|
|
The founder of modern conservatism was a JewExcerpts from a comprehensive article by David Gelernter. I have been studying Disraeli for many years and Gelernter has got it precisely right Benjamin Disraeli—twice Prime Minister of Great Britain, romantic novelist, inventor of modern conservatism—was a neocon in the plain sense of the word, a “new conservative” who began his career on the left. Conservative thinking dates to the dawn of organized society, but modern conservatism—a mass movement, a philosophy not for aristocrats and the rich but for everybody—was Disraeli’s creation. That modern conservatism should have been invented by a 19th-century neocon is thought provoking. More surprising:His redefinition of conservatism is still fresh, and his political philosophy has never been more apt… But what exactly do conservatives believe? How do they resolve the seeming paradox that so many conservatives revere the past yet are also progressives, determined to move this nation forward and let it grow, stretch, and inhabit more and more of its own best self? Disraeli produced a definition of conservatism that resolves the problem. It is so terse and compelling, it ranks as a milestone of political thought…. his career in the end was such a blowout triumph that “from the hour of his death,” Lord Randolph Churchill (Winston’s father) wrote, “every Tory, in and out of Parliament, high or low, rich or poor, had exclaimed, muttered or thought: ‘Oh, if Lord Beaconsfield were alive!’” Disraeli saw “Jew” as, first and foremost, a nationality or race. The world having visited on them “every term of obloquy and every form of persecution,” he wrote in his Biography of Lord George Bentinck, the Jews are, notwithstanding, “the human family that has contributed most to human happiness.” Of course he felt deeply about Britain too: “Zeal for the greatness of England was the passion of his life” (thus his foreign minister, and the future prime minister, Lord Salisbury). Disraeli wrote in Tancred: “The general condition of England is superior to that of any other country”; “there is more political freedom, more social happiness, more sound religion, and more material prosperity among us, than in any nation in the world.”... Pride in Britain drove Disraeli’s foreign policy as prime minister. His first foreign policy success, according to the 1911 Britannica, “was the restoration [to Britain] of a much-damaged self-respect.” Disraeli went to the Congress of Berlin determined that Britain’s slipping prestige in Europe should be restored and her voice heard and her will respected. It is no accident that his once-opponent John Roebuck should have announced, on the PM’s return, that “England now holds as proud a position as she has ever held, and that is due to the sagacity, and power, and conduct of the despised person once called Benjamin Disraeli but now Lord Beaconsfield.”... When he died there was a startling outburst of national mourning. “No such demonstration of grief was expected,” reports the 1911 Britannica, “even by those who grieved the most.” Benjamin Disraeli is the founding father of modern conservatism as it exists in Britain and, arguably, throughout the Western world. But why was he a conservative? How did this quintessential outsider come to lead Britain’s Tories, once the insider’s party par excellence? He entered politics as an independent with radical tendencies. In some respects he held radical views his whole life. But he was elected to Parliament as a Conservative, and remained a Tory forever after. .... Post-1832, Britain’s Tories had two main alternatives. They could turn themselves into a watered-down version of the opposition or become something brand new. Disraeli believed in the second alternative. He wanted the Tories to care about poverty, favor democracy, be “inclusive,” and hold the nation’s traditions in deep romantic reverence—in other words, be just like him. But his wants were irrelevant unless he could win control of his party… Thus Disraeli found himself in a position to rebuild the Tory party. How did he go about it? Reverence for tradition was central to Toryism and to Disraeli’s own personality. He wanted his new-style Tory party to embody respect for tradition—wanted it to be new and old, to be a modern setting for ancient gems, a new crown displaying old jewels. This was a popular idea in 19th-century Britain, where “the future” and “the past” were both discovered, simultaneously…. His underlying thought, which defined Disraeli-type Toryism and reshaped conservatism for all time, was that the Conservative party was the national party. Sounds simple and is. But everything else followed. If you understood “national” properly, then (on the one hand) the Tories must be a democratic, “universal,” progressive party that cared about the poor and working classes—since the party was national it must care for the whole nation, for all classes. But the Tories must also be a patriotic party that revered ancient traditions and institutions, again inasmuch as they were the national—and therefore honored profoundly the nation’s heritage and distinctive character. He put it like this:- In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines. Unsurprisingly, domestic legislation enacted during Disraeli’s “great ministry” constitutes (according to Blake) “the biggest installment of social reform passed by any one government in the nineteenth century.” Some historians point out that Disraeli himself was only marginally involved in the actual legislation; the details were all worked out by his enterprising Home Secretary Richard Cross. But after all, Disraeli was old and tired by the late 1870s, and there was no mistaking his intentions. He had been writing and talking about them in public and private, in novels and essays, as a back-and front-bencher, in government and opposition, on the floor of the House and on platforms all over the country for nearly half a century. Just as he saw “nationality” as a mystical attribute shared by every Briton, he saw the peerage and monarchy as national institutions that belonged to every Briton. He democratized not only the Tory party but the British monarchy. The titled nobility, he believed, were ombudsmen of the people—they alone among rich Englishmen had a duty and could be counted on to look out for the whole nation… What of Disraeli’s ideas? How do they hold up, and where do they stand today? A nationality for Disraeli is a state of mind or sensibility or consciousness emerging out of the measureless past. (Its essence being a state of mind, it cannot easily be communicated in words, any more than a religious state of mind can be.) An individual might or might not be sensitive enough to tune in this “broadcast,” to hear it and resonate with it….. Disraeli, for one, heard music in the rustling train of time (as she sweeps grandly forward). If you are sensitive enough to “tune in” your own nationality—to be aware of your history and forebears and ancient institutions—you make yourself part of a living organism; take your place in a continuum—a living thing that was born when your nation was born and will live for as long as it lives. For Disraeli, liberalism is (merely) rational and reasonable. Conservatism, being national, is poetic and passionate… More here Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, February 6, 2005 at 07:18 AM in Conservatism Comments:2
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 11:46 AM | # This guy will say anything, however idiotic. 3
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 02:40 PM | #
John, it seems you are increasingly not wanted by various anti-Semites here at this blog… why do they still let you blog on this site, especially when they sympathize with people like Wintermute, who has not only been banned from sensible sites like Gene Expression, but also from Nazi sites like The Phora? Some of the bloggers on here don’t seem to believe that you can recognize the Jewish contributions to Western Civilization, because they are not Western. Very bizarre, but definitely anti-Semitic. 4
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 02:47 PM | # What Disraeli said to a British critic of his Jewish roots… he might say something similar to Guessedworker and Geoff today.
I think Geoff and Guessedworker follow a self-made brand of “conservatism” that has never existed… so-called “blood-and-soil conservatism,” as exemplified by such people as Revilo Oliver and the National Alliance. In reality, they are extreme revolutionaries wanting a huge transformation of society. 5
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 02:53 PM | # Some more Disraeli quotes:
What a wonderful man. I don’t see how you can’t praise him… 6
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 03:20 PM | # “I think Geoff and Guessedworker follow a self-made brand of “conservatism” that has never existed… so-called “blood-and-soil conservatism,” as exemplified by such people as Revilo Oliver and the National Alliance. In reality, they are extreme revolutionaries wanting a huge transformation of society.” My dear friend, your reading of Disraeli (and the writers on this blog) appears to be rather selective. Here is a Disraeli quote on the subject of Race: “No one must lightly dismiss the question of Race. It is the key to world history and it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity…..It is written by people who do not understand the Race question and what belongs to it…..Language and religion do not make a Race, only blood does that.” 7
Posted by Kubilai on February 06, 2005, 03:24 PM | # Hello all, This is my first post here and I recognize a couple of names (Guessedworker and wintermute) from another blog that I frequent, though have been banned from posting recently due to “extreme” views. Possibly the two posters will recognize my alias from there? I have been reading your blog for a short while and have noticed an anti-Jewish stance. I am not oblivious to the influence of Jews on many aspects of our current abysmal situation, however do people here not feel we, as Whites of European descent, would be best benefitted with Jews on our side rather than against us? I do realize the policies to date have been against us, however I personally have difficulty seeing us moving in any significant direction without some sort of alliance. We are disorganized and unfortunately not unified, while Jews are the exact opposite. I am honestly curious to hear other peoples opinion on this 8
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 03:27 PM | # Here is another quote: “The difference of race is one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist; because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance.” 9
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 03:34 PM | # “I have been reading your blog for a short while and have noticed an anti-Jewish stance.” Kubilai, Welcome to this blog if you are commenting for the first time. As for your perception, it is just that - a perception. There is no “party line” here as you will have noticed. And there is certainly no set in stone “anti-Jewish stance”. What you will find here (and wont almost anywhere else on the internet) is intelligent political discussion on a range of issues some which touch on Jewish political activism. I doubt if any of us here would agree to the characterisation of this site as having an “anti-Jewish” stance. I hope you enjoy your stay here. We do not ban people for their political opinions as many sites on the internet do. As long as commenters engage in civil discussions, avoid mud-slinging and acrimonious name calling, there are no bans here. We believe in free speech. regards, Phil 10
Posted by Kubilai on February 06, 2005, 03:44 PM | # Thank you Phil. I just want to clarify that I am not accusing anyone of knee-jerk “anti-semitism”. I agree with many things posted about Jewish influences on Western society, though my only point is they would be better as an ally than an adversary. Above all, truth, honesty, and freedom of speech is most important and that is sorely lacking in many areas of society, for obvious reasons. Best, Kubilai 11
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 03:59 PM | # The problem is Kubilai, is that these individuals do not see an alliance with Jews as permissable. To them, Jews are an alien influence and the cause of much of the problems that exist today in contemporary Western Civilization. Just look at their posts on Disraeli! They oppose Disraeli for just one reason: he’s Jewish. 12
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 04:23 PM | # Arcane, Your tactic is an old one - engage in “smearing”. Just “smear” everyone rather than deal with the specifics of someone’s argument. For instance, neither Geoff nor GW said anything ill regarding Disraeli. But does it make me an “Anti-Semite” if I say that Disraeli was no founder of modern conservatism? Shouldn’t that be reserved for Burke instead? Burke perhaps had a greater influence on anything politically Conservative than any writer in the last three centuries. I am sorry but Disraeli does not measure up to Burke. If the good Prime Minister had been alive today, he would have himself agreed. If your definition of “Anti-semite” is: “Anyone who ever dares to critize Jews in any form”, then we are all “Anti-semites” here. I fear that term has become as meaningless as “Racist” - tossed around with gay abandon to make people shut up. Here I will use an excellent quote by Jared Taylor: “When someone calls me a racist, that is an ungracious way of saying he hasn’t got an argument”. 13
Posted by Kubilai on February 06, 2005, 04:52 PM | # Hi Arcane, To them, Jews are an alien influence and the cause of much of the problems that exist today in contemporary Western Civilization. I tend to agree with this, except for the “alien” part. I think a tremendous amount of legislation, government policy, and schools of thought have been directly and indirectly influenced by Jews. I am not a believer of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, though prominent Jews (Zionists) of past and present have definitely pro-Jewish interests and are against all other interests in a subtle and covert fashion(and sometimes not so subtle and covert). I do not think ALL Jews are of this mindset and I would guess more than most are not. However Jews have managed to instill a tribal behaviour in their people that subconsciously results in guilt if a Jew does not “help” other Jews or Jewish causes. They give to Jewish causes that are anti-western White. There are many Jewish organization watchdogs that look out for the interest of Jews. They are organized and unified. I’m sure most do not realize they are actively subverting our culture and race when they give to these organizations but that is exactly what they are doing. Their belief is to give in order to help preserve world-wide Jewry. Unfortunately, that has come at the expense of European Western society. 14
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 05:07 PM | # Phil, I called nobody a racist, as you will see if you read my stuff. I also do not say that Disraeli was the founder of modern conservatism; I only said that he was a “wonderful man” and was indeed a conservative. Now, you say that Burke is the founder of modern conservatism. I disagree. Burke was the founder of conservatism, something more like you’d see with Roger Scruton and Russell Kirk. However, that’s really traditional conservatism, not modern conservatism. I do agree that Burke has had a far greater influence on conservative thought than Disraeli… Now, about the anti-Semitism of Guessedworker… what did he say?
Indeed, after rereading this and going through some old blog entries, I have misinterpreted that Geoff and Guessedworker are anti-Semitic. For that, I apologize. However, I don’t understand his fascination with Kevin MacDonald, who is an anti-Semite and has been extensively discussed at Gene Expression. What is especially distressing is that Geoff cites The Culture of Critique when discussing the 1965 Immigration Reform Act, which leads me to believe that he does think that Jews are primarily responsible for the immigration problems that we have today. You know, if you don’t want to have a reputation of being a Judeo-skeptic blog, then perhaps you shouldn’t have Matt Nuenke and Tomislav Sunic writing for you. It’s not that I have a problem with them, since I do find their writings interesting, although I generally disagree with them. One thing I simply don’t understand is that you accuse me of not having an argument because I use a single word to dismiss somebody, yet Geoff has not made any decent comments regarding John recently… the most complex comment he has made so far is that John is basically stupid and he “will say anything, however idiotic.” Perhaps you should condemn him, as well? 15
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 05:18 PM | # Kubilai, Can’t that be said of basically every single ethnic group in this country? One thing that you ignore in your post, but I know that you are well aware of, is the high average IQ of Ashkenazim Jews; it’s a full standard deviation above the average caucasian IQ. This is the primary reason that Jews are overrepresented in tons of professions. Of course, there are cultural reasons for their overrepresentation, as well, but I believe that IQ is the primary factor. You’re also ignoring the contributions that these high-IQ Jews have made to the West intellectually, especially areas of science. Because of anti-Semitism and this obsession with Jewish overrepresentation, while ignoring the fact that they have high average IQS, entire fields of German science were devastated in the 1930s. I personally believe that if Hitler hadn’t of been anti-Semitic, he’d probably have won the war (although he’d suffer economic collapse in the future due to his overly regulated economic system and lack of intellectual freedom). I’ve written about this before: http://www.webmonkey.ws/flillip.php?url=http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002907.html 16
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 05:26 PM | # Arcane: Geoff Beck’s Conservatism? Whatever you may think of my brand of ‘conservatism’ ( I’m increasingly loathed to use that term… what is their left to conserve ? ) it doesn’t matter. My politics are a fantasy, I know that. You claim perhaps I’m a revolutionist? Who cares. The society I live in is the product of a revolution. For the last 30 years I been living the reality of that revolution: crime, divorce, AIDS, illiteracy, syphilis, uncontrolled migrations of barbarians, demotic Christianity, vandalism… So, what do I wish to conserve? So, yes, I suppose I am a revolutionary, but a “counter revolutionary”. Anyway, the future is yours Arcane, Ray, Quick, Limbaugh and the rest… enjoy. Let it all fall to hell. The slave markets shall be full of our children in Cairo and Sao Paolo. “I should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas,” 17
Posted by Kubilai on February 06, 2005, 05:45 PM | # Arcane, Can’t that be said of basically every single ethnic group in this country? I think every racial or ethnic group tries or wants to, yet is not as successful as Jews are. They are unique, I must admit. I have posted on your site about this in the past (before being banned), and my biggest complaint is in the current political milieu, that being Whites are NOT allowed to be cohesive or ethnocentric. That is the crux of the problem. I agree with you on Jewish IQs and have no problem with their representation in certain fields. Though one thing is Jewish orgs have been successful in eliminating the category of “Jew” in admission applications to universities, medical schools, law schools etc. They are lumped into Caucasian/White. Again, I have no problem with this though it is this “having your cake and eating it too” mentality that people, including myself at times, find unpalatable. Either you ARE a minority and enjoy the umbrella of minority protection or you ARE NOT. As to contributions, they have made tremendous contributions to society. Some not so shining, however. Franz Boas and the Frankfurt School are two that are black eyes and further stoke the “anti-semitic” fires. Without a doubt, Jews are smart, productive, and creative. I would rather find a way to have them as allies, rather than enemies. 18
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 05:56 PM | # Arcane, MacDonald makes a pretty well researched case - have you read the book? If you have, could you point me to inaccuracies in his book? Anyway, aide from MacDonald, Lawrence Auster who is ethnically Jewish (and certainly no Anti-semite) has this to say about Jewish influence (and a bit of insanity) regarding America’s open borders nightmare: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13894 Also, no one doubts the political affiliations of American Jews who vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats (as a starting point), are overwhelming supporters of left-liberal causes (by an 8 to 1 ratio) and have been at the forefront of almost every left-liberal cause that has triumphed handsomely since the 1950s (if not much earlier). My question to you is: why deny all this? One needs to be honest before engaging in debate. And here is a quote from another site: “Byline: Philip Weiss George Bush has put every kind of American in his cabinet except Jews, and no one has complained about this, even though everyone knows it’s nuts. Remaking the American power structure without Jews is like remaking sports without blacks. At least when it comes to blacks in sports, you can talk about it; you can say that blacks changed sports. But no one is allowed to speak up about something we all quietly know: Jews changed America… From its beginnings, the Bush campaign represented, in the hearts of many Jews and apparently in the heart of George W. Bush himself (that knower of hearts), an attempt to reverse Jewishness in the establishment. The press has only been able to discuss this power struggle in code. The most perfectly coded statement appeared in The New York Times’ long series last year on George’s life, from swaddling to bottling, when The Times’ Nicholas Kristof marveled that when Bush went to Yale he directed all his anger at East Coast “elitists.” But, Mr. Kristof pointed out, George Bush was in Skull and Bones—wasn’t that an elite?... The Jewish press has been concerned about those choices. Forward said warningly that the cabinet picks were a symbolic “snub.” Phil Baum, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, was quoted by The Jerusalem Post as saying that the lack of Jews was “a little distressing.” But outside Jewish circles, no one is actively complaining, apparently in the belief that Jews will weather this one, too. There was a letter to The Times. William Safire mentioned it. Richard Cohen lamented it in The Washington Post. Not much else… On Jan. 15, the Center for Jewish History on West 16th Street held a discussion on the subject “The Jewish People in the 20th Century: From Powerlessness to Power.” The moderator, Sylvia Hassenfeld, said that Jews had “blithely” ignored the question, and then the three professors on the panel promptly attacked the assumption that Jews are powerful. There are so many Jews in the media that the cone of silence falls over the territory where you might expect wider discussion.” http://www.webmonkey.ws/flillip.php?url=http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002640.html We are not Jew-haters. We are rational men. And we do not like avoiding certain subjects for fear of offending people. This is a forum rooted in freedom of speech but even more freedom of thought. regards, Phil 19
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 05:58 PM | # Indeed, after rereading this and going through some old blog entries, I have misinterpreted that Geoff and Guessedworker are anti-Semitic. For that, I apologize. However, I don’t understand his fascination with Kevin MacDonald, who is an anti-Semite and has been extensively discussed at Gene Expression. What exactly do you mean by anti-Semitic? I presume, since you classify MacDonald as an anti-Semite, that you define anti-Semitism as something rational and morally neutral (a legitimate expression of self-interest where such interest conflicts with the interest of the Jewish community), in which case I wonder—why do you feel the need to be careful in bandying the term about? I’ve seen some of the “discussions” of MacDonald’s work at gnxp, and they are hardly what one would call intellectual discourse. Those “discussions” have always been dominated by hostile and bigoted parties whose interest is *not* in advancing the cause of knowledge. That’s not it at all. Any alliance is permissible; the question is whether it’s possible. And history says it is not. 20
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 06:17 PM | # Benjamin Disraeli—twice Prime Minister of Great Britain, romantic novelist, inventor of modern conservatism…. It might be accurate to say Disraeli is the father of modern racialism. You are fond of positing illusory connections between Hitler and Marx, but in the case of Hitler and Disraeli there are genuine connections. From chapter 5 of Separation and Its Discontents, found at Matt Nuenke’s site: Benjamin Disraeli, although baptized, developed views on the importance of racial purity and the superiority of Jewish heredity, in such works as Coningsby or the New Generation (1844), Tancred, or the New Crusade (1847), and the non-fictional Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (1852). As Rather (1990, 141ff; see also Field 1981, 215) points out, Disraeli’s views on the importance of racial purity and the role of racial intermixture in the decline of race and culture antedated the writings of Gobineau and were sufficiently well known to have been quoted approvingly by Chamberlain in his Foundations (I, 271): “Let Disraeli teach us that the whole significance of Judaism lies in its purity of race, that this alone gives it power and duration.” “Disraeli rather than Gobineau—still less Chamberlain—is entitled to be called the father of nineteenth-century racist ideology” (Rather 1990, 146). Disraeli “may have been, both as a writer and even more as a personal symbol, the most influential propagator of the concept of race in the nineteenth century, particularly publicizing the Jews’ alleged taste for power, their sense of superiority, their mysteriousness, their clandestine international connections, and their arrogant pride in being a pure race” (Lindemann 1997, 77). 21
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 06:32 PM | # Arcane: Instead of smearing MacDonald, as you just did, why don’t you tell us why his research is wrong. Or was it just your intent to smear him? That’s what I think 22
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 06:44 PM | # Phil, Yes, I have the book on my computer under a directory known as “Extremist Publications.” The book is supposed to be about evolutionary psychology, but that has little relation to it. All he’s doing is using his little theory to blame the Jews for everything that he thinks is wrong. He’s basically the Boas of sociobiology. In regards to the supposed lack of Jews in the Bush Administration, whoever thinks that there aren’t many Jews in it are either idiots or ignorant, because there is no way in heck they can say that. Now, are there fewer Jews than in the Clinton Administration? Absolutely! The Clinton Administration had many, many Jews, especially in the higher-level positions surrounding the president. The reasons for this are obvious: Jews in America are overwhelmingly left-wing in their political inclinations. So it’s only obvious that a center-left administration would have a higher proportion of Jews in it than a center-right administration. Ben, As far as MacDonald supposedly being “rational and morally neutral,” perhaps you have never seen his response to Derbyshire…
23
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 06:50 PM | # Geoff, I do not have enough space to critique even five pages of the preface to the paperback edition. 24
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 06:51 PM | # In regards to the supposed lack of Jews in the Bush Administration, whoever thinks that there aren’t many Jews in it are either idiots or ignorant Philip Weiss’s piece was written in December 2001. 25
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 06:51 PM | # “All he’s doing is using his little theory to blame the Jews for everything that he thinks is wrong.” I have read the book and he doesn’t say or imply that anywhere. What he does however is examine with great discipline the thorny issue of Jewish influence and he does it admirably well. His book is actually a compilation and most of his footnotes are from Jewish sources. You can continue to call him an “extremist” or an “anti-semite” or a Boasian hoax. I dont care much for the “evolutionary psychology” but for the hard evidence that he gathers in his book. For that, his book is an invaluable piece of research. regards Phil PS. You have not pointed us to anything in his book which is factually incorrect. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2005, 06:55 PM | # Arcane, Why not e-mail me a fully-worked post on CoC. I’ll put it up - be proud to have you as a guestie. Maybe Kevin can be prevailed upon to respond. 27
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 06:55 PM | # > I do not have enough space to critique even five pages of the preface to the paperback edition. But you did find enough space to smear him. Another excrement spreader. 28
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 06:55 PM | # “In regards to the supposed lack of Jews in the Bush Administration, whoever thinks that there aren’t many Jews in it are either idiots or ignorant, because there is no way in heck they can say that.” That article was written by Phillip Weiss who is a Jew. It was written sometime in 2001 - just after the election and at that time there actually were no jews among the cabinet appointees (which of course changed soon after). We aren’t really disagreeing here. You admit: “Jews in America are overwhelmingly left-wing in their political inclinations.” That combined with their over-representation in almost all institutions of influence - films, journalism, Television etc. is bound to drag the country leftward (and destructively so). I can’t see what so illogical about that conclusion. 29
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 06:59 PM | # “Why not e-mail me a fully-worked post on CoC. I’ll put it up - be proud yo have you as a guestie. Maybe Kevin can be prevailed upon to respond.” Arcane, It would benefit us all if you heeded GW’s excellent suggestion and did put up a critique. I want to read an intelligent critique of CoC but sadly, there aren’t any. Your piece would also greatly enliven debate here on an issue where obfuscation otherwise rules supreme. regards, Phil 30
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:00 PM | # Phil, Most of the notes from David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism are from Jewish sources, as well. For what reason do you choose MacDonald’s critique over Duke’s? Is it maybe because MacDonald has a Ph.D. and thus an air of respectability? If that is the case, then I don’t see how you can reject everyone else who has Ph.D.s who disagree with MacDonald. Geoff, You smear people all the time, such as John Jay Ray. Who is the “excrement spreader” here? Here’s some of the excrement that you spat out of your mouth…
So I repeat what you said to me… “But you did find enough space to smear him. Another excrement spreader.” 31
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 07:01 PM | # As far as MacDonald supposedly being “rational and morally neutral,” perhaps you have never seen his response to Derbyshire… I have seen it, and it does nothing to support a contention that the “anti-semitism” you ascribe to MacDonald is not morally neutral. The term “morally neutral” means not right or wrong by appeal to an objective standard. In other words, there is no way to argue that MacDonald’s “anti-Semitism” is morally wrong. Either it’s not anti-Semitism, or anti-Semitism is not morally wrong—take your pick. The fact that MacDonald or anyone else finds a co-ethnic to be morally deficient because he carries water for a hostile outgroup is an entirely different moral dimension. That’s a rather obvious distinction that you attempt to obfuscate. 32
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:02 PM | # Phil, Fine, I’ll make up a long post one day when I have the time and post it on Gene Expression. 33
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 07:03 PM | # I do not have enough space to critique even five pages of the preface to the paperback edition. Does the preface even purport to be an academic work? 34
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:04 PM | # ben, What the heck are you talking about? “Hostile outgroups?” 35
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:04 PM | # ben, The preface is in the paperback edition of a book that is part of an academic series. 36
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 07:07 PM | # You smear people all the time, such as John Jay Ray. Who is the “excrement spreader” here? Here’s some of the excrement that you spat out of your mouth… This guy will say anything, however idiotic. That’s not a smear—it’s an insult. 37
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 07:09 PM | # “Most of the notes from David Duke’s Jewish Supremacism are from Jewish sources, as well” You seem to be confusing two different things: facts and opinion. I don’t care what is Duke’s or MacDonald’s opinion on this or that. I only care for facts. Does MacDonald engage in putting up all kinds of false factual statements as Liberals love doing in academia? If not, then even if one completely disagrees with MacDonald on questions of opinion, one has to deal with the facts. You have not rebutted any of the facts in his book. Those facts, if not rebutted stand and make a case on their own. Lastly, there is old saying: “There is no smoke without a fire”. What I mean is, why is it always Jewish influence people keep arguing about? Not many have spent countless man-hours debating the influence of the Chinese or the Japanese in America - both reasonably high IQ groups and minorities that have been subject to racial exclusion. 38
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 07:10 PM | # If that is the case, then I don’t see how you can reject everyone else who has Ph.D.s who disagree [sic] with MacDonald. Who are these people, and where are their critiques? 39
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 07:10 PM | # Arcane: Yes. I’ve used harsh invective, and will continue to throw insults. But calling someone an anti-semite, has the same force as calling someone a pederast, child molestor,or racist. It is simply THE WORST CHARGE that can be levelled against anyone. This charge, of anti-semite, flows freely from your mouth. We see that. You levelled that charge against MacDonald without bothering to substantiate the charge. Yes, you are an excrement smearer. 40
Posted by ben tillman on February 06, 2005, 07:12 PM | # What the heck are you talking about? “Hostile outgroups?” Now we learn that Arcane has not even read MacDonald’s trilogy. 41
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 07:13 PM | # Arcane has been caught with his hands full of excrement. That is why he is dragging in David Duke. Duke has nothing to do with MacDonald. 42
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 07:15 PM | # “Fine, I’ll make up a long post one day when I have the time and post it on Gene Expression.” Excellent. I suggest we have a cease fire until then. With your permission Arcane, we will reproduce your piece here and will have a running thread here as well. 43
Posted by jonjayray on February 06, 2005, 07:15 PM | # LOL I did of course do this post as a tease. It certainly worked. I hoped it would make the loonies feel more isolated. It should. As far as I can tell, the four most influential English-speaking conservative politicians of the last 150 years are Disraeli, Salisbury, Goldwater and Reagan and not one of them is acceptable to many of the so-called conservatives who frequent this site. Have the “tribalists” concerned noticed that their “tribe” does not want them? 44
Posted by Geoff Beck on February 06, 2005, 07:20 PM | # > I did of course do this post as a tease. While Arcane has excrement on his hands, Ray has it on his face. 45
Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2005, 07:26 PM | # John, I think we all worked out rather quickly that this was a Ray tease. But one tease is enough for today. 46
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:27 PM | # Phil,
ben, I asked “hostile outgroups” because unlike you I do not consider Jews to be a “hostile outgroup.” Indeed, if you do consider them to be a “hostile outgroup,” then you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-Semite. As far as you looking for a slew of people with Ph.D.s opposing MacDonald, I suggest you read the Slate debate concerning him and the soon-to-be-published paper on MacDonald from the Center for Evolutionary Psychology. Geoff, 47
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:30 PM | # ben, 48
Posted by Phil Peterson on February 06, 2005, 07:38 PM | # “Nice job dancing around my question… allow me to ask it again.” You’ve been evading the fundmental question all along old chap. You haven’t told us what is factually incorrect in MacDonald’s book. So until you can show me factual inaccuracies, its pointless for us to argue about this. My point is (which MacDonald makes): Jews had a fundamental role to play in the open borders movement, the first step in that direction was the Act of 1965. He documents this extensively in many places, not just CoC. If any of what he asserts is factually wrong, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, you and I are speaking at cross purposes. You dislike MacDonald for reasons that I am not curious to know. I do not harbour such extreme ill-will for I have some disagreements with almost every human being on earth. That is not reason enough for me to harbour such visceral hatred for him. regards, Phil 49
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 07:41 PM | # Phil, David Duke says the exact same things as MacDonald in his book and, like MacDonald, uses almost entirely Jewish sources in many parts of the book. What makes Duke different than MacDonald? 50
Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2005, 08:41 PM | # Arcane, That is a simple subterfuge to tar MacDonald, and you know it. The debate cannot be advanced thereby. You might as well say that somebody who admires Dawkins must be a fan of Lewontin because both are geneticists and both on the left. It’s for Phil to decide whom he reads, whom he admires and why, and whom he chooses to quote. It’s for you to explain the errors of MacDonald which, apparently, you claim exist. Otherwise you must eschew The Selfish Gene because of the duplicity of Lewontin’s 15%. 51
Posted by Arcane on February 06, 2005, 09:02 PM | # Ugh, Guessedworker, ugh. Please don’t utter the name of Lewontin around me. I do not wish to be associated with such a *cough* Marxist individual. I stand down now. 52
Posted by jonjayray on February 07, 2005, 09:42 AM | # I notice that it seems to be the same half-dozen people who comment all the time on this blog even though the hits would indicate that it has many, many more readers than that. So I think I will let the loonies continue chasing their tails in future and just post for what I infer the major element of the audience to be. In other words I will TRY to avoid future teases. 53
Posted by Guessedworker on February 07, 2005, 10:18 AM | # Never make promises you know you can’t keep. 54
Posted by ben tillman on February 07, 2005, 11:56 AM | # I have read The Culture of Critique, but not the entire trilogy. Unfortunately, I do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend on any book that I may have the slightest interest in…. In view of the above, I find it curious that you would have read Duke’s book as well: David Duke says the exact same things as MacDonald in his book and, like MacDonald…. 55
Posted by ben tillman on February 07, 2005, 12:24 PM | # As far as you looking for a slew of people with Ph.D.s opposing MacDonald, I suggest you read the Slate debate concerning him and the soon-to-be-published paper on MacDonald from the Center for Evolutionary Psychology. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ The linked page has promised a “critique” of MacDonald’s work for years now. And the “debate” at Slate, if I recall correctly, did not include a single negative academic critique of MacDonald’s work. Shulevitz simply sought a denunciation of MacDonald by Tooby & Cosmides. Her comments, in a letter to Tooby, included this nugget: “For the record, I never said his views were false; I’ve said they were ugly, anti-Semitic, and similar to those held by Nazis.” http://slate.msn.com/?id=74139 In other words, Shulevitz is intervening in the workings of an academic discipline to influence scientists to use the discipline for political rather than scientific purposes. Citing such an example is rather counterproductive to the cause of demonstrating that MacDonald’s theses do not stand up to scrutiny. 56
Posted by ben tillman on February 07, 2005, 12:49 PM | # I asked “hostile outgroups” because unlike you I do not consider Jews to be a “hostile outgroup.” Indeed, if you do consider them to be a “hostile outgroup,” then you have pretty much proven yourself to be an anti-Semite. No, neither I nor anyone else can be proven to be an “anti-Semite” until the term is defined. You were asked to provide a definition, but you have chosen not to do so. As with the term “racist” the act of defining the term destroys its power; the term must be defined in a way that either fails to encompass the person in question or belies the moral stigma that the charge is supposed to carry. 57
Posted by Svigor on February 07, 2005, 04:08 PM | # John, it seems you are increasingly not wanted by various anti-Semites here at this blog… why do they still let you blog on this site, especially when they sympathize with people like Wintermute, who has not only been banned from sensible sites like Gene Expression, but also from Nazi sites like The Phora? Some of the bloggers on here don’t seem to believe that you can recognize the Jewish contributions to Western Civilization, because they are not Western. Very bizarre, but definitely anti-Semitic. Hey Arcane. Gene Expression isn’t a sensible site in this context. At GNXP, WNs are banned for being WNs. The truth is that the owners of GNXP aren’t interested in full-spectrum discussion. You may characterize that any way you wish (it will probably end up more intellectual than my characterization: pussies). As for JJR, I don’t want him to go anywhere (since I’m not a pussy). As for the Jewish contributions to western civilization: oh for God’s sake grow up man. The halls of academia, the libraries of the west, the airwaves of the media are all swollen with praise for Jewry. Here we have a tiny sliver of the .01% of the ideosphere not given over to wholesale handjobbing of Jewry and you have a problem with that? Perspective, man, get some perspective! In short, Jewry and it’s multitudinous friends do a more than sufficient job of “recognizing Jewish contributions to western civilization.” I’m bored with reading such, why would I want to create another venue for it or contribute to such a venue? It’s the same old spurious argument as was used against KMac, that he’s an anti-Semite because he didn’t enumerate the “good” along with the “bad” of Jewry. Of course the argument is utterly decontextualized from any sense of reality. 58
Posted by Svigor on February 07, 2005, 04:11 PM | # I like you Arcane, you’re a sensible person but your Jew-blinders are tiresome. Really man, do you go to philo-Semitic sites, find expressions of philo-Semitism, and argue that they should include some of Jewry’s dirty laundry for balance’s sake? Further, it’s like arguing that a man isn’t guilty of murder because he’s given to charity all his life; the trial isn’t over whether he is, on balance, a great fella, it’s whether he commited murder or not. 59
Posted by Svigor on February 07, 2005, 04:19 PM | # The problem is Kubilai, is that these individuals do not see an alliance with Jews as permissable. To them, Jews are an alien influence and the cause of much of the problems that exist today in contemporary Western Civilization. Just look at their posts on Disraeli! They oppose Disraeli for just one reason: he’s Jewish. While I recognize that I may not be included among your subject individuals, I’ll reply anyways. It is not a matter of what is permissible, but of what is possible. Oversimplified, I think such an alliance isn’t possible. I think of three thousand years of relatively consistent behavior as more relevant here than speculation based on no precedent. 60
Posted by Svigor on February 07, 2005, 04:34 PM | # It would benefit us all if you heeded GW’s excellent suggestion and did put up a critique. I want to read an intelligent critique of CoC but sadly, there aren’t any. Seconded. I’ve read some stuff at GNXP that purports to refute the KMac’s science, but that’s all over my head. I remember one link to some guy on a forum “demolishing” KMac who hadn’t even read the book. The funny part was that whoever posted the link to GNXP characterized the debunking as “devastating” or somesuch. LOL. I, like Phil, find the book more valuable as a critique of Jewry than as a scientific work, since science is largely over my head. I’d like to see a poli-sci or historical critique of KMac that isn’t 99% strawmen, obfuscations, and selective reading. 61
Posted by Svigor on February 07, 2005, 04:56 PM | # It isn’t possible for Jewry to truly ally with western man; the definition of Jew precludes it. Of course, many (if not most) who self-identify as Jews in America aren’t actually Jews but rather post-Jews. They are well on their way to assimilation. Unlike most WNs, I don’t view that with horror. In fact, I think that the most effective path for WNism would be to do everything to minimize Jewish paranoia and absorb secular Jewry into the White population. There is of course problematic and less than clear and there are many effective counter arguments (e.g., by the time assimilation is complete the west will be dead, precedent argues against it, etc.). Still, the point is that the solution lies in Jews laying down their Jewishness. Judaism, of virtually every stripe, is effectively opposed to the existence of healthy western man. This isn’t of course to say that there aren’t exceptions, but to say that organized Jewry is extremely unlikely to truly join western man and champion his interests. It would involve a 180 degree turn. If organized Jewry makes the 180 degree turn, then I’ll entertain the idea of an alliance. Until then the very idea is somewhat pathetic. 62
Posted by Effra on February 07, 2005, 09:39 PM | # I see requests for a definition of “anti-semitic” on this thread. How about this: “Semite” is a term for those who speak a group of related languages in the Near East. This includes both Jews and Arabs, who are closely related genetically and are each distinct from Caucasoids (Whites). “Anti-semitic” therefore means hostile to Jews, Arabs etc. It is incorrect to use it solely to indicate Judeophobia. Anti-semitism is best seen as a subset of xenophobia. As an inveterate xenophobe (including mild aversions to non-English subjects of Her Majesty the Queen) I am content to accept the designation “anti-semitic”, inter alia, in the sense I have defined above. “Abroad is unutterably bloody and foreigners are fiends” (Uncle Matthew). I do not wish to enslave or kill foreigners—you cannot touch pitch without being defiled. Foreigners, including semites, are best ignored. But they have no place in the United Kingdom except as brief visitors for essential purposes only (*not* tourism). 63
Posted by Svigor on February 08, 2005, 03:06 PM | # Anti-Semitism didn’t refer to Arab-hatred when it was coined and it doesn’t now. The etymology of the word is flawed but them’s the breaks. 64
Posted by Svigor on February 08, 2005, 03:16 PM | # Anti-Semitism: animus against Jews for being Jews. Heh, you know, at least as it applies to Classical Judaism, it isn’t an exaggeration to consider this version of anti-Semitism the moral duty of every non-Jew. Of course, we live in Bizarro World, where Jews are regarded as good people simply for being Jews (something of an inversion of reality, given the nature of Judaism). Heh, I get a chuckle thinking about all the criticism Christians get from your typical “progressive,” who of course has nothing whatever to say about Jews or Judaism because he knows nothing about Jews or Judaism (other than he must like the former and approve of the latter). 65
Posted by bleedingbrain on February 08, 2005, 03:58 PM | # An absolutely fascinating read. The link to the Weekly Standard article was great. Looking at the early development of conservatism is rewarding. 66
Posted by Guessedworker on February 08, 2005, 05:20 PM | # bb, Early Conservatism ranged from 1485 to the first Ministry of Pitt the Younger. Disraeli brought an end to Conservatism. He himself was a radical, an opportunist. But he was not a Conservative. 67
Posted by FadeTheButcher on February 12, 2006, 07:46 PM | # 1.) As the previous owner, I can say that wintermute was not banned from The Phora. Next entry: Dizzy and the subversion of British Conservatism Previous entry: Democracy in Iraq |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 01:27 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Sound principles of money, by Arthur Kitson' on 02/09/12, 01:26 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:16 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:04 PM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:54 AM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:45 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:19 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:18 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 11:11 AM. (go) (view) Ron Trisner commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:10 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:05 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 09:00 AM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:37 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:05 AM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:04 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'Yo! Cop = Scum Cow!' on 02/09/12, 07:16 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'The Moral high ground?' on 02/09/12, 06:50 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2005, 08:23 AM | #
There’s so much here to rip into shreds I’ll have to do an individual post. Just a couple of tasters, though:-
A nationality for Disraeli is a state of mind or sensibility or consciousness emerging out of the measureless past. (Its essence being a state of mind, it cannot easily be communicated in words, any more than a religious state of mind can be.)
Well, my nation-ality is a product of time, race and geography. But I am not a wanderer. I do not need to obfuscate and “finesse” my host’s nationality so as to avoid further difficulties for myself. I am one of the host. I wish neither to be obfuscated nor “finessed” for another’s benefit.
Marx and Disraeli are perfect countertypes—partly the same, partly opposite (like particle and anti-particle in nuclear physics; when they meet, they destroy each other). Marx and Disraeli are the principal creators of the modern left and right respectively—two 19th-century Jews whose fathers had them baptized, who worked mainly in London, who counted on British power to protect the world from a dangerous Czarist Russia, who died within two years of each other, in 1881 (Disraeli) and ‘83 (Marx). They were both obsessed with Jews and Judaism, but Marx (the atheist left-winger) hated Jews, Judaism, and religion in general; Disraeli (the devout right-winger) felt differently.
Oh dear, John, what fun won’t Wintermute and ben have with that thundering but incredibly ill-advised boast that a couple of Jews gave us the subtle revolution that replaced a British Conservative zeitgeist for a Jewish liberal one? Are you absolutely intent on furthering MR’s (probably extensive) reputation for not caring a monkey’s about Jewish sensibilties?