The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)—America’s largest Jewish pro-“refugee” organization, has demanded that the U.S. “take a leading role” in bringing even more Muslims to that country—but at the same time, stands firmly with Israel which refuses to take in a single Muslim “refugee” because they will “threaten” that country’s existence.
HERE IS THE REASON
(WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE STICKS AND STONES IT WILL GENERATE)
I’m going to give the answer that is impolitic and true. Mostly because I’m kind of curious how people interpret it. Just a draft.
MONEY, MEDIA AND WHITE GUILT FOR WW2
That’s the answer. But why?
GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
If your gene pool does not have an evolutionary strategy that it can compete with against other groups, then it will fail. Europeans were poor people on the edge of the bronze age who had to rely on small numbers to hold land. To do this they favored technology and a novel kind of cooperation that we call the individualistic and heroic mythos. Jews by contrast were not a landed people, but a migratory one, right at the center of the bronze age explosion, and unsuccessful at holding land.
Landholder ethics are very different from transitory ethics. Land means you can invest in fixed assets, craftsmanship, and industry. You can raise crops, and domesticated animals. You have to defend them, and that requires a great personal sacrifice on the part of most members.
JEWISH GROUP EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGY
0) Empirically measurable verbal advantage in Ashkenazim due to eugenic mating.
1) High investment parenting.
3) High investment in in-group success (ethnocentrism).
4) In-Group Cooperation and Out Group predation.
5) Lower ethical requirements in out-group predation.
The first three properties are beneficial and are helpful to host countries. We get specialists in the skills that ORGANIZE production and trade. In a culture that specializes in organizing war (landholding) and property rights, and production.
However, the last two are damaging to host countries and populations and the USA is no exception. So it is a 50/50 proposition when one has a large Jewish population because of these factors. The good comes with the bad, and in general, historically speaking, this strategy was effective enough that host peoples eventually rebelled against it.
Any group sufficiently separate within a host country cannot break the US and THEM barrier that is required for the extension of trust to the state. So the jewish model cannot succeed in any legitimate state – rather any state considered legitimate by its people.
Jewish ethics are more limited than protestant ethics, and jews have, in every host country they have ever been in, gravitated by intention, to those roles that were, and are extractive, because of this lower standard of ethics.
(For the best scholarly treatment see Kevin McDonald’s _The Culture of Critique_. Three volumes on his study of the Jewish cultural survival strategy.)
THE NORTHERN EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY
0) Use small numbers, technology, mobile tactics, professional warriors, and egalitarian enfranchisement in property rights to hold land and animals against competitors.
1) Suppress all free riding, so that everyone produces, leaves, or dies.
2) Break property (land and animals) into family divisions to eliminate free riding
3) Prevent the centralization of power, so that members retain their property.
4) Outbreed so that relations and trust are widespread, and conflict is minimized.
5) Conquer if you can. Raid if you can. Trade if you cannot.
This system is weak unless there is high criteria for entry. The enlightenment weakened that limit on entry, and universal democratic enfranchisement eliminated it.
To cooperate in their environments, different cultures suppress different levels of ‘theft’ from the direct, to the indirect. And the reason for the High Trust West and our “Protestant Ethic” is that westerners have suppressed more kinds of theft and cheating than any other people on earth. This suppression was also eugenic for similar reasons that helped the Jews compete – if forces out non-conformists.
Our suppression of all types of criminality, theft and immorality, and very rigid moral and ethical requirements literally suppress nearly all options EXCEPT participation in the market. This is largely because in northern Europe above the Hanjal line, the church outlawed cousin marriage, and the large land owners only would rent land to married couples who could be trusted to produce.
These to factors led to the absolute nuclear family that is unique to northern europe, and the culture of hard work as a status symbol. The extension of property rights to women broke up the ability for large families to compete with the church for land. The result was that almost every form of ‘free riding’ was suppressed both practically and eventually normatively. And the prohibition on cousin marriage created an enormous extended family and the ethic that comes with an extended family. We call this ethic christian universalism. But it is not present in southern europe or anywhere outside of the Hanjal line.
Furthermore, the absolute nuclear family and its requirement for self sufficiency does not exist outside of those cultures. And it was that family structure that the founders brought to the north american colonies, and the rule of law and the nuclear family persisted in america without the overhead of aristocracy until the 1970’s. (Now 40% of children are born to single mothers, and in real terms, after redistribution, only about a quarter of households are self sufficient and pay taxes.)
SUPPRESSION OF THEFTS :
(In economic terms ‘Discounts’)
So lets look at what we can suppress from the most simple to the most complex.
Fraud by omission
Fraud by obfuscation
Profiting from suffering
Profiting from disadvantage
Profit without contribution
Profit from Interference in the acts of others
Externalization of costs
Privatization of the commons
Socialization of losses into the commons
Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)
Ostracization and Displacement
Conquest through Overbreeding
Conquest through Immigration
Conquest through religious conversion
Conquest through Enslavement
Conquest through war.
Westerners managed to suppress all the moral prohibitions. Even within families, where, almost universally, free riding is not only expected but encouraged.
CONTRASTING WITH JEWISH ETHICS
But jewish ethics in most of history stop at THEFT, and in the 20th century at fraud. And a disproportionate percentage of Jews actively participated in, if not specialized in, what in the west was traditionally considered unethical and immoral industries. Which would include the mass media, advertising, entertainment, pornography, credit, banking, finance, law.
The jewish ethic can be captured in the statement “it only takes two people to agree to a trade”. Unfortunately, that may be true, but the consequences of any trade affect all members of the community. It is this set of consequences, which economists call ‘externalities’ that allow the ‘cheater’ to use a single interaction to effectively extract wealth involuntarily from people outside of the transaction. This prohibition on externalities is the practical meaning of the term ‘immoral’. Just as the prohibition on taking advantage of asymmetry of information is the definition of ‘unethical’.
So the problem is not so much that jews do this or that as it is the over representation of jews in industries that are enticingly profitable, but which are moral hazards, and westerners by their emphasis on production and craft, and prohibition on ‘cunning’ (cheating), controlled not by law, but by morals.
This is why Jews excel everywhere but best in the west: our high trust society gives their particular lack of moral standard outgroup requirement, extraordinary opportunity for success, and their scientific intellectuals greater freedom to work.
If you specialize in what the host nation considers unethical and immoral behavior, and can get away with it, then it is very profitable. The problem is, almost no other civilizations prohibit as much of the moral and ethical spectrum as northern europeans. So northern european countries and the anglosphere provide greater opportunity for profiting from unethical and immoral action.
The jews have been disliked almost everywhere that they’ve been successful, and it is their historical preference for cheating, by verbal means where possible, and profiting from unethical and immoral cheating where possible, that has generally led to their prosecution.
Cheating, especially through various credit schemes (creating a hazard) is extremely profitable. Jewish ingroup bias was particularly useful in creating trust relationships for financing during the hard currency eras.
If you study the Ethics of Gypsies they are very close to jewish ethics, but they lack the intelligence and discipline to move from profit by crime to profit by unethical and immoral actions.
But what is most interesting is that despite being the most literate people in europe jews produced no significant science or literature, while starting in 1200 in England the opposite happened. It appears that only with the structure of western high trust society and the acceptance of jews into western society have the jews been able to contribute to world knowledge. Even if, some of that knowledge (Marx, Freud and Cantor, just like Kant and Rousseau) was pseudoscientific and very damaging to the west.
SIDEBAR: AN INTERESTING HISTORICAL THOUGHT
–And jewish banking became especially useful after the extermination of the Templars. Competing financiers would have provided the states with competitors to jewish bankers and assisted in controlling rates. But the templars made a mistake in trying to obtain land as well as retain their banking and that was too much of a risk for the governments.–
Prior to the war era immigration of eastern european jews, American Jews had become indistinguishable from conservative Scots who dominated business in american institutions. To the point of being accepted into elite institutions. At this point jewish identity has merged with the american model fairly deeply and intermarriage is eroding the prior social structure. So what has happened to the English appears to be happening to the jews.
Now, again, assuming that indoctrination and assimilation will leave jews like the english, scots and germans, an advantaged minority population,
Israel has demonstrated that it may in fact be possible for the jews to hold land develop land holder ethics, and build a state, but at the cost of suppressing the rampant free riding in their more religious members. It may also occur that once again, jewish culture and ethics are insufficient to hold a territory. And given that israel is the most technically advanced society in the region, even if dependent on american handouts, that the loss would be tragic.
MY GOAL IS TO ARTICULATE WESTERN HIGH TRUST ETHICS
I write about ethics in order to explain the economic consequences of different ethical models, as well as why the western ethical model created the high performing high trust society and others did not. This high trust model, wherever it survives, provides a dramatic difference in economic performance that no other civilization has matched.
No other philosopher has successfully articulated the cause and consequence of western high trust ethics. All groups need an evolutionary strategy. But not only do northern Europeans need the high trust society to compete, but given what the high trust society produces in terms of innovation and exchange, the world also needs the high trust society to prevail.
Westerners do not understand their history or why they succeeded despite being a poor illiterate people, small in number, far from the origin of civilization, because their history is articulated in moral and allegorical language not in ratio scientific terms. They cannot defend their social system because they do not understand it. The enlightenment project was a scheme for the seizure of political power from the landed aristocracy by the new middle class. And the mythos of democracy was used to suppress the Aristocratic origins of western civilization. As it turns out the purpose of large democratic states appears largely to be, ever since Napoleon, the export of war and conquest.
The purpose of my work is to make it possible for westerners to rationally debate their values against the encroachment of other value systems so that we can preserve the high trust society – for themselves, and everyone else.
I hope this was useful. This is a draft of a longer argument and I might revise and extend it later. Of course, I expect all sorts of childish nonsense but this is how it is.
Already there has been some dispute within the Alt Right regarding the ideological position of anti-Semitism. More specifically, Milo Yiannopoulos and Allum Bokhair, a homosexual Jew and a Pakistani respectively, penned a Breitbart piece in March of this year in which they implied association with, if not leadership of, the Alt Right. The article claimed that the Alt Right was essentially a reinvention of 1960s counter-culture that was driven by “fun, transgression, and a challenge to social norms.” Yiannopoulos and Bokhair contrast the young jokers of the Alt Right (as they define it) with “anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set,” the latter described as “the worst dregs of human society.” Anti-Semitism, to the extent that it features at all in this narrative, is merely a punchline in the Alt Right’s expansive arsenal of provocative but largely insincere humor. Real ‘racists’ aren’t part of the movement at all.
Contrary to this narrative, it seems barely debateable that for the majority of those involved in the Alt Right, the question of Jewish influence is a genuine concern. And to some of us, the pushing of sanitized movement narratives by Yiannopoulos and Bokhair, and the disproportionate media attention given to these racially and ideologically suspect individuals, is evidence of an attempt to co-opt the Alt Right and divert it from a path of ethnic nationalism. The Daily Stormer has been at the forefront of this reaction, with one article arguing that:
The Alt Right has become such a major political force that it was impossible for [Jewish elites] to continue ignoring us. Our victories have become far too numerous to count. Their new strategy is to try and redefine the Alt Right as a movement led by the homosexual Jew Milo Yiannapolous. They’ve actually been setting this narrative up for a while but are only now choosing to go full force with it… The Jews want the general public to believe that the Alt Right is some kind of goofy White nationalist movement that has no real issue with Jews or homosexuals. They want people to think that the negative things we say about Jews are meant as innocent jokes. This is entirely false. . . .
Steven Beller writes that during the rise of German nationalism in 1860–1880, Jews attempted to take key roles in the movement with a view to re-directing it from its roots in volkisch philosophy and an antagonism towards Jewish influence, and towards a mission of “cultural and social revolution.” Media promotion and careful networking even led to two Jews, Victor Adler and Heinrich Friedjung, vying for leadership of the German nationalist movement in Austria. Indeed, Adler and Friedjung were two of the five framers of the famous Linz Program of 1882, a political platform that called for the complete Germanization of the Austrian state. It was only due to the continued insistence of the non-Jewish movement leaders, particularly Georg Schönerer, that an ethnic version of German nationalism was eventually adhered to. On Schönerer’s insistence, and to the dismay of the erstwhile Jewish “leaders,” the movement adopted an “Aryan clause.” Their attempt to co-opt the movement having failed, Beller adds, “the Jewish reaction was to look elsewhere for their goals of social and cultural change.” For example, Adler became an out and out Marxist overnight. . . .
In all cases, both Trumpism and the Alt Right are portrayed by Jews as a foreign incursion into American political life. As with other tactics, these have a long lineage. Kevin MacDonald writes that “Jewish organizations in Germany in the period 1870–1914 argued that anti-Semitism was a threat to all of Germany because it was fundamentally ‘un-German.’” In nineteenth-century Germany, anti-Semitism was often described by Jews as a French import. Conversely, Paula Hyman writes that, faced with a rise in anti-Jewish feeling in nineteenth-century France, Jews spread the message that anti-Semitism was “un-French” and a “German import.” Thorsten Wagner reports that it was a common refrain among Jews in Denmark that anti-Semitism there was “a German import — without autochthonous roots and traditions.” . . .
Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the Sages used to formulate their legal decisions. The word is used as a verb: one engages in the process of pilpul in order to formulate a legal point. It marks the process of understanding legal ideas, texts, and interpretations. It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as “Casuistry.”
In order to better understand the term pilpul as it functions today, we must define the way in which that term has been understood in the classical Sephardic tradition and how that understanding has been transformed by the Ashkenazi tradition.
As I was taught by my Rabbi Jose Faur, the Sephardic tradition, emerging out of the Babylonian academies and finding its definitive form in the many legal works of Moses Maimonides, held the Talmudic texts to be oral literature. Using mnemonics, technical terms, and other rhetorical devices to aid memorization and transmission, Sephardim understood the Talmud to be a colloquy of discussions that were drawn from the proceedings of the great rabbinical Academies of Babylonia. The Babylonian Talmud became the basis upon which the Jewish law would be constructed.
. . . .
The Ashkenazi rabbis saw pilpul as a substantive debate over the content of the Law rather than as a simple rhetorical matter. Their understanding of Talmudic pilpul took the form of a radical reinterpretation of the Law.
The scholar Haym Soloveitchik discusses this matter in his 1987 article “Religious Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example”:
Many have inferred, and reasonably so, that the Tosafists were not only scholars but communal leaders … like all true leaders they molded the law to fit the needs of their people … What legitimized, in the eyes of the Tosafists, this radical reinterpretation?
“Reinterpretation” is actually a misleading term. More accurately one should ask what led them to read the Talmud, to perceive the Talmud, in a fashion which could be construed as a justification of the status quo.
In this discussion we have the key that will unlock much of the content of contemporary Jewish discourse.
As Soloveitchik states, the Ashkenazi rabbis were less concerned with promulgating the Law transmitted in the Talmud than they were with molding it to suit their own needs. Pilpul was a means to justify practices already fixed in the behaviors of the community by re-reading the Talmud to justify those practices.
There were two ways in which the Ashkenazi rabbis effected this radical reinterpretation of the Talmud:
In Rashi’s Talmud commentary — a required text in every Jewish school in the world — he uses the Aramaic term Hakhi Garsinan, meaning, “This is how the text is to be read.” Whenever this term is used, it indicates that Rashi has amended the text. His emendations were necessitated by the need to bring actual practice in line with the text.
Rashi’s emendations are not a theoretical proposition; the actual editions of the Talmud that we use today reflect the changes. The text of the Talmud was forever remade according to the dictates of Rashi and his school.
As if this was not enough, the Tosafists instituted one more pilpul principle into Talmudic discourse. This was called the Lav Davqa method. In English we might call it the “Not Quite” way of reading a text. When a text appeared to be saying one thing, the Tosafot — in order to conform to the already-existing custom — would re-interpret it by saying that what it seemed to mean is not what it really meant!
In absolute contrast to the Ashkenazi method, the Sephardic tradition, grounded in textual reality and scientific principles, carefully parsed every term in the Talmud; a concern that often led the most prominent scholars to look for the most accurate version of the Talmudic text.
Rashi’s method of emendation and the Tosafist reading based on the Lav Davqa method completely transformed Judaism; the Ashkenazi tradition was the one that ultimately triumphed.
What this means for contemporary Jewish discourse is critical: Even though many contemporary Jews are not observant, pilpul continues to be deployed. Pilpul occurs any time the speaker is committed to “prove” his point regardless of the evidence in front of him. The casuistic aspect of this hair-splitting leads to a labyrinthine form of argument where the speaker blows enough rhetorical smoke to make his interlocutor submit. Reason is not an issue when pilpul takes over: what counts is the establishment of a fixed, immutable point that can never truly be disputed.
This is certainly the worst of it, the extreme. But it demonstrated the feeling toward Europe of historic wrongs and grievances which informs a lot of Jewish thinking.
I agree with Jewish conservative writer Paul Gottfried. They’re making a mistake. European culture has made Jews rich and given them protection.
Prominent Jewish Republican leaders and activists show little sign of being able to unify publicly in responding to Donald Trump’s emergence as their party’s presidential front-runner — even after Trump’s failure to condemn dedicated anti-Semites and racists and his declaration that he would be “neutral” on Israel.
With Trump’s triumph in the March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, some in the community are sounding alarm bells, calling for action before it is too late to stop his race to the top. But others in the Jewish Republican camp are cautioning against collectively rejecting Trump.
This is a forbidden bit of history that I’m quietly obsessed with. The truth is very dark and disturbing.
“When the Jews achieved power in Russia, it was as a hostile elite with a deep sense of historic grievance. As a result, they became willing executioners of both the people and cultures they came to rule.” — Kevin MacDonald
This 17,000-word book review by Kevin MacDonald of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century is published here in its entirety as an invaluable work of reference. Abridged versions of the same review exist elsewhere (see here and here), but neither of these do justice to the information-packed scholarly monograph that MacDonald was to write soon after the publication of Slezkine’s book in 2004.
Why is this review of such importance?
Because MacDonald was one of the first to highlight the fact that Slezkine’s bombshell of a book had, perhaps inadvertently, let the cat out of the bag: it had revealed many embarrassing facts about the Bolshevik Revolution that Slezkine’s fellow Jews might have preferred to see suppressed or given far less prominence; namely, that Jews had played a leading role in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and in the Red Terror that followed. They had made themselves Stalin’s “willing executioners” and been directly responsible for the mass murder of millions of white Russian Christians and the destruction of their churches.
All the horrors of Communism from 1917 to 1953—the collectivization of farms, the dispossession and indiscriminate slaughter of the very proletariat in whose name the Communists professed to rule, the slave labor of the gulags, the horrendous tortures practiced by the cheka, the starvation genocide of 7 million people in Ukraine—all these unspeakable crimes would never have taken place without Jewish money and heavy Jewish participation.
Countless history books have been written about the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, many of them by Jews, without the slightest hint being given that international Jewry was in large part to blame for the carnage. If anything, the Jews are presented in a rosy light and shown to be among the many victims of Stalin’s reign of terror. This enormous deception persists to this day.
Neocons have no idea how sick we are of their BS. They purged the halls of power from all the paleos long ago, but they’ve been frustrated that paleo sentiments have not gone away, and now they’re threatened that we’ve found a champion.
A family business dispute drove David Haddad, 56, of Manhattan, who is Jewish, to make threatening phone calls to his mother, 80, and two other women, ages 87 and 78, a police source said.
Both the 87-year-old woman and a 78-year-old woman had anti-Semitic threats made to them over a month-long period and racist threats were left on a voicemail message, police said. Swastikas were also drawn on their apartment doors.
“He threatened to kill the other individual on the phone as well as her relatives,” said a police spokesman. “He said basically that all Jews should die and go to hell.”
Haddad, who was charged with aggravated harassment as a hate crime, also was accused of taping notes with anti-Semitic symbols including swastikas on five apartment doors and in the hallway of a building in the Chelsea neighbourhood of Manhattan, US.
Swastikas were spray-painted on garage doors, some with the words “Die Jews”, which police believe was part of Haddad’s anti-Semitic spree.