One of the great political and economic commentators of our time is Thomas Sowell who seems to put out a book a year if not more. His latest just reached me this week. Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays is a collection of recent columns dealing with political, economic, cultural and legal issues.
There is, in his view, a derangement in the world that is value driven and cultural. The erosion of our long-standing culture of personal responsibility is at the centre of this change. The shifting personal values within our communities are in his view moving Western civilisation in some very dangerous directions. While he finds the American President utterly out of his depth in virtually every area he has had to deal with, the ultimate blame is placed on the voting public that allowed him to become President in the first place. Sowell writes:
While the Obama administration in Washington is not the root cause of the ominous dangers that face this country, at home and abroad, it is the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago…. That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be President of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism – and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand – speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of our culture….
The really painful surprise is that so many people based their hopes on his words, rather than on the record of his deeds. What that means is that, even if we somehow manage to survive this man’s reckless economic policies and his fatal foreign policy actions and inactions, the gullibility and fecklessness of those voters who put him in the White House will still be there to be exploited by the next master of glib demagoguery and emotional images, who can lead us into another vortex of dangers from which there is no guarantee that we will emerge as a free people or even as a viable society….
When we look back at the decades-long erosions and distortions of our educational system, our legal system and our political system, we must acknowledge the chilling fact that the kinds of dangers we face now were always inherent in these degenerating trends.
In reading this, I was reminded of a quote originally written in Czech that was sent to me by a friend:
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.
The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.
We depend on the sound judgement and good sense of our fellow citizens to maintain the peaceful, free and prosperous societies in which we live. Mixed in with providence and a bit of good fortune, that is all there is.
And George W. Bush wasn’t completely out of his depth in every area that he had to deal with?
Every sentence the second, Czech quotation applies equally to George W. Bush, if not ‘a fortiori’.
Barry Obama might be out of his depth but let’s not get precious here. The US is going to be paying for Bush’s disasters for a lot longer than it will pay for Obama’s.
Dandy Warhol
20 Aug 10 at 6:29 pm
If you want increased personal responsibility fine, let’s start by eliminating limited liability. Let’s also start that when a massive financial company goes belly up those responsible have to divest their funds to the those who have suffered through their stupidity. Now I know that won’t happen … .
John H.
20 Aug 10 at 6:41 pm
Sowell reads like Rush Limbaugh with a thesaurus.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 7:55 pm
Thomas Sowell is the pre-eminent American intellectual.
Infidel Tiger
20 Aug 10 at 8:02 pm
Good line THR, but have you read him? Sounds not.
ken n
20 Aug 10 at 8:05 pm
“There is, in his view, a derangement in the world that is value driven and cultural.”
No kidding. Care to name anything that is not value driven and cultural? And after doing so, explain how in your opinion it is “a derangement”.
Actually, don’t bother. Which I know you won’t.
Crowbar
20 Aug 10 at 8:07 pm
Care to name anything that is not value driven and cultural?
gravity.
speed of light.
photosynthesis.
..
(oh you want stuff that’s to do with people? Okay then)
pregnancy; behaviours that cause pregnancy; birth; death; differences in average height and strength between the sexes; sleep cycles; jealousy; hate; love; grief; taboos against incest; language; laughter; the list goes on.
(*yawn*… that was too easy)
daddy dave
20 Aug 10 at 8:16 pm
Yes, absolutely right John H.
Dandy Warhol
20 Aug 10 at 9:52 pm
Good line THR, but have you read him? Sounds not.
I’ve read a few of his articles. There’s nothing there that isn’t standard US-right, hardline Republican boilerplate. But to those for whom Ayn Rand is a ‘philosopher’, Andrew Bolt a credible source, and Tony Abbott a symbol of small government freedom, I can understand how Sowell might be construed as an ‘intellectual’.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 10:01 pm
Which is to say, THR hates anyone to the right of Bob Brown. This we knew.
An excellent summary, I thought. Obama is unquestionably the worst president in American history but it is true that the more systemic and worrying aspect of his catastrophic ascendancy is how he rose to prominence in the first place. Harry Reid explained part of it when it was revealed that he’d assured top Democrat Party strategists that Obama the candidate was only a “light-skinned Negro” who didn’t talk like a nigger and was therefore saleable. Joe Biden agreed that he was “clean and ariculate.” In other words, the Democrats sought to triumph in 08 with style (black man – historical, momentous, yay) over substance (Obama had never done or achieved anything and had always been a Marxist loony). The key thing that permitted this travesty to succeed was the compliance of a media which quarantined damaging truths about Barack Obama. The JournoList scandal is the tip of this iceberg. That was the clincher.
C.L.
20 Aug 10 at 10:24 pm
Excellent article about how a man with a lifetime of zero achievements and limited mental capacity was made to believe he was “the one”. Reality has proved a bitch for Barack “Silver Spoon” Obama:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/343946
Infidel Tiger
20 Aug 10 at 10:29 pm
THR
Sowell is what you and your people call an “Uncle Tom.”
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 10:43 pm
CL
Towit, Obama passed the brown paper bag and rule test.
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 10:50 pm
A socialist mate of mine of the old school – reckons all those ‘South Fekkinefrikkkan Jews’ should be sent back to where they came from, and that capital punishment should be brought back for people like Bill Henson – is outraged that Obama is described as either ‘black’ or ‘African’ American, when his entire success rests of the rearing by his white grandparents!
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 10:54 pm
Sowell is what you and your people call an “Uncle Tom.”
Uncle Tom was intelligent.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 10:57 pm
Quite right. And Sowell’s mere degrees from Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, and Stanford are clear evidence he is a dunce in the company of you and Lefty Kim, right?
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 10:59 pm
A socialist mate of mine of the old school – reckons all those ‘South Fekkinefrikkkan Jews’ should be sent back to where they came from
I’m deeply skeptical that you have ‘socialist mates’, but in any event, the unsavoury reputation of South African Jews derives not from socialists, but entirely from other Jews. It is within the Jewish community that a series of unflattering stereotypes are circulated about South African Jews (i.e. they’re bigoted, extremely crass and tasteless, nouveau riche, etc).
THR
20 Aug 10 at 11:06 pm
The more interesting question is what went wrong with the American project and the root cause of the decline.
The answer is blindingly obvious in my opinion but few will suffer to hear it.
Blake Van Buren
20 Aug 10 at 11:07 pm
And Sowell’s mere degrees from Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, and Stanford are clear evidence he is a dunce in the company of you and Lefty Kim, right?
Tony Abbott was Rhodes Scholar. His political vision – a ‘Green Army’ and a phone call to the president of Naura. He’s a highly-credentialed mediocrity (or scoundrel) in other words. The same could be said of Sowell, but perhaps more so, since Abbott, for all his vacuousness on policy, at least possesses strategic smarts to a degree.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 11:08 pm
The answer is blindingly obvious in my opinion but few will suffer to hear it.
Well go on. The suspense is killing me.
daddy dave
20 Aug 10 at 11:10 pm
Few will read this book and not come away convinced:
http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229
Blake Van Buren
20 Aug 10 at 11:14 pm
Kevin MacDonald applies the methods and perspectives of evolutionary psychology
Well that destroys his argument right there. Evol Psych has some value in elucidating some drivers of human behavior and culture but using it to prove a position is facile because Evol Psych itself is now regarded as highly problematic. When it comes to understanding human beings this mistake is made time and again, so it is somewhat laughable for McDonald to criticize Freud and Boas for being “unscientific” when he is employing a paradigm that is intself unscientific. Again, there can be value in the approach but I at least would NEVER use Evol Psych as a foundation stone to for an argument.
Another fucking anti-semite ditched down the sewer where he belongs.
John H.
20 Aug 10 at 11:23 pm
THR
Please remind me again when Sowell became a party politician, and front-runner for elected public office, and Abbott became a scholar?
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:28 pm
John H
I think ev. psych is useful as provocation and speculation, but it is not as evolved as mechanics.
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:30 pm
THR quite obviously doesn’t know who Sowell is. He’ll be busy googling. “Black man? Oh, my.”
Infidel Tiger
20 Aug 10 at 11:32 pm
Culture is everything, it explains most of the variation in living standards across the globe.
There has been only one group in America that has systematically attacked and destroyed the Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage that lay at the heart of the nation, by any measure they have been enormously successful.
Evolutionary biology may or may not be a flawed discipline but this book is required reading for anyone who wants to understand what went so fundamentally wrong for America in the 20th century.
Blake Van Buren
20 Aug 10 at 11:34 pm
Please remind me again when Sowell became a party politician, and front-runner for elected public office, and Abbott became a scholar?
Both are mediocrities, Sowell more than Abbott. It’s something they share, in addition to imbecilic politics.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 11:34 pm
the unsavoury reputation of South African Jews derives not from socialists, but entirely from other Jews.
Oh dear. You REALLY need to get out more. I’ll leave that one to speak for itself.
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:37 pm
Oh dear. You REALLY need to get out more. I’ll leave that one to speak for itself.
What I said was entirely correct, and your knowledge of Jews is most likely limited to re-runs of Seinfeld.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 11:39 pm
I was talking about my knowledge os socialists not Jews.
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:46 pm
And yet you had never heard of Sowell until 4 hours ago, and still have no clue who he is.
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:48 pm
Of course I’ve heard of Sowell, you idiot. One of your mouth-breathing comrades was recommending him to me just a few weeks ago. And he’s regularly cited by the right – conservatives love a black man who will endorse all their articles of faith. He’s a mediocrity possibly less than that. To him, Obama is a ‘fool’, yet Obama, despite his many flaws, still towers above Dubya. The ‘citizenry’ are to be considered a danger, revealing Sowell’s profound contempt for democracy.
Maybe you should read the ev psych book. It’s about your intellectual level.
THR
20 Aug 10 at 11:52 pm
To him, Obama is a ‘fool’, yet Obama, despite his many flaws, still towers above Dubya
Now, I might not be a logician, but I do declare, WTF!?
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:54 pm
And while we’re at it, since when does “Jew” mean “non Socialist”?
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:55 pm
One of your mouth-breathing comrades
A minute ago, you were claiming I had no socialist mates. Dude, put ketamine away.
Peter Patton
20 Aug 10 at 11:57 pm
Take off the clown makeup, and have a look at how Sowell fawns over Dubya:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/01/16/the_bush_legacy
And yet he has the audacity to describe Obama as a dangerous fool. Sowell is obviously a spineless shill, of the sort all too prevalent in the media.
And while we’re at it, since when does “Jew” mean “non Socialist”?
Not only do you know nothing about Jews, you know nothing about Socialists. Your understanding of socialism is basically derived from taking the non-socialists at LP and projecting their image across the leftist world. What next – will you lecture us on twentieth century history based on Hogan’s Heroes and News Ltd blogs?
THR
21 Aug 10 at 12:01 am
Well on the latter, I think you and Lefty Kim already own that space.
Peter Patton
21 Aug 10 at 12:10 am
The hardest working man in show business takes his 6th holiday for the year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7952796/Obamas-to-begin-sixth-holiday-of-the-year.html
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 10 at 12:14 am
You have to say one thing for the Jews though, they are immune to political correctness, though you’d expect that given they invented it.
Sounds like Peter P knows where I’m coming from. I’m wrecked though and desperately need to retire … you kids duke it out and I’ll check on the winner in the morning.
Blake Van Buren
21 Aug 10 at 12:15 am
IT, one has to take a Hippocratic attitude when it comes to US presidents. It’s better, for everybody, that they take holidays. That way they can’t start wars or implement the Patriot Act.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 12:16 am
Couldn’t he lounge around the White House in his jocks watching Different Strokes re-runs?
Infidel Tiger
21 Aug 10 at 12:19 am
Or Hogan’s Heroes?
Peter Patton
21 Aug 10 at 12:22 am
It’s funny how Peter has been able to become a leftie in CL’s view and right-winger in THR’s. I think people who have a bit of an independent mind (like PP and Adrien) are almost universally despised. Oh well…
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 12:32 am
Obama’s going at a little under one holiday a month now. Where can I apply for that kind of work?
Michael Fisk
21 Aug 10 at 12:42 am
Where have I called Peter a lefty, Boris? I criticised his dumb flirtation with Gillard. On many other things, he’s to the right of Rudolf Hess. Adrien is not “independent”. He is a lefty who pretends he isn’t when lefties do stupid things.
C.L.
21 Aug 10 at 12:50 am
THR, you are so deadly boring! Have you ever express respect for a person you strongly disagree with? By all means, ridicule GWBush, but… I have never heard of this Sowell but I am sure he just can’t be mediocre. And Abbott certainly isn’t either. And you don’t need to be a right-winger or even to mread her to realise that Ayn Rand was a remarkable woman and an outstanding talent…
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 3:25 am
And you don’t need to be a right-winger or even to mread her to realise that Ayn Rand was a remarkable woman and an outstanding talent…
Ha ha! That, folks, was Boris doing his stand-up routine. And now, please try the veal.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 8:15 am
Blake van Buren links to a book called: The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
In other words, America’s problem is that there are too many jews. It seems that Blake is a jew-hating bigot. So disappointing, as I was expecting an interesting answer. I have no doubt which side Blake would have been on in 1941.
daddy dave
21 Aug 10 at 8:23 am
THR, it seems you have nothing of substance to reply?
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 2:03 pm
Boris, we’re discussing Ayn Rand here, a ‘philosopher’ for the vain, socially inept and intellectually backwards. There’s nothing of substance to respond to.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 2:08 pm
THR, why do you judge people in this way? Do you really think that every person you disagree with is vain, socially inept and intellectually backwards? Amazingly narrow-minded you are, THR.
Gor example, I believe Marxist theories brought the greatest evil in modern history, but it would be foolish to deny that Marx was an exceptinally taelnted person. And Obama is not a good president but a telented guy nonetheless.
But for you, anyone on the right is a mediocricy, a fool, intellectually backward… so boring.
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 2:17 pm
Though sometimes I do feel that Obama is a bit stupid. For example, why would he get himself into this debate about the mosque? One day saying they have the right to build it, and the next day ‘clariying’ he did not mean it was a wise thing to do. There is no way to get out of this debate clean. He should have stayed away.
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 2:19 pm
Do you really think that every person you disagree with is vain, socially inept and intellectually backwards?
No, just Ayn Rand worshippers
Gor example, I believe Marxist theories brought the greatest evil in modern history, but it would be foolish to deny that Marx was an exceptinally taelnted person
But Marx was exceptionally talented. The same cannot be said or Rand, or Sowell. Rand in particular promotes ideals that are far more ‘evil’ than anything Marx wrote.
But for you, anyone on the right is a mediocricy, a fool, intellectually backward
No, but Sowell is a hack, and nobody who thinks that Rand is ‘talented’ ought to be taken the least bit seriously. As for Abbott – I acknowledged that he’s a Rhode Scholar, but I’ve also suggested that he’s a policy flake. I’m happy for you to direct me to any Abbott policies I’ve missed, which may point me to his under-appreciated talents.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 2:24 pm
Bullshit.
Marx was a trust fund kiddie and anti semite nut, Rand saw the very best in people and Sowell can do good analysis.
.
21 Aug 10 at 2:38 pm
FMD you’re a bitter, twisted unit today.
Do you want Kennet to write on you or JC to counsel you.
.
21 Aug 10 at 2:41 pm
I’m not FMD, and the thought of cultists praising Rand’s ‘philosophy’ inspires laughter in me, not bitterness. She didn’t see ‘the best’ in people, only herself. One of Catallaxy’s quotes from Rand says that wealth derives from intelligence. This is obviously false, at a factual level, and equally obviously an attempt to flatter the vanity of suckers.
Back to Sowell – where is this good analysis? All I’ve ever seen from him are bog-standard talking points that every US right-winger regurgitates.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 2:51 pm
THR, you don’t even need to read Rand to understand she was extraordinary. I have a left-leaning friend in LA who keeps all her books. He does not agree with many things but he thinks it is a must read. And just her biography speaks for itself…
But in reality you denounce Rand simply because her views are too far from yours.
Please name one individual who you strongly disagree with but who is an exceptional talent.
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 3:23 pm
Please name one individual who you strongly disagree with but who is an exceptional talent.
Mario Vargas Llosa is a right-leaning liberal who’s politics do not appeal to me, but who is nonetheless a brilliant writer. The same cannot be said of Rand. Neruda’s Stalinism was a blight on his thinking, but he was nonetheless a genius. Two of the biggest and best – Dostoevsky and Tolstoy – have views that I find completely unacceptable (particularly Fyodor), but I’d rank them as being two of the most towering figures of all of world literature.
It’s a bit sad that some people’s worlds are so impoverished that they mistake Rand for an ‘exceptional talent’. In all sincerity, I’d be more than happy to recommend some reading material that would help you to put Rand in her proper place.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 3:32 pm
In other words, America’s problem is that there are too many jews.
The re edit is actually more accurate.
In other words, America’s problem is that there aren’t enough jews.
American science, literature, culture damn well everything wouldn’t be the same without them especially after the war.
JC
21 Aug 10 at 3:41 pm
THR, you are so narrow-minded, it is boring. But I still understand and respect your point of view. Unlike yourself.
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 4:22 pm
Cheer up, Boris, your guys are in with a chance this evening. Sit down, and pour yourself a Tony Abbott special (60% lemonade/light-beer shandy).
THR
21 Aug 10 at 5:00 pm
THR, Libs are not my guys, they just a lesser evil. LDP are not my guys either (far too radical for me, and focused on too many marginal issues).
Boris
21 Aug 10 at 5:02 pm
Blake
I think you’ve got the wrong end of my stick. As anybody here will attest – including THR!! – I am a rabid Jew-lover, so absolutely not, would I ever support such a boneheaded misunderstanding of the US that the Jews are a bad influence on the US.
If I had my way, I would PAY the Hebrews to migrate to Australia!
Peter Patton
21 Aug 10 at 7:10 pm
“One of Catallaxy’s quotes from Rand says that wealth derives from intelligence.”
It does.
Sorry.
.
21 Aug 10 at 9:02 pm
It does.
Sorry.
Dot obviously has posters in his bedroom of such self-made, wealthy geniuses as Prince Charles and James Packer.
Either that, or he and Ms Rand are a bit dopey.
THR
21 Aug 10 at 10:38 pm
Behind every degenerate, fanatical, left-wing political movement that has set about destroying the American nation over the past century has been a hard-core group of Jewish intellectuals with access to deep pocketed co-ethnics.
Anyone who thinks all Jews are evil is an idiot, but anyone who fails to see the impact of Jewish influence on the history of the 20th century is similarly retarded.
Epic fail Daddy Dave, labeling someone an anti-Semite is tantamount to conceding you have no valid argument.
People might try reserving judgment until they have read the book. Or is that too much to ask?
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 6:14 pm
Blake:
Aren’t you better suited to Stormfront? No kidding I can’t imagine anyone on this site believing the same things you do or that you have any hope in hell of convincing them. Why don’t you just quietly go and post your anti-Semitic screed somewhere else.
JC
22 Aug 10 at 6:20 pm
“Or is that too much to ask?”
Of course it is. Reading a book recommended by a you?
Are you kidding?
There are a million times more books out there than one can possibly read in the lifetime.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 6:23 pm
Epic fail Daddy Dave, labeling someone an anti-Semite is tantamount to conceding you have no valid argument.
That’s only true if there’s no such thing as anti-semitism.
Similarly, if you tried to tell me that the earth was flat and warning me not to go sailing because ships can fall off the edge, I’d label you a flat-earther.
“Ho! Flat earther!” you’d cry. “Is that all you’ve got? You lose the argument by such name calling!”
People might try reserving judgment until they have read the book. Or is that too much to ask?
Yes. I already have an informed opinion on the topic; and have no interest in reading books that explain the pernicious influence of Jews in modern society.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 6:55 pm
In fairness, I’ll say this, Blake.
I’m sure that book is well written, well researched, and persuasive. However, it’s still wrong.
The reason is that Jews can be found throughout all the elite echelons of American society. That’s certainly true. They are over-represented in academia, the arts, finance, and elsewhere. Similarly, African Americans are over-represented in basketball, and Mexicans are over-represented in construction.
In none of these situations is there a conspiracy. It’s just the result of ethnic distributions across the workforce.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 7:10 pm
Blake, you may benefit from reading the following article, which I was fortunate to encounter in the very early days of the internet.
http://www.acts17-11.com/conspire.html
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 7:17 pm
There are several commentators on this site who don’t hesitate to make similarly dubious claims about a range of ethnic/religious groups. If a leftie points this out, said leftie is accused of PC namby pambyism. Why is it okay to make wild generalisations about Africans or Muslims, but do the same about Jews, and you’re accused of being from Stormfront?
THR
22 Aug 10 at 7:26 pm
“is it okay to make wild generalisations about Africans or Muslims?”
I don’t think it is.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 7:30 pm
Well, you weren’t one of the commenters I had in mind, Boris.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 7:37 pm
because the ones about Jews usually aren’t true THR.
/troll
Yobbo
22 Aug 10 at 8:19 pm
More name calling, way to convince me guys.
I honestly have an open mind as to whether I’m wrong but you’re not helping. If this is the only level on which you can conduct an argument why don’t you apply tomorrow for a job at Fairfax or the ABC?
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 8:39 pm
Blake, there’s been no more name calling. I take back the “bigot” insult since you say you have an open mind.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 8:46 pm
Tell me why this is wrong?
You may not have time to read a book but this shouldn’t take you more than 10 minutes at most:
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/051105_stalin.htm
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 8:47 pm
Nazi, anti-Semite, conspiracy theorist, bigot by my count, not quite a torrent but I can see where this is heading.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 8:51 pm
Blake:
No one really wants to convince you one way or another here. We’re really not that interested in this anti-Jewish crap you’re into.
Go to stormfront and I’m sure you’ll get a decent hearing.
JC
22 Aug 10 at 8:53 pm
Exactly, you’re not interested so you resort to name calling.
Why is this wrong?
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/030918_neoconservatism.htm
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 8:57 pm
Blake, Stalin persecuted the Jews relentlessly. For example, the so-called Doctor’s Plot was fabricated as an excuse to really go to town on them.
Jews find themselves in upper echelons not because they’re some kind of coordinated borg, or beehive, but simply because they have a higher average IQ.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 8:58 pm
No one really wants to convince you one way or another here.
Can’t help myself, JC.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 8:59 pm
More name calling, way to convince me guys.
I understand why some might hate psychoanalysis or Marxism, two ‘Jewish’ trends of thoughts cited in your book. I have more trouble understanding the Frankfurt school. A number of US-based right-wingers seem to think that the Frankfurters are responsible for some international conspiracy to control the media, the arts, education, and everything, yet in practice, I’ve never seen the Frankfurt school influence anybody beyond a few social science academics. If anybody could elaborate on just why these guys are evil, it would be most helpful.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 9:04 pm
I agree they have a higher IQ and that is the reason for over-representation but that does not explain the antipathy they have typically demonstrated toward the broader population of the countries in which they have lived.
They are a complete contrast to other high IQ minorities in terms of the intensity of their politics and enthno-centrism.
Stalin and the broader Communist regime only became anti-Semitic after witnessing the excesses of the Jews toward the Russians and other gentiles.
In turn, the Jews in the West only became anti-Communist after they saw the backlash against them in the USSR.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:07 pm
Blake, Stalin persecuted the Jews relentlessly. For example, the so-called Doctor’s Plot was fabricated as an excuse to really go to town on them.
Jews find themselves in upper echelons not because they’re some kind of coordinated borg, or beehive, but simply because they have a higher average IQ.
The claim that Bolshevism was Jewish preceded Stalinism. Whilst Stalin was an anti-semite, he wasn’t anti-semitic all the time – he set up an Autonomous Jewish Zone, for instance (unfortunately , it was in sunny Siberia). The genetic argument is highly dubious, also, as is the argument from intelligent. There were a small number of highly intelligent (notionally) Jewish Bolsheviks (Trotsky, Zinoviev) who were senior guys, plenty who were small fry, and more than a few dopey thugs.
More broadly, the claim that Bolshevism was Jewish is false, and tends to have been a motif used by anti-Semites (most famously, Hitler). Russian/Ukraine Jews were only identified as Jews by their enemies, never by themselves. Most of the revolutionary leaders were not Jewish, but it’s not difficult to see why Jews in a hostile country might have identified themselves with an emancipatory movement.
The links between Jews and neoconservativism probably have more to do with cold war politics, the CIA backing pliant ‘intellectuals’, and left-liberals shifting to neoconservatism due to their pro-Israel apologetics.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 9:12 pm
THR: the Frankfurt School were the initial practioners of cultural Marxism which morphed into the political correctness and moral relativism that is currently killing America and the West today.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:14 pm
That’s the claim in general terms, Blake, but where’s the specific detail? The Frankfurt School practiced neither ‘cultural marxism’, political correctness (as it’s understood today) or ‘moral relativism’.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 9:16 pm
that does not explain the antipathy they have typically demonstrated toward the broader population of the countries in which they have lived.
But they haven’t. See that’s where your theory meets reality and come unstuck. Or let me put it to you from a different angle. There is almost always friction between ethnic groups and the cultures they exist in. Look at, for example, the Cronulla riots (discussed here a lot and let’s not get into that). In fact, harmonious ethnic situations are very rare.
Another point on that is that the bulk of the plain, in-front-of-your-eyes evidence is that Jews are usually the recipients of racism, not the racists themselves.
And before you start digging around for reasons why that might be, let me save you the effort. There is no reason. Racism is a base human weakness, it is found everywhere. It is tribalism. There is no reason other than a need to identify “us” and “the others.”
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 9:19 pm
“does not explain the antipathy they have typically demonstrated toward the broader population of the countries in which they have lived. ”
Does antipathy explain the heavy backing the early British-based Rothschilds gave the British government in the Napoleonic Wars, even when it was looking pretty certain Napoleon would win?
Quentin George
22 Aug 10 at 9:21 pm
Thanks for setting me straight on those historical points, THR.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 9:21 pm
political correctness and moral relativism that is currently killing America and the West today.
these are two different things and they’re not completely in harmony with each other.
Political correctness is a moral framework. It is an extension of the achievements of the civil rights movement and feminism of the middle twentieth century, and an attempt to culturally isolate and censure those who cling to retrograde beliefs, particularly about race and gender. it’s an understandable but misguided phenonmenon.
Cultural relativism is something entirely different, and I don’t have the energy to get into it right now.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 9:25 pm
neither came from the Jews, by the way.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 9:26 pm
THR: It’s all thoroughly documented in MacDonald’s book with reference to primary evidence and extensive footnoting. A lot more than we can say for most social science and political research these days.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:27 pm
Racism has many expressions. In less educated people it is crass name calling, in more educated people it is subtler and rarely acknowledged publicly due to prevailing social mores. Both exist, but the former is the only variety people recognise as “racism”.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:31 pm
Self-interest explains the Rothschilds backing the British against France.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:33 pm
I am not at all sure Jews on average have higher IQ. We may not know for sure why Jews are disproportionally represented in some influential roles and professions. But to explain this by some form of conspiracy is a pure and undistilled lunacy.
“that does not explain the antipathy they have typically demonstrated toward the broader population of the countries in which they have lived. ”
WTF?
“Stalin and the broader Communist regime only became anti-Semitic after witnessing the excesses of the Jews toward the Russians and other gentiles. ”
This is the most extraordinary statement I have seen in recent memory. Sounds like Stalin is generally known as a nice guy who however became anti-semitic because Jews behaved badly.
In reality of course Stalin was the worst tyrant Russia has ever seen and murdered millions of his countrimen in cold blood. Jews was one of the peoples he prosecuted. He murdred millions without any particular reason, and it would be strange if Jews were the only ones that were prosecuted for their particular behaviour.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 9:35 pm
The Frankfurt School: a bunch of humorless types who worship poor old Marx. Critical theory is such a bleak wordlview. Anyhting that seeks to banish beauty is really useless. Far better read Scruton on beauty than to trawl through the sophistry of the Frankfurt johnnies. It’s like reading Firbank instead of Joyce.
Rococo Liberal
22 Aug 10 at 9:36 pm
“Self-interest explains the Rothschilds backing the British against France.”
Nice try. In this way you can “explain” any behavior.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 9:36 pm
‘Since the early 1990s, paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan and William S. Lind have argued that “Cultural Marxism” is a dominant strain of thought within the American left, and associate it with a philosophy to destroy Western civilization.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism#Responses_to_conservative_critiques_of_Cultural_Marxism
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:45 pm
The Frankfurt School: a bunch of humorless types who worship poor old Marx.
There’s some humour in the Frankfurt school. Also some bleakness. There was, you knowm, WWII, the Holocaust, and all.
It’s like reading Firbank instead of Joyce.
Pfft. How many conservatives, or right-liberals for that matter, read Joyce for fun? Atlas Shrugged is your Ulysses.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 9:47 pm
Boris that’s ahistorical, Stalin didn’t become anti-Semitic until the early 1950s.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:48 pm
“Boris that’s ahistorical, Stalin didn’t become anti-Semitic until the early 1950s.”
Well, until 1948 to be precise. But so what?
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 9:51 pm
But Buchanan and Lind themselves fail to explain precisely how we get from ‘Negative Dialectics’ and art and mechanical reproduction to anti-discrimination laws.
Anyway, a couple of years ago I penned some rather brief and glib thoughts on the matter here:
http://lacomplaintedupartisan.blogspot.com/2008/02/why-frankfurt-school-is-hated.html
THR
22 Aug 10 at 9:51 pm
“Stalin didn’t become anti-Semitic until the early 1950s”
Well, actually, more precise would be:
“Stalin did not pursue systematic prosecution of Jews until late 1940s.”
There are indications that he was anti-semitic before that but it was not his dominant feature and did not translate into policy until about 1948.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 9:53 pm
… but that does not explain the antipathy [Jews] have typically demonstrated toward the broader population of the countries in which they have lived.
This is Hutton Gibson’s view of Hollywood, in a nutshell.
C.L.
22 Aug 10 at 9:54 pm
Didn’t you see this earlier?
http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/051105_stalin.htm
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote at length about the different treatment experienced by the Jews, and meted out by the Jews, during the Great Terror.
Churchill acknowledged the dominant role that Jewish intellectuals played in the Bolshevik Revolution.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 9:59 pm
Blake
Jews are also disproportionately found among the intellectual leadership of libertarians hence the likes of Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Kirzner, etc.
Now what is it that libertarianism and communism have in common? Both are essentially ‘fringe’ (and I am not using this in a derogatory sense but to outline how uncommonly held views these are among the average population) political movements based on highly conceptually challenging, systematised and philosophically complex frameworks (i.e. this rules out fringe political movements such as the La Rouche movement).
And who tends to be in the leadership of fringe political movements so defined? High ‘verbal IQ’ professionals. And who tends to be disproportionately found among high ‘vebral IQ’ professionals? Jews. No conspiracy theory necessary. The unfortunate linkage of Jews with harmful political movements like Bolshevism, etc is that Bolshevism, etc took off and libertarianism, which Jews are also disproportionately the leadership of didn’t until recently.
jtfsoon
22 Aug 10 at 10:09 pm
Political correctness and moral relativism are just the applied form of Frankfurt School philosophies.
You link to three paragraphs of your own work THR?
One of which is a sentence that implicitly denounces anyone who raises concerns about the Frankfurt School as anti-Semitic.
I laughed out loud when I saw this is all you had written.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:09 pm
I laughed out loud when I saw this is all you had written
hmmm your sarcasm is making me doubt your good faith approach all along. Okay, looks like I’m gullible an I actually tried to engage with you. I’m a sucker. Should have ignored you from the start like JC.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 10:12 pm
Here’s the other thing – all intelligent immigrant groups are essentially paranoid about the ‘native borns’ turning against them, especially if said native borns have turned against them in the past. And yes, this reaction is perfectly rational and understandable even if said group is ethnocentric themselves.
Dont’ forget that the anti-semitic libel, the Protocold of the Elders of Zion, was essentially a creation of Czarist agents. When the Bolsheviks came to power, at least initially, Jews probably experienced a reduction in the systemic discrimination and persecution directed against them in Czarist years. This can create generational loyalties in the previously persecuted group.
jtfsoon
22 Aug 10 at 10:16 pm
Exactly, I have never at any point said there was any conspiracy. Rather it is the high IQ and extreme ethnocentrism of the Jews gives rise to these Jewish intellectual movements.
Both libertarianism and Marxism are shrill ideologies that only largely only serve to further Jewish self-interest. When they cease to do so, as in the case of Marxism, they are abandoned.
The overriding concern of the people behind these movements is: “is it good for the Jews”.
When libertariansim becomes a liability for the Jews they will round on it as well.
Libertarianism permits people to decide what company they choose to keep, if people decide to become anti-Semitic voluntarily and use libertarianism as a justification you can bet the Jews will swing back to philosophies that support collectivism and social engineering as a result.
There is no point of principle in any of this. It is purely naked ethnic self-interest.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:18 pm
I’m not sure how that ‘exactly’ follows.
Firstly I doubt that any of the Jewish thinkers who contributed to libetarianism were motivated by ethnocentricty.
Secondly the only reason I raised the point of ethnocentricity is that there are other immigrant groups who could be characterised as ethnocentric but nonetheless have voting intentions that can be explained by reference to ‘fear of persecution by the native born’ (i.e. voting Left) while having nothing else in common with the Left which are, unlike Jews not themselves in the intellectual leadership of the Left because they don’t have the same skill sets on average e.g. US Latinos who are disproportionately more socially conservative and Catholic but vote Democrat.
jtfsoon
22 Aug 10 at 10:26 pm
I have won this argument.
Ever notice how many former leftists end up as libertarians? The one constant with a lot of these people is that they are ideologues at heart and the only thing that changes over time is the ideology to which the adhere. It is a defect of character for which there is no cure except honesty and moral courage.
Libertarians are fools in my opinion, as bad as Marxists. Watching people tie themselves in knots in order to justify some inconvenient conclusion their ideology leads them to convinces me of the fact.
There is no room for pragmatism or reality when dealing with ideologues, that is why they will always be fringe movements unlike mainstream conservatism.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:28 pm
Exactly, as in, I agree with you but I add extreme ethnocentrism. Psychological intensity is just as important to consider as IQ.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:29 pm
Psychological intensity
There’s no such thing as “psychological intensity”.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 10:32 pm
You link to three paragraphs of your own work THR?
One of which is a sentence that implicitly denounces anyone who raises concerns about the Frankfurt School as anti-Semitic.
I laughed out loud when I saw this is all you had written
Well, I admit that the post to which I linked was glib. However, so are the accusers of the Frankfurt school. I’ve read Adorno, Benjamin, Habermas and some of the others, and I really can’t see how any honest and coherent reading of them can generate ‘moral relativism’,
PC’, or ‘cultural Bolshevism’. The Adorno quote I cited dealt with the latter concept rather nicely, I thought. Even if we accept that the Frankfurters might have inspired a certain number of Marxist literary theorists, for instance, it’s still an abysmal leap from here to an international plot to weaken the US. Buchanan’s evidence of practical Frankfurter influence is laughably thin.
As for ‘Jewish’ Bolshevism, Wiki has the numbers:
Of the 21 members of the Central Committee (CC) of the Bolshevik party in April 1917,[14] three were ethnic Jews: Lev Kamenev[15][16], Grigory Zinoviev[15][16], and Yakov Sverdlov[15][17]. Of the thirteen members of the committee who—in the historic meeting on October 10, 1917 that led to the October Revolution)— agreed armed revolution was necessary, six were Jewish: Zinoviev, Kamenev, Leon Trotsky, Moisei Uritsky[15][18], Sverdlov, and Grigory Sokolnikov[15] – although Kamenev and Zinoviev opposed the revolution, and Trotsky abstained).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism
Note that the most senior of the ‘Jewish’ Bolsheviks (Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev) all opposed Stalin in the 1920s, before the purges and forced collectivisation, and were all eventually killed by him in one way or another.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 10:32 pm
“I have won this argument”
good for you.
Others will read the thread and mostly judge otherwise, but if you’re happy I’m happy.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 10:33 pm
I don’t understand what the connection is between Communism and Libertarianism, which Blake claims are Jewish-controlled fronts. How are both these ideologies simultaneously serving the interests of Jews? Either property rights are good for the Jews or they aren’t. Which is it, Blake?
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 10:36 pm
The whole point of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement and in pushing through the immigration reform act of 1965 was to change the ethnic composition of America sufficiently so that it would forever prevent the rise of a nationalist movement along the lines of events in Germany.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:36 pm
The whole point of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement and in pushing through the immigration reform act of 1965 was to change the ethnic composition of America sufficiently so that it would forever prevent the rise of a nationalist movement along the lines of events in Germany
See Blake, this is where you go too far.
I would essentially agree with you that Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement can be explained by reference to their historical experience. But whereas I’d model the thinking behind this as ‘If it happens to blacks, it can happen to us’ you go overboard and talk about some large scale population engineering.
jtfsoon
22 Aug 10 at 10:39 pm
Note that the most senior of the ‘Jewish’ Bolsheviks (Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev) all opposed Stalin in the 1920s, before the purges and forced collectivisation, and were all eventually killed by him in one way or another.
But this will be taken as evidence in FAVOUR of Blake’s argument, which is that Stalin was the Gentile who Took Russia Back from the Jews. Actually, he just murdered a shitload of people and was happy to play different groups off against each other when it suited him.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 10:39 pm
I would essentially agree with you that Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement can be explained by reference to their historical experience
That, and some parallels between the Jim Crow regulations and Germany’s Nuremberg laws.
THR
22 Aug 10 at 10:40 pm
The whole point of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement and in pushing through the immigration reform act of 1965 was to change the ethnic composition of America sufficiently so that it would forever prevent the rise of a nationalist movement along the lines of events in Germany.
What does that have to do with the contradiction of a unified ethic group supporting BOTH communism AND libertarianism.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 10:41 pm
Psychology just as important as IQ, to suggest it doesn’t vary amongst different populations is where you are going wrong.
Asians are different to white are different to blacks in temperament. Jews are an outliner on their psychological makeup as well as IQ with a strong tendency toward ethnocentrism to the extent that it is notorious.
I’ve been repeatedly called names and presented with flimsy arguments by way of counter. I’m calling this argument won.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:42 pm
Jewish leaders said explicitly that this was their objective in seeking the immigration reforms!
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:43 pm
Yes, but you asserted that Jews control the libertarian and communist movements in order to serve their group interests. You haven’t provided any evidence for this claim.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 10:44 pm
… read Kevin MacDonald.
Blake Van Buren
22 Aug 10 at 10:45 pm
read Kevin MacDonald
That’s the second time you quote a book as a substitute for argument. You’re clutching at straws.
daddy dave
22 Aug 10 at 10:48 pm
That’s not an argument. If you are going to make an argument, then you need to MAKE it and provide the evidence. Telling me to “read Kevin MacDonald” is like Homer telling me to “read page 21″.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 10:50 pm
“Both libertarianism and Marxism are shrill ideologies that only largely only serve to further Jewish self-interest. ”
This is ridiculous. First, while people of Jewish descent were disproportionally represented in Boclhevism, they were also disproportionally represented in other Russian poltical movements at the time. Secondly, Bolshevist anti-religeous policies led to distruction of all synagoges in 1920s and distruction of all Jewish life assimmilation of Jews, not to mention the expropriation of their property (like private property of all others). Whatever way you spin it, Bolshvism NEVER served Jewish intertests, but only the interest of a few individuals at the top of the movement.
I don’t know the history of libertaniasm so well but I suspect it a similarly bogus suggestion.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 10:59 pm
but as DD said, it is pointless to debate this bigot. Not only he is an anti-semite, but he also denounces libertarian ideology. Came here as a guest and called all of us as serving Jewish interests. And we are still talking to this moron.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 11:03 pm
No Boris, I disagree. If somebody wants to make a controversial argument, we should be engaging and forcing them to justify their position; not sweeping their arguments under the carpet, where they might fester and multiply. If conservatives had taken the same approach to hard leftists a few decades ago, rather than blowing them off by saying “oh, that’s NUTS, it’ll never happen!”, our society would be much better for it and we wouldn’t have so many hard left nutcases in prominent academic positions.
You should google that Youtube video of David Horowitz and the Muslim Students Association woman – he dealt with her very calmly and eventually got her to admit that she wanted to exterminate all Jews before a public audience. It was the most constructive thing he could have done under the circumstances.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 11:11 pm
The same approach should be taken with supporters of Hizb-Ut-Tahrir. That Sky News interviewer did the world a favour by taking their spokesman’s arguments seriously and by the end of the interview he was punch drunk.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 11:16 pm
Too right MF. Let Blake fly his flag of stupidity for all to see.
So come on Blake, what is your evidence that both Marxism and Libertarianism are part of a grand Jewish conspiracy? Put up or shut up.
asf
22 Aug 10 at 11:19 pm
If anyone has screwed the US it is 14th Amendment Marxist, who are LP types; hardly Jews.
Peter Patton
22 Aug 10 at 11:22 pm
Hey, speaking of ‘shrill libertarians only interested in furthering Jewish self-interest’ any news on Terje? Did he make a packet? What is it, $2.30 a vote or something?
Peter Patton
22 Aug 10 at 11:26 pm
Blake,
Can you please point to where Prof. MacDonald has clearly identified those he terms “the organized Jewish community” (from that VDare link)? Is it those he has said a little further on are “identified in some sense as Jews and viewed their participation as in some sense advancing Jewish interests” or is there a less nebulous identification of “the organised Jewish community”?
.
Secondly, how does he identify “…Jewish intellectual and political movements…” a little bit further down? It would seem to be a tautologous statement that
Essentially, he identifies a “Jewish” intellectual movement and then, surprisingly, he finds a strong Jewish identity in that movement.
I am confident, though, if you “won” this debate here you can answer the questions and show why the above statement is not a simplistic intellectual error.
Andrew Reynolds
22 Aug 10 at 11:43 pm
TROTSKY!!?? FFS. He disavowed his Jewishness. He changed his name from Bronstein to Trotsky, FFS. And did I say, FFS?
Peter Patton
22 Aug 10 at 11:45 pm
Yes, good point AR. Having a vague sense of identity and purpose is apparently “organised”. Blake, can we please have an explanation of this?
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 11:46 pm
And no wonder there were a disproportionate number of Jews in the Bolshevik hierarchy. Little more than a decade earlier they had endured the Dreyfus Affair, and it was not until the 1920s, that London Times revealed that The Protocols was a fake.
Peter Patton
22 Aug 10 at 11:48 pm
Michael Fisk, your position is commendable. And for a while I tried to follow this parth. But I am not sure there is a theorem that says that we can always debunk any crackpot theory with rational arguments. You see, we now have to prove that Libertarian ideology is not created to advance narrow Jewish interests. And that ibertarianism is not a shrill ideology. And you see, it is not even conspiracy he is claiming, it is, in his view, part of the Jewish psyche. Fundamentally, these kinds of views are irrational, and I am skeptical that they can be disproven using rational argumnets.
Yes Horowitz “eventually got her to admit that she wanted to exterminate all Jews”. But did he made her change her mind about it? I doubt it.
Boris
22 Aug 10 at 11:49 pm
Most of the people who revere Freud are white middle class US French-speaking college girls; who only do through their deep-throating French Communist post-structuralism.
Peter Patton
22 Aug 10 at 11:50 pm
Who cares? He revealed her and her organisation as a bunch of genocidal pigs and that was enough.
Michael Fisk
22 Aug 10 at 11:53 pm
“The whole point of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement and in pushing through the immigration reform act of 1965 was to change the ethnic composition of America sufficiently so that it would forever prevent the rise of a nationalist movement along the lines of events in Germany.”
Evidence?
Boris
23 Aug 10 at 12:52 am
“Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote at length about the different treatment experienced by the Jews, and meted out by the Jews, during the Great Terror.”
Not sure if you have read the book. I have. It is an antisemitic book with a lot of speculations and outright lies presented as facts. Basically, he puts a large portion of the blame for Russia’s misfortune on the Jews. It is quite sad that such a talented and corageous person was consumed by bigotry…
Boris
23 Aug 10 at 12:59 am
Oh gosh. I have had a misfortune to read some of the crap Blake has linked to. JC sarcastically suggested that Blake should join Stormfront instead. But that’s the same if not worse. Go check it.
Boris
23 Aug 10 at 1:10 am
Where is John Ray when you need him?
Yobbo
23 Aug 10 at 1:40 am
Come to think of it I haven’t read his stuff for a few years, I’ll be back shortly to report the good doctor’s thoughts on the election
Yobbo
23 Aug 10 at 1:42 am
Well, seems he comments mostly on American politics nowadays, cant find a single thing about the Australian election.
This quote may be or not be relevant to Blake’s interests though…
People who drive down the middle of the road tend to get smashed up and I risk that frequently in my writings. For instance, when I mention such things as low average black IQ and the high rate of black criminality, Leftists shriek “racist” at me. But I also like Asians and think that they in general make highly desirable citizens. And various Rightists call me “far-Left” (or worse) because of that!
So I want to set out here exactly how I see racial matters and why:
Ethnicity and group membership is one of the great preoccupations of the human race …. possibly second only to sex. It is also an almost taboo subject among modern-day white liberal Anglo-Saxons. Race is to the modern-day civilized and educated world what sex was to the Victorians — unmentionable. In other words the strength of resistance to discussion of it is a measure of the threat to a civilized order that it is seen as posing.
Amid this fearful silence, I, of course, have always continued to call a spade a spade:
Somebody please tell John that you aren’t allowed to call them spades any more.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/racemid.html
More: http://jonjayray.tripod.com/homepage.html
Yobbo
23 Aug 10 at 1:47 am
Honestly JJR is a machine, he’s still doing at least 15 posts a day, and has been since before Blogger.
Yobbo
23 Aug 10 at 1:50 am
Anyone who calls a spade a spade should be made to use one.
Peter Patton
23 Aug 10 at 1:51 am
Meself, I prefer to call a spade a “bloody shovel.”
Peter Patton
23 Aug 10 at 1:52 am
Boris,
“Luminaries” from Stormfront and National Vanguard turned up to applaud MacDonald when he received an award (from the magazine of which he is editor).
Seems like an all-round sensible nice guy.
I will be interested in Blake van Buren’s response. BTW – I thought I remembered his name. He seems rather eager to comment on the “Fuc.k Off We’re full” group on facebook.
Andrew Reynolds
23 Aug 10 at 2:26 am
Andrew, I am not surprised. From the style of his comments I expected something a bit more subtle (but equallty poisonous). But when I started reading…. Gosh this is recycling of decades old arguments… Blake is saying he keeps an open mind, but I think someone who can take such stuff seriously is beyond redemption.
BTW I checked Blake’s comments on other threads here, and he seems not to be focused on one issue, as these guys normally are…
Boris
23 Aug 10 at 3:23 am
FTR I have read about Kevin Macdonald. i have even read his own summary of his arguments on sites like Vdare. Basically his theory is rubbish, firstly because group selectionism is a discredited approach in evolutionary psychology. Secondly even if one accept group selectionism (which is the only way you end up with a theory where one whole race supposedly uses some gene maximisation function) evolutionary psychology is supposed to operate at unconscious levels yet Macdonald talks about a race that is supposedly so transcendent of such processes that they happen to come out with these vast political/phoilosophical systems to maximise their genetic interests!
Macdonald basically takes evo psych and turns it into a parody of itself. A detractor of evo psych couldn’t have done a better job.
jtfsoon
23 Aug 10 at 7:34 am
THR you dope of course has wealth can be inherited but it still needs to be created.
Gates’ descendants may become utter deadshits but the man is a genius, at least at management and marketing. BTW he learned to code in the early 70s on an old piece of shit in a school computer lab.
Rand was right. The creation of wealth is a function of intelligence.
.
23 Aug 10 at 7:52 am
PP – The only LDP candidate to break the 4% was Ben Buckley in Gippsland. So he’ll come away with a cool $10,000 less expenses. Otherwise, no federal funding for our candidates…
Tim Quilty
23 Aug 10 at 8:12 am
Tim, sounds like y’all need to hire Pauline as a consultant next time!
Peter Patton
23 Aug 10 at 8:20 am
Where is John Ray when you need him?
John Ray would agree 100% with Blake, and likewise thinks that the Frankfurt School was some Jewish plot. Then again, Ray was a member of a neo-Nazi party for several years.
THR
23 Aug 10 at 10:32 am
THR you dope of course has wealth can be inherited but it still needs to be created.
Of course it has to be created. Nobody said it emerged ex nihilo (which is halfway to being Rand’s position). The question is how it’s created.
THR
23 Aug 10 at 10:34 am
Sowell is a former Marxist, and a recognised scholar of Karl Marx, who converted to free market economics.
Evidence of Sowell’s “mediocrity”, here and here.
Capitalist Piggy
23 Aug 10 at 12:22 pm
Who ‘recognises’ Sowell as a Marx scholar? The Marxists themselves certainly don’t. As I said initially, he’s a bog-standard right wing hack, with a thesaurus.
THR
23 Aug 10 at 3:34 pm
THR
You don’t need to be a marxist to be a marxist scholar. Even though I am no scholar, I am very interested in religion, but am an atheist.
Peter Patton
23 Aug 10 at 3:38 pm
Sure, but no Marxist scholars actually recognise Sowell as one of their own. The site marxists.org still has the writings of Hitchens and other apostates, but there’s not a single reference to ‘recognised scholar’ Sowell.
THR
23 Aug 10 at 3:56 pm
Whatever happened to our debate over the veracity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Just when things were getting interesting, our counterpart appears to have bailed.
Michael Fisk
23 Aug 10 at 5:29 pm
There is a lot to admire about the Jewish people; their keen intellect, strength of character and resilience. But to be ignorant of their impact on the United States and it’s politics an unpardonable sin.
Kevin MacDonald’s three volume magnus opus outlines in great detail the extent of Jewish involvement in intellectual and political movements that have been enormously damaging to the United States, to the point that the nation is only decades away from an existential crisis.
I am not entirely convinced by his evolutionary psychology theory, but I am impressed with the vast array of facts he presents in his work. The evidence he outlines of Jewish involvement in these movements is highly convincing, especially given he often quotes Jewish authors.
Also enlightening are the motivations for Jewish support for these movements, and in some cases withdrawal of support when they no longer serve Jewish interests. Principle matters little, the overriding priority remains always: “Is it good for the Jews?”.
I have benefitted enormously from reading Kevin MacDonald’s books, the level of insight they provide is profound. I have also gained a greater appreciation of Jewish cultural traditions, how they think and the animating principles of their politics.
This has profited me beyond all measure in my professional life and largely for that reason I will be forever grateful I have read his work.
Blake Van Buren
24 Aug 10 at 12:13 am
Michael, you see this is a little different from arguing on stage. The guy can choose the questions he addressed, the way he addresses, then say that he won the debate. He can also bail out any time he likes.
Boris
24 Aug 10 at 1:38 am
…and when he alights from his seat, the room preceptively brightens.
Now – any chance of you actually answering a question regarding the first two apparent flaws in his argument, or do we get another paean to Him?
Once you have let us know, we can move on to the next set of seemingly idiotic or vacuous assertions he makes.
Andrew Reynolds
24 Aug 10 at 1:38 am
Blake’s in looove.
Seriously – how are Marxism and Libertarianism both part of the grand Jewish conspiracy?
asf
24 Aug 10 at 9:15 am
asf,
To me, it looks like the logic goes some thing like:
MacDonald dislikes them both. He also dislikes the (alleged) Jewish conspiracy. Ergo, Libertarianism and Marxism are part of that conspiracy.
My guess is (from Blake’s comments on the Facebook group) that gays, Blacks, Asians and many other races are also part of that (alleged) conspiracy.
Again, Blake – I am not saying this is the case. Feel free to correct me.
Andrew Reynolds
24 Aug 10 at 11:08 am
Thanks AR – I was hopeful of a more novel form of reasoning. Outlandish and discredited theories should at least be entertaining.
asf
24 Aug 10 at 12:41 pm
Blake, is there any evidence that you would accept that could possible falsify your theory? If you are saying that Jews are on balance detrimental to the United States, then that is a subjective value judgement and not an objective statement – you cannot necessarily “prove” that the Jews’ influence on American culture is sufficiently bad to negate, to take one example, their contribution to science, and it is particularly problematic to then say that you have “won” the debate when all you have done is raised a controversial point.
But you have an even bigger problem, because it is quite clear that MacDonald, whom you are relying on for your arguments, does NOT simply argue that the Jews are bad for America. He is advancing a pseudo-scientific theory that they are psychologically hardwired to undermine and destroy gentile societies (please correct me if that is an inadequate summary), and that this can explain the creation of disparite ideologies such as Libertarianism and Marxism. I don’t even know where to begin with this argument, except to say that there is probably no potential counter-evidence which MacDonald would admit to falsify his theory.
Michael Fisk
24 Aug 10 at 3:56 pm
sorry, that should be “possibly”
Michael Fisk
24 Aug 10 at 3:56 pm
Freud and Marx are two of the Satans of these kinds of theories. Ironically they were both highly de-culturated, de-racinated Jews. Marx for one made fun of Jews who looked more Jewish than he did.
If there was any sense to Blake and co’s theories, the radical left would take their bearings from some orthodox rabbis
jtfsoon
24 Aug 10 at 3:59 pm
By the way, you have to love how the pros and cons of an anti-semitic conspiracy theory is now the central topic of a thread titled “sound judgement and good sense”.
Michael Fisk
24 Aug 10 at 4:31 pm
Freud and Marx are two of the Satans of these kinds of theories. Ironically they were both highly de-culturated, de-racinated Jews. Marx for one made fun of Jews who looked more Jewish than he did.
Whilst he was staunchly atheistic, and never practiced Jewish customs, Freud was pretty thoroughly imbued with Jewish culture. Vienna in the time of Freud was both highly anti-semitic, and the medical profession was about 50% Jewish. Consequently, most of Freud’s associates, and almost all of the early psychoanalysts were secular Jews. I wouldn’t interpret this as ‘ethnocentricity’ by any means – Freud actively tried to get gentiles on board so psychoanalysis wouldn’t be stigmatised as a Jewish profession.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 5:28 pm
“But you have an even bigger problem, because it is quite clear that MacDonald … is advancing a … theory that they are psychologically hardwired to undermine and destroy gentile societies.”
Blake believes that too. He claimed above that Stalin became anti-semitic (and decided to prosecute Jews) “after witnessing the excesses of the Jews toward the Russians and other gentiles.”
It means initially Stalin was quite positive about Jews and even apointed many of them to top positions in his extermination machine. But when he saw how well they carrried out his orders, he decided that this constituted “excesses toward the Russians and other gentiles.”. It was time to purge the Jews and send them to Sibiria.
It would be funny if this was not so sad. Such views are common among extreme nationalist/Stalinist minority in Russia, who thinks the Stalin’s purges were just and nacessary to crush the enemies, and if there were any excesses, they were committed by Jewish bastards who went under the without his knowledge. But apparently MacDonald is not even a Stalinist.
Boris
25 Aug 10 at 2:24 am
I didn’t read that quote up the thread. So Stalin was a really awful guy, but then the Jews were so bad that even Stalin Had To Do Something!
This is what happens to an otherwise intelligent or smarter-than-average person once they adopt anti-semitism. It’s depressing.
Michael Fisk
25 Aug 10 at 2:58 am
It is interesting that there is a strong blending of extreme nationalist and Stalinist ideologies in post-communist Russia (so called red-brown coalition). Before perestroika, these were opposing ideologies. Communists presented themselves as internationalists, while hard-core Russian nationalists were monarchists and anti-communists (Solzhenitsyn). But now they somehow present a united front based on anti-semitism and xenophobia. A typical expression of this transition from a dissident to a Stalinist is the ideology of the eminent Russian Mathematician Igor Shafarevich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafarevich
Boris
25 Aug 10 at 4:00 am
Oh good god, they just keep coming! Has anybody got a rough estimate of just HOW many PhD-wielding leftist utter airheads there are in this country? They just never stop.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/the-true-believers-must-now-rally-to-save-labors-languishing-soul/story-e6frgd0x-1225909587812
Peter Patton
25 Aug 10 at 8:19 am