vote in 1919 and the NS party received 51.7% in 1933. The question is how the balance shifted from left to right and how this can be attributed to the result of a struggle between revolutionary Jews and nationalist Germans.

Breslau Gymnasium

In the German educational system the gymnasium was (and still is) the highest level of secondary education and a stepping stone for entrance at a university. The gymnasium was the ‘nursery’ for the German cultural and political elite. Around 1900 it was dominated by the Christian and nationalistic German culture of the day, the total opposite of the cosmopolitan and pacifist ideas which are prevalent nowadays. This did not mean that this culture was unopposed, not least because the gymnasia were not a pure German Christian affair. In both the 1880s and 1900s more than 30% of the pupils in the Breslau gymnasia were Jewish (Till van Rahden, Jews and other Germans, p. 126). A further illustration of Jewish overrepresentation in higher education is the census of 1879 which showed that of every 10,000 Protestant inhabitants of Berlin, 81 had obtained secondary education; the rate among Catholics was 22 and among Jews 350. In Upper-Silesia, the region adjacent to Breslau, the rate was 81 Protestants, 19 Catholics and 423 Jews (A. Prinz, Juden im deutschen Wirtschaftsleben, p. 89). Read more