Forget about cultural marxism

Today’s left is, in substantial part Cultural Marxism from the Frankfurt School.  Should you conclude that the Frankfurt School is really really important?

If you conclude that Cultural Marxism is really really important and rules the world, it follows that Jews rule the world.  Hard to prove they don’t.  It also follows that leftism was just fine and democracy was just fine all the way up to and including the New Deal, and if we could revive the New Deal coalition and get rid of the Jews everything would be lovely.

If you believe that the Cultural Marxism is the problem rather than a problem, it follows that getting rid of Jews would solve the problem.  Hard to prove that getting rid of Jews would not solve the problem.  In the course of my many arguments with my Jewish commenter B, I have endorsed pretty much everything that /pol/ and Steve Sailer says about Jews, other than that they rule the world and are responsible for every bad thing everywhere that ever happened anywhere.  And B has mostly agreed, because we both agree that reform Jews are a problem, though not the problem, and Orthodox Jews have resisted the rot better than most.  We just disagree as to what extent Orthodox Jews have resisted the rot, and to what extent they will continue to resist the rot.

But it is pretty easy to prove that democracy was not just fine and the New Deal was not just fine.

From the day that Cromwell cracked down on those to his left in 1653, the predecessors of today’s regnant left were fleeing, or being expelled, to America, and, in America, were plotting to conquer America, reconquer England, and conquer the world.  To this end, they founded Harvard, which was from the beginning the center of their conspiracy.  And none of them were Jews.

As they became increasingly successful, obtained worldly power, they increasingly came to compete with each other for superior holiness, each holier than each of the others.  And pretty soon became holier than Jesus.  Being holier than Jesus, swiftly became unitarians, then atheists, then extremely militant atheists hostile to the parent religion from which their heresy sprung.

It was not the Jews that gave us prohibition, female emancipation, and the war between the states, though they eagerly attached themselves to those movements once those movements had already succeeded.

British Imperialism was an anti colonialist movement, the disastrous predecessor of today’s even more disastrous anti colonialism, and as one can trace modern leftism back through super protestantism to the prohibitionists and the emancipators, one can trace modern anti colonialism through the London School of Economics to British imperialism.  In the 1830s or thereabouts, the British government gradually came to notice that the colonialists had conquered an empire.  The colonialists were initially merchant adventurers, meaning they engaged in a bit of trade and a bit of piracy, were initially mobile bandits.  Being successful mobile bandits, they had, without anyone quite noticing, transitioned to being successful stationary bandits.  They had come to rule, and rule well.  The British government decided to shoulder the white man’s burden, to rule for the greater good of the poor victimized natives who were being oppressed by these evil piratical colonialist bandits.  The result was, unsurprisingly, extremely bad, and every failure convinced them to double down, which doubling down continued almost to the present day, until finally the Chinese started to step into the vacuum the anti colonialists had created.  The Chinese have fixed Nigeria, and throughout Africa are remedying the destruction and horror that the anti colonialists created when they drove the colonialists out.

You are not going to be able to make any sense of Africa if you fixate on Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School.

The sexual revolution did not begin in the sixties.  Rather, that was recovery after a retreat during the war and postwar period, during which the left had focused on the proletariat rather than female emancipation, an unsuccessful attempt to move towards socialism, an attempt that was largely the result of Jewish influence.  This failed effort to move left towards command socialism gave breathing room for marriage to make a partial and temporary recovery.  It gave the left something to do other than double down on destroying marriage.  The sexual revolution began in Victorian times.  And you cannot blame the Jews for either Victorian original, or its sixties rebirth.

If you want to blame Jews for the sixties sexual revolution, you are going to focus on Margaret Meade’s mentor.  But Margaret Meade herself was the protestant descended left, and we can tell who had the power by whom Margaret Meade fucked.  She was the protestant descended left, by blood, by culture and by upbringing descended from the prohibitionists and the emancipationists, and was fucking the protestant descended left.

The eighteenth century view of women was that they were the uncontrollably lustful sex, that given half a chance they would crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with their demon lover. In the Victorian era, this was replaced by the doctrine that women were naturally pure and chaste, except that evil lecherous men forced their vile lusts upon them.   This resulted in the abrupt removal of eighteenth century controls on female misbehavior.  Women, such as the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice” were allowed to be “out” while fertile age and single, giving them every opportunity for twentieth century style misbehavior.  The evidence produced in the case of the divorce of Queen Caroline suggests that they did in fact misbehave, but, lacking cameras everywhere, it was possible to get away with denying this fact.   Queen Caroline attended a ball naked from the waist up, and returned to her hotel with someone she met at the ball, but the official truth remained that she was a chaste woman cruelly mistreated by her lecherous and philandering husband.   In view of what Queen Caroline got up to and got away with, and in view of the lack of controls on the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice”, who at one point was in a cottage by herself visited by male love interests, we may suppose a covert sexual revolution in Victorian times, going public in 1910, in part because cameras were getting usable.

Queen Caroline getting sainted despite fucking around indiscriminately predates the Frankfurt School by quite a bit.

Forget about Cultural Marxism. Remember the divorce of Queen Caroline.

The problem with getting rid of Jews is not that it is rough on Jews. The solutions I propose are likely to be rough on lots of people. The problem with getting rid of Jews is that you wind up with socialism. If the Frankfurt School is the root of all evil, then the New Deal is just peachy.

The problem is not that “Frankfurt School” is the way that smart people say “Get rid of the Jews”. The problem is that “Frankfurt School” is the way smart people say “Let us have socialism”.

179 Responses to “Forget about cultural marxism”

  1. Steve Johnson says:

    Jews are still basically the ruling class now and are uniquely bad at filling that role having had selection that causes them to treat the country they rule like a rental car. They’ve been expelled from their host societies often enough to be selected to think short term because they’ll end up kicked out of wherever they are – no reason to invest for the long term if you know that your grandchildren will live somewhere else. Now they are the ruling class and things are falling apart faster than they did when the ruling class was Anglo and socialist.

    Madoff sets up a criminal enterprise and pitches it to other Jews as a criminal enterprise but one where he front runs his market making clients for the benefit of his fund investors and they all buy in because that’s what you do when you run a country that you see as a rental – you loot it as fast as you can. Not one of his potential investors says ‘this guy is running a con that will undermine confidence in the market that I make huge amounts of money from’ – not one of them. Madoff, of course, was one step ahead of them and was simply robbing his fund investors.

    They’re not the problem but they are a problem.

    • jim says:

      Jews are still basically the ruling class now

      Jews are overrepresented in the ruling class, and particularly overrepresented in the most dangerous and harmful part of the ruling class, the priesthood. But they are not the ruling class. They are not even that numerous in the ruling class. In the recent financial crisis, most of the major criminals were diversities, for example the biggest criminal of them all, Angelo Mozilo, but only a small proportion of the criminals were Jews.

      The vast majority of the vanished money vanished via non Jews, and Israeli banks had no role in the crisis.

      Jews had a disproportionate, but still minor, role in stealing and losing the money.

    • jim says:

      Madoff sets up a criminal enterprise and pitches it to other Jews as a criminal enterprise but one where he front runs his market making clients for the benefit of his fund investors and they all buy in because that’s what you do when you run a country that you see as a rental – you loot it as fast as you can.

      Who pissed away more money? Madoff or Angelo Mozilo?

      Who was more nakedly and destructively predatory. Madoff or Jon Corzine?

      Jews are overrepresented among the thieves, but they are not that overrepresented.

      • peppermint says:

        also the CEO of GE who did so much to destroy the American middle class. Not a Jew.

        The Nazi thing to say is that he was a capitalist who focused too much on his machines instead of the racial soul, which is almost as bad as a Jew. The neoreactionary thing to say is to ask what incentives led him to do it and how to incentivize good behavior. The Christians among us might reply that that’s the Louis Brandeis technocratic thing to say.

    • Alex says:

      Well said but don’t fall for the notion Madoff “victimized Jews” – this was what the media did to spin the story from the enormous story of a stereotypical money-loving crooked Jew criminal.

      • jim says:

        Sure Madoff victimized Jews and he was a crooked Jew criminal, who appealed to (nonexistent) Jewish solidarity. “Hey, I am robbing all these gentiles like a good Jew should, and since you are a fellow Jew, I will cut you in on some of the action.”

  2. “Cultural Marxism” is not a leftist ideology as much as it is a conspiracy theory made up by the likes of pro-Israeli Republican Party paleocons. Opposition to convoluted, nonsensical populist leftism is desirable for anyone with a brain, however, there is no excuse for buying into any nice sounding theory that happens to tell you what you want to hear; to try to slander and suppress contrary ideas is to acknowledge that opinions other than yours do, in fact, have value, much like how Mao and Pol Pot had a hard-on for anti-intellectualism.

    • jim says:

      Cultural Marxism is real and a big problem. It is a problem, however, that is dangerous to obsess over. That way lies socialism.

    • jim says:

      a conspiracy theory made up by the likes of pro-Israeli Republican Party paleocons

      Would pro Israeli Republicans make up a conspiracy theory whose logical implication is that Jews need to eradicated?

      Not to mention, the conspiracy is obviously real, it is only a question of how much it matters. I say you can tell it did not matter that much from whom Margaret Meade fucked.

      • No, it is not real. It doesn’t matter if I like this fact or you do not because it has been proven to be a propaganda ass-pull.

        If you’re going to continue to believe something no matter what, why even consider others’ theories or opinions on anything?

    • nydwracu says:

      I don’t know about Cultural Marxism. I haven’t read Adorno. But the existence of the Frankfurt School is historical fact.

      How influential were they? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone but Adorno or Fromm cited. Sometimes people group in Gramsci with the Cultural Marxists (usually while confusing him with Dutschke); he wasn’t Frankfurt School, but he gets cited. I have his book somewhere, but I haven’t found the time to read it yet.

      How influential was Wilhelm Reich? Well, did Adorno correspond with Einstein? Reich wasn’t Frankfurt School, and the “Cultural Marxism” people never mention him. There are, at best, gaps in the theory.

      And can’t explain Margaret Mead, FDR’s hard-on for Stalin, “Communism is 20th-century Americanism”, the religious communes, the French Revolution, Woodrow Wilson, the tactics of the abolitionists, etc., etc., etc.

      • Of course the Frankfurt School was a thing, I don’t even have an incentive to pretend otherwise. However, the “Cultural Marxism” conspiracy theory about it is not.

        • jim says:

          The relevant conspiracy is glaringly obvious. The debate is not on whether it exists, but on whether it rules the world, or is merely one of numerous little conspiracies whose power struggles lead to ever leftwards movement, as each faction claims to be lefter, and thus holier, than each of the others.

          • It can’t be part of anything because it isn’t real. The Frankfurt School was just fringe academics applying Marxist theory that has nothing to do with Marxism, it faded into relative obscurity, and Pat Buchanan decided to use it as a bogeyman for any political ideology they dislike.

            Of course, the sole reason Cultural Marxism is even accepted as a theory anywhere is so rightists can avoid ever acknowledge non-right viewpoints (even centrist or slightly right leaning ones) as valid and make leftist thought a crime akin to premeditated murder.

            • jim says:

              The Frankfurt School was just fringe academics applying Marxist theory that has nothing to do with Marxism, it faded into relative obscurity

              Hardly faded into obscurity when its doctrines are routinely destroying people’s lives.

              Consider, for example, the recent UVA false rape accusation scandal. The underlying principle was that it does not matter if any particular rape accusation is true or false, because frat boys as a class rape women as a class, so therefore no need to examine charges. Women are speaking the truth, as a class, even if technically they are lying as individuals. Therefore the frats need to be punished, even as this particular rape accusation draws increasing ridicule.

          • peppermint says:

            Pat Buchanan?

            No, this comes from /pol/.

            The fact that you blame a visible paleoconservative instead shows how constricted your viewpoint is.

  3. Adolf the anti-White says:

    In medieval Europe, opposition to Jews was mostly religious. This tends to come from people who take their religion seriously enough to oppose what they consider a false religion.

    Strong forms of racial antisemitism tend to be demotist. And they had a very limited history prior to 1900.

    • B says:

      Eh. Conversos in Spain. They converted to Catholicism, and then of course you had the problem that very quickly, with employment restrictions removed, they rose to the top of every field. Then you had to have an Inquisition, you know, to make sure that those conversos had really converted. It’s amazing how much you can get people to confess to when you put the screws to them, and how profitable it can be.

      Steve Johnson-the Jews of France were there before the Normans and Lombards showed up. The Jews of Poland lived there for 500 years. The Jews of Iraq for 2500, longer than Arabic has been spoken in the land. The Jews of Egypt for 2500 years. What do you mean, “short term”? And how is it that when Iraq became Judenrein, and stopped getting driven like a rental car, the economy didn’t skyrocket? Possibly for similar reasons that the African postcolonial economical miracle failed to materialize?

      • Just sayin' says:

        Iraq IQ 87

        • B says:

          Spanish IQ is higher, but they did not make very wise decisions nationally once they kicked the Jews out.

          • josh says:

            Are you suggesting that their were not large converso communities open-secretly participating in non-Christian worship? If so, you are wrong. In hindsight, expulsion may have been a poor solution, but it was an attempted solution to a real problem.

          • B says:

            I am suggesting that the Spanish obsession with figuring out which of the people they’d forcibly converted kept their old religion in private stemmed from their envy and fear of those people’s success. I am also suggesting that kicking the Jews out/forcibly converting them was the start of the Spanish decline, leading to the failure of the Armada, the loss of the Netherlands, the corruption and slow collapse of the empire and the Spanish people.

            • jim says:

              The causal link would be reasonable if Spanish Jews had higher IQ, but I don’t think they did.

              I would say the decline of Spain had more to do with what inclined them to mistreat Cortez and Pizarro. The Spanish empire failed to reward ability, or punish incompetence and treason.

          • B says:

            Well, when you fail to reward ability and you kick out your Jews, odds are these behaviors are causally linked.

            IQ isn’t everything. Iraq collapsed fast after Jews were dispossessed as well. I really can’t think of any places that did well after robbing their Jews. “He who blesses them will be blessed and he who blesses them will be cursed.”

            • jim says:

              IQ isn’t everything. Iraq collapsed fast after Jews were dispossessed as well.

              Iraqi Jews are substantially smarter than Iraqis. They are just not smarter than whites. So kicking out the Jews from Iraq probably had the same element of kicking out the market dominant minority that kicking out Jews from European countries tended to have. Obviously if you kick out, or exterminate, your market dominant minorities, you are going to give the able people a hard time even if they are of the correct race and religion.

          • peppermint says:

            I don’t really know anything about Spain. Weren’t they more of an imperialist empire, as opposed to colonialist, from the beginning? They could build that invincible armada because they stole a lot of gold from the empires the conquered, but they lost the battle to English ships with longer-ranged cannons and luck.

            The Jim Thesis that capitalism is civilization, then, doesn’t really apply.

            It’s disingenuous to blame kicking out the Jews, because they were ostensibly kicked out with the Muzzies when Spain was founded. To what extent did crypto-Jews doing taxes for Spaniards matter? Did the crypto-Jews have crypto-power? They didn’t have Ashkenazic IQs. There was no one point at which the crypto-Jews were cleared out, after which we can point to Spain falling apart.

            • jim says:

              I would say Spain declined because they were an imperial empire from the beginning. Giving Cortez and Pizarro a hard time was a poor idea. Giving secret Jews a hard time probably made little difference.

          • B says:

            >It’s disingenuous to blame kicking out the Jews, because they were ostensibly kicked out with the Muzzies when Spain was founded. To what extent did crypto-Jews doing taxes for Spaniards matter? Did the crypto-Jews have crypto-power?

            The institutions of the Spanish which allowed them to fight the reconquista depended on Jews. The aspergery obsession with IQ (which is then projected onto various times and periods using very vague methodology) is not a good way to analyze history. Spanish Jews produced Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, Abarbanel, etc. The amount of human capital they brought to the Spaniards was huge.

          • Sam says:

            B says:
            January 22, 2015 at 3:56 am

            “Spanish IQ is higher, but they did not make very wise decisions nationally once they kicked the Jews out.”

            What gibberish nonsense. The Jews were kicked out in 1492 after that was the greatest time in Spain EVER. The start of the Spanish Empire between 1492 and 1892.

            This is of course a trend. After the English kicked out the Jews they had great times also.

            Has there ever been any country or group of people who have had a long relationship with the Jews that did not end in tragedy for them? I can’t think of any. Even for the Jews themselves. Maybe there is some but I don’t know about them.

            • jim says:

              After the English kicked out the Jews they had great times also.

              The greatest time of England was the conquest of the east and the scientific and industrial revolutions.

              Which happened shortly after they let the Jews back in again.

              It certainly was not the Jews doing the conquest of empire, and for the most part it was not the Jews doing the scientific and industrial revolutions, but I think that climate of pragmatism and elitism that led to them allowing the Jews back in, also led to the English achieving great things.

              Unlike B, I don’t think that societies that kicked out the Jews failed for lack of Jews – but they failed because of a climate that did not like high achievers.

              The Jews in England before the edict of expulsion were direct vassals of the King, which gave them a privileged position, since a regular person was a vassal of a vassal of a vassal of a vassal of a vassal to the King. Jews operated the financial system, and had an exclusive monopoly, which monopoly was extremely lucrative – for the King.

          • peppermint says:

            it’s funny because the Jews were siding with the Muzzies and there was a famous Jewish general in the armies of the Musulmen.

            but apparently the new state that Ferdinand and Isabelle set up in their recently conquered land was somehow dependent on the Jews that they kicked out of it when they conquered it, and that meant that when they kicked the Jews out, it made their empire fail to be strong several centuries later.

            The current king of Spain is a Bourbon, but the fact that Spain became the most important possession of the Spanish Habsburgs is probably the reason for the astounding claim that kicking out the Jews caused the Habsburgs to lose the Netherlands.

            • jim says:

              Jews continue to side with Muslims, even as Muslim lands are rendered entirely Judenrein, as B will probably tell you.

              I find no end of Jewish treatises on how wonderfully civilized the Muslims were, and are, and how horrid, hateful and barbaric the Christians were and are, and how greatly Jewish civilization prospered under the Muslims. Stockholm syndrome. Sometimes Stockholm syndrome necessitates shooting the hostages.

              The descendents of those Jews that signed up with the crusaders, a small minority, are still around in vast numbers. The descendents of those Jews that signed up with the Muslims, the vast majority, are around in considerably fewer numbers, and have been culturally annihilated, but still a lot of Jews have a hard on for Muslim domination. Not all of them, and in Israel considerably fewer for obvious reasons, but in the west outside of Israel, one hell of a lot. They not only like exile, they would like their exile to be under Muslim rule. It is that infamous Jewish masochism. Jews are too crazy to rule the world.

          • B says:

            The Spanish Empire which Ferdinand and Isabella created was run on institutions which either had been created by Jews prior to expulsion or run by conversos. The Empire was astoundingly inefficient and wasteful, becoming more so as time went on, with results like massive inflation, the loss of the Netherlands and the loss to the English of the Armada happening within 100 years of the expulsion. The fact that it took 3 centuries for the whole thing to collapse is irrelevant. It started rotting right away, to the point that within a couple of generations, Drake and Raleigh and other scallywags from some hypothermic sheep shearing island were eating the empire’s lunch, despite it having a near monopoly on gold and silver production and outposts stretching across the world.

          • B says:

            The Muslims, for all the bad things you could say about them, had two things going for them:

            1) Monotheism. The issues of idolatry which arose with Christianity never arose with Islam.
            2) They were not known for massacring Jews and Christians who came into their power. In Christian Europe, events like the Massacre of Worms, the 1321 Leper Scare, the Massacre of York, were commonplace. In the Muslim world, being a Jew sucked but massacres were rare.

            Nonetheless, the descendants of Jews from the Muslim world in Israel today have a much healthier and more realistic attitude towards Muslims than the typical Ashkenazi (I’m talking about the secular.) It’s no accident that Ashkelon, full of Sepharadim, was the place whose mayor attempted to ban Arab workers.

            • jim says:

              2) They were not known for massacring Jews and Christians who came into their power. In Christian Europe, events like the Massacre of Worms, the 1321 Leper Scare, the Massacre of York, were commonplace. In the Muslim world, being a Jew sucked but massacres were rare.

              Yet the Jewish population in the Muslim world steadily shrunk, while the Jewish population on the Christian world steadily grew from a very small number of founders.

              Further, you don’t actually know that massacres were rare, since Jewish populations in the Muslim world tended to vanish from history. If the Nazis had been victorious, no one would remember the holocaust of the Jews. It is not so much that Muslims tended to cover up such massacres, as that they view them as irrelevant, insignificant, and uninteresting. Mizrahi history is forgotten and obliterated.

              Checking the History of the Jews of Egypt, a country where history under the Muslims actually did get recorded, there seem to have been more massacres than you can shake a stick at. Which might well explain the tininess of the Jewish population.

          • B says:

            >Yet the Jewish population in the Muslim world steadily shrunk, while the Jewish population on the Christian world steadily grew from a very small number of founders.

            The Jewish population of the Muslim world was almost a million in 1948. The Jewish population of the Christian world was larger, but then again, the Christian population of 1948 was larger than the population of those parts of the Muslim world inhabited by Jews.

            >Further, you don’t actually know that massacres were rare, since Jewish populations in the Muslim world tended to vanish from history.

            Untrue. For instance, the communities of Persia, Iraq, Egypt and the rest of North Africa had an unbroken existence since anyone started keeping records. They did not vanish.

            >Mizrahi history is forgotten and obliterated.

            Untrue.

            >Checking the History of the Jews of Egypt, a country where history actually does get recorded, there seem to have been more massacres than you can shake a stick at.

            Source?

            • jim says:

              The Jewish population of the Muslim world was almost a million in 1948. The Jewish population of the Christian world was larger, but then again, the Christian population of 1948 was larger than the population of those parts of the Muslim world inhabited by Jews.

              Mainly because most of the Muslim world not inhabited by Jews because they had murdered them all.

          • B says:

            >Mainly because most of the Muslim world not inhabited by Jews because they had murdered them all.

            Untrue (and where are those promised sources for the Egyptian massacres?) The parts of the Muslim world uninhabited by Jews were the far Eastern ones. Indonesia, Malaysia, etc. The Jewish population of India and Afghanistan was fairly sparse, because large communities never established themselves there. In general, the places with large Jewish communities in the Muslim world were the ones where Jews settled under the Persian/Roman empires, as well as the Southern Arabian peninsula. Massacres there were quite rare once those places passed into Muslim hands. Generally, Muslim policy towards Christians and Jews was more of a constant application of soft power (taxation, humiliation,) then conversion at swordpoint, which is how Christian communities in Armenia, Serbia, Egypt etc. survived many centuries under the Muslims.

            • jim says:

              The Jewish population of India and Afghanistan was fairly sparse, because large communities never established themselves there.

              The Ashkenazi population is descended from a handful. If large communities of Jews never established in Afghanistan and India, it is because Muslims kept killing them off or giving them a hard time.

              Felix Fabri reports a radical decline in the Egyptian Jewish population, due in part to harsh discriminatory law, in part to pogroms and riots.

              In general, the places with large Jewish communities in the Muslim world were the ones where Jews settled under the Persian/Roman empires, as well as the Southern Arabian peninsula. Massacres there were quite rare once those places passed into Muslim hands

              Jewish population of Egypt keeps going down to a few thousand from time to time. Egypt effectively a population sink for Jews. Jews flee there because seemingly safe because you could always get away from the mob by reciting “there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” – but after a few generations of reciting that, start believing it.

          • peppermint says:

            » you could always get away from the mob by reciting “there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” – but after a few generations of reciting that, start believing it.

            this does not appear to have been the Spanish experience.

            anyway, what’s the difference between Spain and Austria, other than dagos and Aryans? Habsburgs made successful ordnung of Austria. B would probably claim Jews caused that, but there were more Jews in Poland than in Austria and they were protected by hatespeech and civil rights laws there, and the only significant thing Poland ever did was send an army to save Vienna.

          • B says:

            >The Ashkenazi population is descended from a handful. If large communities of Jews never established in Afghanistan and India, it is because Muslims kept killing them off or giving them a hard time.

            This is a funny way to look at things. Most communities worldwide don’t experience exponential growth but stay more or less stable, without necessarily being killed off.

            I suspect that our rapid growth in Germany and points

            >Felix Fabri reports a radical decline in the Egyptian Jewish population, due in part to harsh discriminatory law, in part to pogroms and riots.

            Who? And what does he say exactly?

            >Jewish population of Egypt keeps going down to a few thousand from time to time. Egypt effectively a population sink for Jews. Jews flee there because seemingly safe because you could always get away from the mob by reciting “there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet” – but after a few generations of reciting that, start believing it.

            The advantage of the Muslim world was that you could get away from the mob there not by reciting the shahada but by paying the jizya. For getting away from the mob by converting, the Muslim world and the Christian world were about the same. Converting in the Muslim world was easier, as you say, because they were converting to a monotheistic faith, and so there are many Arab tribes which are actually Jewish. But there were relatively few massacres, and the Jewish population stayed more or less steady. There were generally accommodations, humiliating as they were, that one could live with. Sometimes they would make arrangements that worked very well in the long run, for instance, the millet in Turkey, or the system in Algiers.

            • jim says:

              >The Ashkenazi population is descended from a handful. If large communities of Jews never established in Afghanistan and India, it is because Muslims kept killing them off or giving them a hard time.

              This is a funny way to look at things. Most communities worldwide don’t experience exponential growth but stay more or less stable, without necessarily being killed off.

              Great population growth of Jews under Christendom, combined with steady population decline and cultural decline of Jews under Islam, indicates that Christians were more tolerant of Jews than Muslims, then as now.

              Plus, you simply cannot rely on Jewish history, since exile Jews still today hate Christians and like Muslims, even though today is pretty obvious which group is the more tolerant today.

          • B says:

            >Great population growth of Jews under Christendom, combined with steady population decline and cultural decline of Jews under Islam, indicates that Christians were more tolerant of Jews than Muslims, then as now.

            Not necessarily. First, the population of Jews under Islam stayed steady, more or less, throughout the ages. Second, we see other examples where the Jews multiplied greatly under oppression, for instance, Egypt before the Exodus.

            >Plus, you simply cannot rely on Jewish history, since exile Jews still today hate Christians and like Muslims, even though today is pretty obvious which group is the more tolerant today.

            I rely on Jews to know their history better than you do. You can feel free to take the postmodernist approach. Orthodox Jews today prefer Christians to Muslims, but even if they didn’t, I would still have faith that they knew their own history pretty well.

            • jim says:

              First, the population of Jews under Islam stayed steady, more or less, throughout the ages.

              No, it declined steadily to the present day, while Jews under Christian rule increased steadily.

              Second, we see other examples where the Jews multiplied greatly under oppression, for instance, Egypt before the Exodus.

              Hebrews were not oppressed under the Hyksos pharoahs. My guess would be that Hebrews were an ethnicity of the same race as the Hyksos, but with stronger family values and cleanliness values. When late bronze age civilization declined, whites lost control of Egypt to somewhat browner Arab looking people, and then the Hebrews, and probably all the white ethnicities, got persecuted, as bronze age civilization went to hell in a handbasket.

              Pentateuch clearly states that oppression dramatically increased near the time of the Exodus.

              Hyksos both semitic and aryan – possibly a mixture of semitic and aryan ethnicities, but to non Hyksos at the time, they are all the same.

              “Admonitions of Ipuwer” complains about the large population people who sound mighty like Hebrews, and the failure of Egyptians to reproduce, urges the Pharaoh to do something about the foreign population. Pentateuch says Egyptians worried by the rapid population growth of Hebrews, and decide to do something about it, which what Ipuwer implies, and almost, but not quite, what he says.

              Hyksos are polytheists who worship a sky god with Aryan rituals. Egypt has a brief flirtation with a monotheistic sun god. As white civilization falls, Egyptians get pissed against whites. Hebrews appoint a white from the Egyptian ruling class to lead them in the conflict resulting from Egyptian persecution. Hebrews were probably not all that very sharply distinct from other Hyksos until Moses throws a fit about the golden calf.

          • B says:

            >No, it declined steadily to the present day,

            In 1948, there were about 800K Jews in North Africa and the Middle East. Benjamin of Tudela said that in 1170, there were 100K in Persia/India and 100K in Arabia, out of a total population estimate of 1.1 million. No decline, steady increase.

            >while Jews under Christian rule increased steadily.

            Not just steadily but very rapidly. But only in certain parts of the Christian world, and only in the last several centuries.

            >Pentateuch says Egyptians worried by the rapid population growth of Hebrews, and decide to do something about it, which what Ipuwer implies, and almost, but not quite, what he says.

            Yes, but the Torah also says that all those measures only resulted in more rapid population growth for the Jews.

          • Sam says:

            B says,”…The fact that it took 3 centuries for the whole thing to collapse is irrelevant…”

            You’ve got to be Jewish. Only Jewish people would say something so ridiculous. Do you people even realize how silly you are with your quibbling?

            I can see some Jewish student some where 300 years in future (if the Jews survive at all) saying the decline of the US was George Washington’s fault for not becoming King.

          • B says:

            >I can see some Jewish student some where 300 years in future (if the Jews survive at all) saying the decline of the US was George Washington’s fault for not becoming King.

            It’s a matter of perspective and time preference.

            To a normal white adult, it’s obvious that Trayvon Martin’s lifestyle of sipping Lean, petty theft and thuggish behavior would sooner or later end up with him dead or in jail. It could be weeks, months or even years, but sooner or later…

            To Trayvon, the first time he chugged some cough syrup and stole some jewelry signified nothing. He could still become a rapper or an astronaut.

            If you brought him back from the dead and explained how his choices led him to death, he would get upset: “that don’t prove shit, you racis’!”

            Likewise, you think that the Spanish Empire’s beginnings (robbing and persecuting its smartest and most talented subjects) and its end (mass corruption, enstupidation and dysfunction) have nothing to do with one another, and any attempt to make a connection is racis’.

      • nydwracu says:

        Let’s see what the Jewish Virtual Library has to say about the conversos. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sephardim.html

        “By the mid-13th century, the Christians controlled most of Spain and increasingly forced Jews to convert to Christianity. Those who converted became known as Marranos or New Christians. Marranos are also known as crypto-Jews because they taught their children and practiced Judaism in secret. During this period, Jews were forced to participate in “religious” disputes with Christians counterparts.”

        “A Marrano Diaspora took place a century later. Some Marranos had settled in Portugal and eventually moved to Holland, where they were allowed to outwardly practice Judaism. Many settled in Western Europe and moved to the Americas. Marranos who settled in Latin America continued practicing crypto-Judaism for many years because Spain began an inquisition in its New World colonies. Fear of persecution led Crypto-Jews to settle in remote villages. Today, descendants of crypto-Jews can be found in Colorado and New Mexico.”

        Don’t bother reading what anyone else says about Jews. Read what Jews say about Jews. http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/146441/qa-benjamin-ginsberg

      • peppermint says:

        Some Jews wanted to settle in the new colony of Georgia. The English financiers didn’t want them, the other colonists didn’t want them, it was certainly in spirit a violation of the colony charter, but the leader of the colony let them in because one of them was a doctor. But where did they come from?

        The doctor was from a family of conversos, who had successfully hidden for 200 years before the Inquisition sent a spy disguised as a servant into their house, who eventually discovered that they had built a synagogue under their house.

        The fact that a number of Jews refused to either convert or leave is as well documented as the fact that Jews would ritually murder Gentile children. But since we are so used to casually dismissing the opinions of our predecessors, including their carefully deliberated court decisions, this fact can be handwaved away by mentioning thumbscrews.

      • Ansible says:

        And yet we know crypto-jews existed because we have journals, diaries and letters from these supposed converts.

        http://www.cryptojewsjournal.org/

        From what I’ve read about the Spanish Inquisition they were not too bad. Mostly they were concerned with criminals who claimed to be holier-than=thou and who were using their holiness to escape punishment for crimes they had committed.

        https://archive.org/stream/recordsspanishi00inqugoog#page/n0/mode/2up

  4. Just sayin' says:

    Getting rid of the Jews may not solve all of our problems, but it would be a positive step and it would make it far easier to address our other problems honestly and forthrightly without a hostile, exceedingly powerful minority running interference and working to increase our problems.

    Nobody really knows how to solve all of our problems. But it is exceedingly clear that getting rid of Jews and NAMs would greatly improve things and make our position less precarious.

    The perfect is the enemy of the good. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let’s get started, do what we can to improve things and once our position has improved, see if we can figure out where we ought to go next.

    • jim says:

      Really did not work for Hitler. Jewish physics was a major factor in the bomb.

      • Aesop Jones says:

        The bomb wasn’t used on Germany, and Jewish physics and Jews in general were not why Hitler failed. Had Germany succeeded – and they very nearly did – Europe would have been no worse off without Jews. They may have been worse off in other ways (although it’s hard to tell if that would be worse than what we have now) but not for those reasons.

        • peppermint says:

          if Germany had gotten the bomb, they had plans for the sub-orbital bomber needed to deploy it to anywhere on the globe.

          That isn’t the only technology that the Germans failed to develop. They also could have had assault rifles and jet fighters much earlier than 1944, but Hitler wanted what Hitler wanted. Hitler was never really able to trust his subordinates, and he could never be seen to not be leading. That’s the problem with the elected dictator model.

          The problem with the kings and aristocrats model, that Hitler and H. G. Wells would recognize, is the question of whether they would evolve into a parasitic species. The reason this does not happen in a functioning country like England once was is constant genetic mixing between the aristocracy and the commoners, with most of the children of aristocrats getting downward mobility.

          • red says:

            The jet fighter delay is a myth. The truth is it took years of experimenting with alloys to find the right mix for a jet engine and by the time they had the engine worked out the fighter design had been aproved over the bomber.

            Germans had some exelent weapons that they didn’t use properlly due to mismanagement. For example their flack cannons shot down far more bombers gun for gun when they aimed them at the planes instead the wall of flack tatics they used most of the time. They also had all the tech to build SAM systems but failed to do so.

            They had industrial and scientific minds to do amazing things, but the tech was poorly used in the branches of the military not run by the junkers.

          • Sam says:

            I read a book by the one of the designers of the German jet engines. Their problem was resources. They knew what they could do with chromium and nickel but they just didn’t have it. They had to design air channels in the turbine blades to cool the lower grade steel. It took time they didn’t have. After all they were fighting most of the planet by themselves practically.

            They just never had the manpower and the resources to fight everyone. It’s amazing they did as well as they did.

            • jim says:

              They just never had the manpower and the resources to fight everyone. It’s amazing they did as well as they did.

              Hitler did not have to fight everyone, and he would have had more manpower and resources if he had kept the Jews around outside of the state. Assuming everything he says in Mein Kampf is true, it would have sufficed to exclude Jews from the state apparatus, high status educational institutions, and high status media – and had the private sector engineering firms promptly rehire Jews as contractors and consultants to build weapons.

              Assuming everything Hitler says in Mein Kampf is true, the sensible thing would still be to not get rid of the Jews, not launch a war on two fronts, and not declare war on America.

          • B says:

            >Assuming everything Hitler says in Mein Kampf is true, the sensible thing would still be to not get rid of the Jews, not launch a war on two fronts, and not declare war on America.

            One of the things he says in Mein Kampf is that the way to win WW1 was to gas 12,000 Jews. This is Hitler writing before gaining power, and you know how these government programs tend to expand.

            He didn’t have much of a choice with America, which more or less effectively declared war on him 10 months prior.

            The government he built was amazingly inefficient and corrupt, due largely to its insane ideology and its pigfaced implementers, who had their meathooks in everything.

    • Sam says:

      Just sayin’ says:
      January 22, 2015 at 3:09 am

      “Getting rid of the Jews may not solve all of our problems, but it would be a positive step…The perfect is the enemy of the good. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let’s get started, do what we can to improve things and once our position has improved, see if we can figure out where we ought to go next…”

      Yes, Yes, Yes. Exactly.

      All the jews tell us how bad we’ll feel when we get rid of the Jews. How we’ll be such failures. HaHA. The truth is we’ll be happy as clams. Great rejoicing. I think we need to risk it.

      • jim says:

        Getting rid of the Jews has seldom had the bad consequences that B suggests, but neither has it had the benefits promised.

        The general dynamic has been that the ruling elite wants to do some bad thing, uses the Jews to do it. Catches flack, expels the Jews, then resumes doing that bad thing.

  5. peppermint says:

    Modern biology has been suppressed in no small part by the Jews, though, to be sure, they’re the only ones with a clear motive for suppressing it. Certainly, while Abraham Lincoln never said that race doesn’t exist, if Republicans were as far left then as they are now, he certainly would have, at which point we would have to wonder what his incentive is to muddy the waters, and the only answer is the mysterious Socialist Phenomenon ( http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html ), which Shafarevich couldn’t figure out and gave some psychological whaargarbl, and Catholics I guess call envy, which obviously isn’t good enough either.

    That’s the first reason people jump to the Jews. Means, motive, opportunity, case closed. Certainly, we need to help people see past this. It’s not enough to go back to the time of The Dearborn Independent, because democracy is stupid even without a parasite like the Jew.

    The second reason is that modern biology can identify the various subhuman species. Taking other people’s resources is the reason animals exist in the first place. If we farm out photosynthesis to wheat, what are we to say to the Jew that farms out civilization to us? The fact that he doesn’t know how to maintain our herds as well as we maintain herds of cows isn’t his fault. Nor do we blame the dog that evolved into canine venereal sarcoma. The Jews evolved in a location surrounded by the clash of cultures. The Jews have infiltrated and outlived every other civilization. They’re not criminals in our sense, they’re not a conspiracy, they simply are what they are.

    It’s said that humans only domesticated one stallion. If true, being father of the horses sounds like a pretty good gig, right? The Jews have domesticated a number of human politicians, and George of Hanover was circumcised.

    The last thing to say about Jews is that the reason they are accused of starting political correctness is that at the dawn of the 20th century Jewish pressure was already suppressing publications and censoring educators.

    In an instance recorded in The International Jew, they demanded that lecturers refrain from mentioning the Jewish or Irish questions. Compare to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects the categories of race, religion, and national origin – Jews, Jews, and Jews. When a senator tried to make fun of the Act and prevent it from passing by attaching sex to it, it was welcomed, and passed. Today sexual orientation has been added, soon gender identity, but the initial goal was to protect the Jews. A “Canadian” Jew, Ezra Levant, recently said that the Jew-sponsored hate speech laws in Canada that throw people in jail for saying things Jews don’t like aren’t as subtle and effective as the Civil Rights Act in the US, that everyone assumes was written to protect Blacks.

    For the earliest version of civil rights legislation, that Wikipedia refers to as a grant of religious tolerance, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Kalisz

    …Should a Jew be taken to court, not only a Christian must testify against him, but also a Jew, in order for the case to be considered valid…

    …If any of the Christians rashly and presumptuously jeers at their synagogues, such a Christian shall be required to pay and must pay to our palatine their guardian two talents of pepper as punishment….

    And we know how hard it is to get a Jew to testify against another Jew by looking at the murder of Mary Phagan or the time Alfred Dreyfus sold French military secrets to the Germans.

    At some point, our programme of historical revisionism was bound to discover these things. Moldbug’s original instructions to his Antiversity were to refrain from political action as much as possible, to the extent that telling the truth can not be a political action. Until now, the leftists didn’t know what to make of neoreactionaries, since royalism is so hipster and steampunk, and each taboo we violated, with our smooth talking, they didn’t know we weren’t being ironic.

    But we’ve steadily gotten more and more extreme, and the /pol/acks have as well, and now there’s the DailyStormer kids, and people are talking about neoreactionaries buying Golden Dawn t-shirts.

    What relationship can the Antiversity have to the activists? Only one of winking, or even that? I don’t think the ‘daily articles’ neoreactionaries are true to the programme. The point of a functioning newspaper, like DailyStormer, is political activism. The point of irregular blog posts is discovery; Bryce LaLiberte has rediscovered this and promised to only post interesting things on his blog. The main problem Social Matter has is they’re not sure who they’re telling to do what, and their inconsistent disingenuity reflects it.

    This Cultural Marxism Frankfurt School thing has been pushed by the /pol/acks for a number of years. It was always a low-grade Jewish conspiracy theory for the partially redpilled, but, /pol/ isn’t the cutting edge of reactionary thought, we are. Thus I would be surprised if anyone here wasn’t already aware of it.

    The other question I have for us is to what extent do we want to vote for Hitler. Maybe we’re the National Monarchists, disgusted by the degeneracy of Weimar, disgusted by Hitler, horrified by the Communists, and with no actual plan. Hitler had a plan, the fact that it failed was the result of it not being a very good plan. I don’t see coming up with a plan or voting for Hitler to be part of our programme, though. I see our goal as reading, thinking, writing, revising, and discovering the truth about human nature, in particular the socialist phenomenon and the Jewish parasite.

    We had some great high-level discussion recently about human nature and natural law. The Church wanted to push as much of the law on nature as possible, but I now think that ultimately extrinsic civilizational factors need to be brought in to explain why usury and contraception need to be forbidden. This may be the first real advance in natural law studies in several hundred years.

    • jim says:

      The last thing to say about Jews is that the reason they are accused of starting political correctness is that at the dawn of the 20th century Jewish pressure was already suppressing publications and censoring educators.

      Not being able to say bad things about blacks goes all the way back to the last days of the French Monarchy. Don’t think you can blame the Jews for that.

      Throughout the Victorian era, you see “evangelicals” talking against the white race, and indeed against the very existence of race, all the time. Not a Jew in sight.

      The theory that the dynastic egyptians, the ones that built impressive buildings, were black, originally came from white people calling themselves “evangelicals”

      Ebonics goes back to John Jacob Thomas. Who was it that paraded John Jacob Thomas through the halls of academe like an ape dressed in a business suit? It was not the Jews.

      I absolutely agree that Jews are a problem, but if you focus on that problem as the big problem, you are going to wind up with socialism – you wind up with the political position that leftism was just fine before those horrid Jews joined in and ruined it.

      Leftism already sucked before the Jews joined in.

      The notorious bad behavior of the Jews reflects the fact that if you have a disloyal ruling class, they will hire outsiders to do their dirty work. The Jews are not the ruling class, they are the highly expendable tools of the ruling class, and the history of the Jews is in large part a history of getting used to do dirty work, blamed for the dirty work, and then expended.

      If you attack the Jews, you are charging the matador’s cape, not the matador.

      • Ivan .M says:

        Mercenary Priests from Asia, then?

        Sounds less unreasonable than Levantine Masters of the Universe.

      • peppermint says:

        were they pulping books that had already been printed? were they harassing people into publicly recanting? were they ensuring that anyone who said the wrong things could never be hired except as a buggy mechanic?

        Back then, not only did no one know the first thing about psychology, no one knew the first thing about genetics or ethology. If you’re only vaguely aware of intellectual capacity, and only vaguely aware of essential micronutrients and other environmental factors needed to develop intellectual capacity, it is not beyond the bounds of reason to wonder if the Negroes aren’t really all that different.

        Today, the biggest obstacle in our path is political correctness. Ezra Levant laments that the version they have in Canada isn’t as good as the version in the United States.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        Is there even a matador? Whose dirty work are the Jews doing? One hundred years ago, sure, it would have been the WASPS, but today?

        • jim says:

          Is there even a matador? Whose dirty work are the Jews doing?

          The Jews are doing the dirty work of the State Department which will not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

      • Sam says:

        jim says,”…If you attack the Jews, you are charging the matador’s cape, not the matador…”

        Let’s get rid of the cape then we can clearly see the matador. Then we’ll deal with the matador. First things first.

    • Sam says:

      “…They’re not criminals in our sense, they’re not a conspiracy, they simply are what they are…”

      The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all but a very large number of them. Their religion is a religion for psychopaths. In it only they are human. If you will just remember this one little idea you will never be surprised by the behavior of the Jews. The only sure method of dealing with psychopaths is to get them away from you and have no interaction with them.

      • jim says:

        The Jews are a tribe of psychopaths.

        The Jews are not a tribe. They are supposed to be a tribe, and they very much wish they were a tribe, but it is quite noticeable that whenever you find someone arguing that the Exodus never happened, that King David never happened and King Solomon’s temple was never built, it is a Jew making the argument. Is Ayn Rand (whom B hates) a member of the same tribe as Karl Marx (whom B also hates)?

  6. Candide III says:

    The Chinese have fixed Nigeria? Really? I must have missed it. Is Lagos where it used to be? Could you fill me (and probably not a few of other readers) in on this?

    • jim says:

      Nigeria now has reasonable living standard and rapid economic growth. They are still eating each other, but are no longer eating the foreigners that run their industries.

      • Candide III says:

        Oh, I see. I’d like to know more about living standards — a fairly recent footage of Lagos that I happened to see was not inspiring — but as for foreigners, I think the difference is that the Chinese are not much inclined to sigh and excuse any Nigerians eating their compatriots as a just revenge for colonialism or whatever.

  7. Anonymous says:

    For someone who has no reasonable expectation of becoming wealthy or even rich, like say for example, a typical non-connected UMC-born white male, why is national socialism bad again? I’m failing to see the problem with leftism per se as long as the economic benefits flow to me and mine and the culture behind it is traditional and pro me and mine (or would settle for at this point, traditional and doesn’t treat me and mine worse than anybody else). From casual observation the jews practice national socialism in israel which seems to be working out ok for them ( hasbara troll “B”, care to comment?) i’m not cognitivehyperelite ™ though.

    • Alrenous says:

      The game theory of socialism inherently implies it’s anti-traditional. As per Conquest’s third law, attempting to help you and yours will end up destroying you and yours. Israel works to the depth it’s hypocritical about socialism, and hypocrisy is unstable. Even if it manages to violate Conquest #3 and help someone, their kids or grandkids will feel the wrath of Gnon as the economy is slowly strangled.

      • Just sayin' says:

        How socialist was National Socialist Germany, compared to say, Crony Capitalist America in early 2015?

        • peppermint says:

          how socialist was 1950s America compared to 2015 America?

          You don’t get to pick a time period and stop all further evolution. Socialism isn’t a theory of government as a fire that periodically burns accumulations of human and material capital. Our #1 question as neoreactionaries is to devise fireproof institutions so that we can have nice things.

          • Just sayin' says:

            >how socialist was 1950s America compared to 2015 America?

            Not sure. How do we measure “socialism”?

            I do know that in 1945 the U.S. top marginal tax rate reached a whopping / hilarious 94% on all income over $200,000.

            Since then, this has drastically diminished. Was that socialism?

            Not technically, but then, technically speaking, neither is a whole lot of other bullshit that USG is doing to mess with the economy today. Forcing you to hire NAMs is not socialism.

            It’s not government ownership of the means of production that makes it difficult to start businesses in nominally capitalist 2015 America, but government management of the means of production. Like making it exceedingly burdensome to hire anyone.

            It seems like some segments of neoreaction retain a simplistic, almost Republican level conception of these issues, where things are compressed down to a one dimensional axis with good capitalists on one end and evil socialists on the other.

            But both capitalism and socialism are somewhat inadequate terms to describe the economies of modern managerial states. Government meddling (managing) in the economy is pervasive, but not necessarily socialist in character. Lines between public and private spheres are fuzzy and there is a whole lot of crossover.

            Getting back to 2015, how do we feel about Communist China vs nominally Capitalist America?

            Seems like China is pretending to be communist, America is pretending to be capitalist and both are converging on some kind of mixed economy heavily managed by the government.

            In one case the management is somewhat more formal and direct, while in another case the management is somewhat more informal and indirect.

            How significant is this? :itisamystery:

            To what extent was National Socialist Germany socialist and to what extent was National Socialist Germany pretending to be socialist?

            How does this compare to countries like Britain and the U.S. that were rather half-heartedly pretending to be capitalist during the same time period?

            :itisamystery:

            That’s not sarcasm, BTW. I really would be interested in finding out.

            Germany economy seemed to work well enough to supply the war effort though, if they had chosen a more reasonable set of enemies. No economic system lets Germany beat USSR + USA.

          • peppermint says:

            1950s America was much less socialist. You would know this if you could pay attention to who has been in charge and what policies they have enforced. Instead, you pay attention to meaningless Democratic Party propaganda.

            Requiring you to hire NAMs and other friends of the State is socialism. Capitalism is hiring whoever you want to in order to make money for your patrons. I mean, that’s what the words mean.

          • Just sayin' says:

            “Requiring you to hire NAMs and other friends of the State is socialism… I mean, that’s what the words mean.”

            Wrong.

            Socialism is something like “a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies”

            Requiring you to hire NAMs is a bad thing that government does to the economy. But it’s not socialism, except in the wrongest, dumbest, Republican party sense of the term.

            Similarly, environmental impact statements, disparate impact requirements, Americans with disabilities requirements, extremely complicated tax requirements, etc. are not socialism. But they are bad things that the government does to the economy.

            USG is doing a lot more bad stuff to the economy than it used to do. But most of that stuff is not socialism.

            It’s not socializing the economy to death. It is managing it to death.

            This is an important concept to grasp in a time period when nominally capitalist economies are reaching parity with or surpassing nominally communist economies in the art of economy strangling.

            • jim says:

              Socialism is something like “a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies”

              Sufficiently large government intervention is also socialism – National socialism was socialism, and so is Venezuelan socialism which strikingly resembles national socialism, in that property remains nominally in private hands.

              Does anyone doubt that Venezuela is socialist? Venezuelan government gives nominally private business US dollars to buy butter from overseas and put it on shop shelves. US dollars disappear, shop shelves remain empty. Venezuelan government says “What the fuck?”

          • Just sayin' says:

            “Sufficiently large government intervention is also socialism – National socialism was socialism, and so is Venezuelan socialism which strikingly resembles national socialism, in that property remains nominally in private hands.”

            National Socialism and Venezuela – probably socialism.

            America 2015 – less clearly socialism, but finding ways to ruin the economy through government just the same.

            China 2015 – Socialism, in the literal sense of the term, but rapidly surpassing America all the same

            My point is not to argue that national socialism is not socialism.

            My point is to argue that socialism is only one, decreasingly relevant measurement of government meddling in the economy. There are other ways for the government to meddle in the economy besides socialism. Namely Managerialism.

            • jim says:

              Don’t think China is socialism. Officially socialism, just as America is officially capitalist. In actual practice, vastly more capitalist than the US.

          • peppermint says:

            managerialism isn’t socialism; it’s just advocated for by socialists, and involves the government telling people what to do when and how?

            The idea that socialism means everyone is a direct employee of the government and therefore this isn’t socialism is more of your Democratic Party propaganda.

        • jim says:

          National Socialist Germany was about as socialist as today’s Venezuela, with similar results.

          • Ivan .M says:

            Perhaps I haven’t read the same books, but in what way were the results of Hitler’s Germany and modern Venezuela similar?

            A prosperous Germany was bombed and shelled into oblivion by the hosts of the Harvard parasite and its useful Bolshevik stooges. Venezuelan ruin has not required bombs or shells.

            • jim says:

              A prosperous Germany was bombed and shelled into oblivion

              A prosperous Germany would not have needed to confiscate every scrap of food from their fellow National Socialists in Greece. One can argue that ersatz coffee was the result of evil encirclement, but the extremely harsh conficatory policies against consumer consumables in the freshly conquered aryan territories was not. To avoid the immediate introduction of rationing in Germany, they had to apply horrifying policies against those that they had conquered, and were trying to recruit and include. The Greeks were initially pretty sympathetic to national socialism – until they realized that socialism meant that Greeks would have nothing to eat, so that Germans would have something to eat.

          • B says:

            See: German management of their Russian and Ukrainian conquests. They were welcomed as liberators. Within a very short time, they’d re-established the kolkhozes, confiscated everything that wasn’t nailed down, pried up everything that was, murdered the vast majority of their POWs in standard socialist mismanagement fashion (putting them in giant stock pens and neglecting to provide food, water and shelter,) and turned the majority of the population against them. This is not the behavior of a decent, prosperous, well-managed state. I’m taking their treatment of Jews out of the equation, although that was criminally insane as well.

            • jim says:

              German management of Greece a better example, since Greeks were national socialists, and it was not German intention to murder the Greeks. But they just had to steal everything not nailed down.

              To delay rationing in Germany, had to destroy what they had conquered. Bad idea.

          • B says:

            They stole everything not nailed down everywhere they went. It would have been easy to impose a local national socialist government in Russia/the Ukraine, and much more productive (see the Republic of Lokot.) They didn’t. Couldn’t help themselves. The whole system was based on theft and mismanagement. Hence you had Wehrmacht officers in the winter of 41/42 having to hijack trains at gunpoint on the Eastern Front: the Parteigenossen were using them to haul back loot, while the Wehrmacht would have preferred to use them to move fuel, ammo and clothing to the front and the wounded back. This was a deeply sick system.

            • jim says:

              Nazis conquered an area that had previously produced adequate food, and suddenly a very serious food shortage. That is the most fundamental and serious failure an economic system can have.

    • jim says:

      Socialism in Germany had pretty similar results to socialism in Venezuela. Everything was short, except the rules which steadily got longer.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      “For someone who has no reasonable expectation of becoming wealthy or even rich, like say for example, a typical non-connected UMC-born white male, why is national socialism bad again?”

      Such a person doesn’t belong in a position of power. It’s not his place to rule.

      • Just sayin' says:

        The old aristocracy didn’t become aristocracy by making money.

        • peppermint says:

          they also didn’t become aristocracy by banding together with their NEET faggot friends and telling stories about how great things would be if everything was just like it is now except that they all have high-paying jobs and pretty girlfriends.

    • Sam says:

      Anonymous says:
      January 22, 2015 at 2:32 pm

      “…For someone who has no reasonable expectation of becoming wealthy or even rich, like say for example, a typical non-connected UMC-born white male, why is national socialism bad again?…”

      When people were starving to death in America Germans were taking vacations in Hitler’s Germany.

      Let’s look at a little socialism instead of Jewish “Banksterism”. They gave the banks, known it’s much more, 16 trillion dollars. If you divide that among Americans it’s somewhere around $250,000 per family of four. In most places you can buy a decent house for that. So that would have completely solved the housing/banking problem. Now we don’t have the money or the houses and the Jews used this money to buy EVERYTHING. All the corporations in the West. All the property. They own it all and we paid for it. We should take it back and deport them.

      • jim says:

        The great success of German socialism is a myth. German socialism sucked pretty much the way Venezuelan socialism sucks.

        • Ivan .M says:

          I’m still incredulous at the comparison.

          Well, it is certainly the case that Germany wasn’t economically/militarily prepared for a prolonged war with major powers, which may or may not help explain these measures in Greece and other conquests.

          To imply, however, that 2015 Venezuela and late ’30s Germany are the same thing sounds like nonsense.

          • jim says:

            If you are shaking down your conquests for gold, ivory, slaves, and rare and precious spices, well, that is what conquest is all about.

            If you are shaking them down for flour and butter, something is very wrong.

            If you make more tanks, you make less cars, but why do you make less butter? War means you are going to be short of some things, but if your economic system is working, food should not be one of those things.

      • peppermint says:

        » If you divide that among Americans it’s somewhere around $250,000 per family of four. In most places you can buy a decent house for that. So that would have completely solved the housing/banking problem.

        typical socialist delusion

  8. j says:

    B is right: this conversation is a waste of time. Apparently no one has an idea of what the Frankfort School is. Do you know that it still exists as part of the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany? it is Judenfrei but more active than ever and generates lots of heavy post-Marxist literature. I wonder if anyone of you people have read ONE book written by a person identified with the Frankfurt movement. If so, what is this conversation about?

    • josh says:

      Remember when the “reactionary community” actually read books?

      • B says:

        Yeah, when the “reactionary community” equaled Moldbug. Now we’re in its Eternal September, asymptotically approaching 4Chan.

    • N says:

      There may be a few readers of the better known writers, but I get the impression overall that the number is very low. This is surprising and worrisome, if only because their texts, or at least citation and synopsis, is canon in H & SS departments and grad programs. Is this because NRx discourse is generated outside of academia or just in the hard sciences?
      Simply outing the Jewish origins of the FS and making this the end of analysis is not even worth the effort- it’s been repeated for a few decades already. Rather, there is a need to rehistoricize the FS- 1930s, war and exile, reception in the 80/90s, and it’s legacy in the U.S., which, at least in academia, has waned considerably. Finding Jewish figures and origins has very little analytical value, but dismantling Cultural Studies (what “Cultural Marxism” is actually called) will have the same effects.

    • jim says:

      The conversation is about whether leftism is cladistically Jewish (in which case we are ruled by the Zionist Occupation Government and the logical solution is to go back to New Deal leftism) or leftism is cladistically puritan, in which case Jewish progressives are merely conversos and more radical solutions are necessary.

      • Anissimov says:

        The people mentioning FS in NRx aren’t advocating New Deal leftism, though.

        • peppermint says:

          that’s irrelevant, and NRx never mentioned this /pol/-tier conspiracy theory until the last few days. I’m not really sure who brought it up here.

          • jim says:

            It is not that we did not know that Cultural Marxism existed and was a problem, it is just that we did not much care.

            Now that /pol/ has brought it up, our reaction is yes, it is a problem, and Jews are a problem, but if you focus on those problems, you lose your sense of proportion.

  9. Latecomer says:

    The cathedral, cultural marxists, “the jews”, etc. All are mere symptoms of a fitness test that has been going on for centuries. The loss of the true aristocracy has been met with nothing but shallow attempts to reinstall it, time and again, and in different forms, only to have that group be discovered as ersatz and subsequently fitness tested out of existence. There is a primordial social need for this sort of lordship. Religion tries to circumvent the problem by inventing a proper lord and removing him from the planet. But societies still needed earthly lords, and those earthly lords were wise to defer to the unearthly ones for the sake of appearances. When de Tocqueville claims the French aristocracy became weak, ineffectual and were resented all the more for this weakness, and subsequently devoured, how can we call it anything but just? The New World has never known a true aristocracy, only politicians and bootstrap industrialists who, upon gathering their fortunes and power, played at being noblemen, while the underclasses were not fooled for very long (see Fricke, Barnes, etc.). There was no splendor to be found. White men, as a ruling class, were also to be found wanting. They are not currently being ripped to shreds for being elite, they’re being ripped to shreds because they are merely privileged, and not elite enough. If there were a true aristocracy, whites could be given a privileged position but not expected to exude splendor. To have a proper class of noblemen, things must be closed off, certain codes of custom must be invented for this class alone (making entryism difficult if not impossible), and certain tastes have to be fostered intensely from day one. In time this elite could develop a sort of pathos of distance between themselves and the demos, taking on an unearthly aspect, thus satisfying the primordial public need for lords. Where religion fits in I would leave it to others to figure out, but it’s clear that religion of some sort is necessary. Again, until Nrx at large sees that all these dyspeptic movements (cathedral, etc.) are only a deeper yearning for a true and legitimate class of nobility, people will continue to blame disparate forces and groups without addressing the root need.

    • peppermint says:

      people will take you more “seriously” when you “figure out” how to “arrange” “your” “thoughts” in paragraphs

  10. Just sayin' says:

    What the Jews did to leftism was bad. But perhaps not decisive. Leftism was, after all, bad already.

    It is what the Jews did to conservatism (and soon, libertarianism) that proves that they need to be expelled. There is no working with them. You either work for them (and against your own) or you work against them.

    We can never right the ship as long as our intellectual life is controlled by people who are intrinsically hostile to us AND better than us at verbal games.

    • peppermint says:

      » implying that conservatism was ever good

      See, this is the problem with talking about Jews in the first place. You start by posting this:

      (卐つ◕ل◕)つ·︻┻═━一 ᕕ(✡ᐛ )ᕗ

      then you start posting this: http://i.imgur.com/4jAP7vH.jpg

      then you start posting this: http://www.dailystormer.com/no-civil-rights-charges-against-hero-darren/

      “This proves that the Constitution laid down by our Founding Fathers is stronger than any Negro occupation and smarter than Jews.”

      Like Bob Whitaker says, the answer is not to mention the first Jew.

      Better than us a verbal games? No one is better than me at verbal games. The problem is that verbal games are an intrinsic part of the “process” of governance to begin with.

      • Just sayin' says:

        Daily Stormer never declined, it was always a low brow, somewhat disingenuous program of outreach to disaffected Alex Jones / Ron Paul types. They’ve been doing stuff like pretending Hitler was an evangelical since day one. Take it for what it is or ignore it.

        There are plenty of valid critiques to be made with regard to pre-Jew Conservatism. But it’s pretty clear that the paleo-cons were at least trying to do something positive, even if they were doomed by erroneous core premises.

        But it is simply shocking how easily, effectively and thoroughly conservatism was weaponized against us via neo-conservatism and Christian Zionism. I deal with these people on a daily basis and they’re as brainwashed and unthinking as SJWs in their own way.

        I don’t see how a Jew neutral movement resists that kind of subversive power.

  11. CuiPertinebit says:

    I have heard tell of extensive Jewish influence on Freemasonry, which has of course been very influential in the revolutionary left for centuries. I’m aware that most (modern) Freemasons, like my uncle, are just dudes looking to get a little hammered with the guys, while occasionally playing dress-up and having a laugh. But Freemasonry has certainly not always been so benign (nor is it always so benign in our day, especially in Europe – see the involvement of the P2 lodge in Italian crime, Vatican intrigue and Financial misdoings in the 70s).

    I’ve never had the time to really research Jewish influence in Freemasonry – though, certainly, the temple and Solomon and supposed “arcane Jewish lore,” elements of the Kabbalah, etc., all feature prominently. I wonder if any of the men in these parts know more about it.

    • peppermint says:

      first prove to me that I care about the Masons in any way. Pointing out the symbol on United States currency doesn’t mean anything, because the reason the United States exists is Whigs.

      If you can prove that the Whigs have always been run by the Jews, like Winston Churchill or Prince Andrew, or at least financed by the Rothschilds, then you would be able to blame the Jews for that pyramid with an eye on it or whatever.

  12. Jefferson says:

    Working the Iraqi mission, it became apparent over time that we were basically stepping in the middle of an Islamic civil war, and that we’d do best to just keep our heads down. Lately it occurs to me that Western gentiles are in the middle of a Jewish civil war. The secular, assimilated Jews tend to be the ones with the power, but they’re dying out (70% intermarriage rate, low TFR, women’s lib, etc.). The anti-semites all seem to think that Jews hate non- Jews, but what the seculares really hate are the orthodox. When a Jew cries about a country club, he’s really crying because he knows he’s a lousy Jew and probably a crappy person in general.

    There used to be Jewish aristocrats, bred understanding how to rule. Democracy is particularly brutal for my people because IQ is not a substitute for good judgement, but encourages the sorts of demotic navel gazing that can hasten a nation’s ruin.

    • B says:

      Agreed, in a sense. The civil war is not between Jews so much as between secular humanists/Cathedralists (many of whom are conversos) and various holdouts (one group of whom are Orthodox Jews.)

      On the other hand, the events celebrated during Hanuka, the defeat of the transcontinental Greek Empire by Jews, led to the fracture and eventual collapse of that empire, with freedom gained by its various subject peoples (to be used for good or for bad.) I think that of all the holdout groups, we’re the one that the Cathedral is most likely to break its teeth on. ISIS is a distant second (if their pivot south succeeds.)

      • jim says:

        think that of all the holdout groups, we’re the one that the Cathedral is most likely to break its teeth on. ISIS is a distant second (if their pivot south succeeds.)

        That is certainly quite possible. I can easily imagine some drama coming up, as the State Department moves to a one state solution. But the Cathedral seems a lot less worried about orthodox Jews than various other groups, such as Mormons. If Mormons are yielding faster than Orthodox Jews, it is because they are coming under a lot more fire.

      • jim says:

        If any of the old religions survives and successfully confronts progressivism, going to the Russian Orthodox, because, as of old, they have cut a deal with warriors and are now protected by nuclear weapons.

        Jews, including Israeli Jews, care more about what the UN thinks than anyone else cares about the UN, which is odd, because if the UN had its way, it would kill every Jew everywhere. This is Israel’s great weakness, which I attribute to exile mentality. And Judaism still is spiritually in exile. Still needs to come home. Can’t come home till serious about the temple mount. Can’t be serious about the temple mount after having constructed an elaborate templeless system.

        • B says:

          I think you’re about 80% correct.

          The Cathedral is not more concerned about the Mormons. See how many NYT articles about them you can find vs. articles about bad, illiberal Israeli behavior. Imagine what would happen if all the talented Jews the Cathedral relies upon disappeared/made aliyah. Certainly, the NSA and FBI would have a hard time without Mormon linguists and analysts, but without Jewish mathematicians, they would collapse.

          Israel is concerned about the UN because it saw what the UN did to Rhodesia and South Africa. The situation is not yet advanced enough to tell the UN and the NYT to pound sand in the estimation of the leadership here. I disagree, but assume that like with anything else, 90% of changes will happen in the last 10% of time, probably after ISIS turns South and the US intervenes, with sad but predictable results. In the meantime, we see a big pivot of the Israeli economy away from the US and the EU towards Japan, China, India and Russia in progress.

          The elaborate templeless system is the scaffold from which the Temple will emerge.

          • jim says:

            the NSA and FBI would have a hard time without Mormon linguists and analysts, but without Jewish mathematicians, they would collapse.

            I have not noticed Jewish overrepresentation among NSA mathematicians, but then, unlike some people in this thread, I am not sensitive to who is a Jew. Do you have information I do not?

            The New York Times endlessly condemns Israel because Jews have a state, while the Mormon state was conquered, If Mormons recovered their independence, every day the New York Times would print in letters the size of tombstones that Mormons eat children and that every Mormon everywhere must die.

        • B says:

          >I have not noticed Jewish overrepresentation among NSA mathematicians, but then, unlike some people in this thread, I am not sensitive to who is a Jew. Do you have information I do not?

          Logically, cryptographers and mathematicians are pretty far right on the IQ scale. The further right you go, the more disparate the representations of high-IQ groups. And sure enough, the Wikipedia page shows Solomon Kulback, William Friedman, etc.

          >The New York Times endlessly condemns Israel because Jews have a state, while the Mormon state was conquered, If Mormons recovered their independence, every day the New York Times would print in letters the size of tombstones that Mormons eat children and that every Mormon everywhere must die.

          If grandma had balls, she’d be grandpa. In the reality in which we live, the Cathedral is much more concerned about Jews than Mormons.

          • jim says:

            Jews are overrepresented among smart people – but considerably less so in mathematics. The proportion of top mathematicians that are Jewish is considerably less than overwhelming, and I have some small reason to suspect that the NSA does not much like Jews, perhaps for security reasons. Jews have a tendency to be loyal to the blue empire, the empire of the consulates, at the expense of the red empire, the empire of the bases.

          • B says:

            The NSA is quite blue empire.

            Jews are quite overrepresented among mathematicians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_mathematicians

          • Eli says:

            @jim:

            A friend of mine, currently a professor of theoretical physics, is Jewish through mother. Was offered an internship at NSA when he was 16 (went to college at age 14). He did not attend.

            (My IQ is not that low, btw; but his is far above mine).

            Anecdotally, quite a few people (based on ethnic representation percentages) in the math department of my former school are Jewish. Of course, there is also this thing called “Nobel Prize.” And it’s not given just for peace and literature. Check out some stats on that.

            Mathematics *is* Jewish almost by definition.

          • Goldbergstein says:

            Yes, you goyim would be nowhere without us Jews teaching you mathematics.

          • peppermint says:

            Mathematicians are arrogant enough to usually refuse to give out prizes for being the right race, but Fields Medals aren’t given out for achievements but for being a promising under-40-year-old mathematician, which makes them very subjective. Still, it did take them long enough to find a woman to give one to.

            Jewish overrepresentation in actual achievement is much less than the number of Fields Medals would make it appear. This is consistent with every other prize ever.

            You do find prominent Jews everywhere in mathematics. Where ‘everywhere’ means much less than one in four.

  13. Stephen W says:

    Wether the problem originates with Jews or not, real men would allow no foreigners to live in there country including Jews. Real men not infected with Leftism have pride in there own tribe and give no favors to others.

    • jim says:

      One tribe can be the staten volk, and the other tribes not, without perfect homogeneity – unless you want one man one vote, in which case it is a problem. Ethnonationalism with democracy necessitates genocide. Democracy without ethno nationalism is suicide. So if you want ethno nationalism, ditch democracy. In which case minorities cease to be a problem.

      • peppermint says:

        the Czechs got to have a country and harass the Sudentenland Germans because for some reason the Habsburg Emperor allowed them to form ethnically homogeneous units in the World War. They then fought for the British.

        Prior to that, the Czechs have no history of ruling anything ever, and precious little history at all.

        If the Habsburg Emperors had been neoreactionaries, none of this would have happened. Now we know what they should have known, but they’re gone, and we’re not allowed to talk about stuff because Jews sponsored laws ostensibly against hurting people’s feelings.

      • Stephen W says:

        Yes there have been plenty of slave empires in history but its not a stable situation. Low IQ ethnicities have decreasing utility as increased mechanization decreases menial work available, and even under segregation they commit disproportionate crime and violence. While high IQ minorities dont need to be smarter than the host to gain market dominance in certain areas through favoritism giving them disproportionate and destabilizing influence. Both provide propaganda and foot soldiers to any potential leftist agents. Its simply not desirable any good nation should secure its position by deporting all foreign nations to their own countries including Jews. A mono ethnic nation is more likely to suffer from and more likely survive swings to the left.

        • jim says:

          If democracy, will not be monoethnic for long. Politicans always want to buy the cheapest votes going.

          If freedom of association and not democracy, diversity a considerably less serious problem.

          I think the state (banks, top universities, high prestige media, and senior government employees) should be monoethnic and monoreligious, because diversity undermines trust and cohesion. Cannot see how a doenut industry run by Laotians, and a diamond industry run by Jews, is a problem.

        • B says:

          >Its simply not desirable any good nation should secure its position by deporting all foreign nations to their own countries including Jews.

          I agree. For instance, the stranglehold of Dutch progressives on government and the economy has been terrible for the US. See the Roosevelts, the Vanderbilts and the rest of them. Off to the Netherlands! Don’t forget the Scots (and the Scots-Irish,) the Germans (bunch of socialists-look at the history of Wisconsin) and the French (enough said.)

  14. vimothy says:

    “If you conclude that Cultural Marxism is really really important and rules the world, it follows that… leftism was just fine and democracy was just fine all the way up to and including the New Deal, and if we could revive the New Deal coalition and get rid of the Jews everything would be lovely.”

    You logic is missing a few steps.

    • jim says:

      To add the intervening steps: If Cultural Marxism is the problem, New Deal just fine since not influenced by Cultural Marxism

      Cultural Marxism originated from Jews and in substantial part was propagated by Jews. Therefore, if Cultural Marxism is the problem, Jews are the problem

      • vimothy says:

        “If Cultural Marxism is the problem, New Deal just fine since not influenced by Cultural Marxism.”

        I don’t see how that follows. Just because “Cultural Marxism” (or whatever you want to call it — the post-Communist left) is a problem doesn’t imply that everything other than that (to include the New Deal and beyond) is fine.

  15. The Original Reactionary says:

    The old WASP elite of the USA had their problems, but they did after all pass the Immigration Act of 1924 (restricted immigration to Europeans).

    After the tribe begins to get control of the institutions, the first thing they pushed for was the Immigration Act of 1965 (opened immigration to Third World).

    See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nBzJdQB5r4

  16. Just sayin' says:

    Peppermint came out the closet to say
    » implying that conservatism was ever good

    I want to reiterate how stupid your point is.

    Jews took a mildly shit tier American conservatism that nonetheless agreed with a lot of NRX conclusions

    and turned it into an insane apocalyptic form of Trotskyism within a few decades.

    Stuff that is bad to mediocre CAN BE MADE WORSE. And it has been. By Jews.

    And it is Jews who pwn every attempt to improve our situation.

    • jim says:

      Not really seeing it.

      Supreme Court full of Catholics.

      Nixon introduced large scale affirmative action, and he hated Jews.

      As B will tell you, the Jews that are screwing stuff up are really conversos, conversos to progressivism. They don’t reproduce, and to the extent that they do reproduce, they intermarry with non Jews. And they don’t like Israel.

      Progs are disproportionately Jewish, and some sections of the prog movement are almost entirely Jewish. The outright Marxist part of the prog movement is almost entirely Jewish, but overall, only a minority of progs are Jewish. Obama is Muslim on his father’s side and by upbringing, and his mother was a puritan descended prog. Margaret Meade was not Jewish, but puritan descended prog on both sides of her family. Nixon was puritan descended progressive, Romney is Mormon.

      When you go hunting for evil Jews behind various bad things, you are apt to wind up digging deep and finding Jews with rather peripheral connection.

      • Just sayin' says:

        I was talking about neoconservatism. You’re roaming all over.

        Let’s go hunting for the evil Jews behind neoconservatism.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

        “The term “neoconservative” refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist left to the camp of American conservatism.[2] Neoconservatives frequently advocate the “assertive” promotion of democracy and promotion of “American national interest” in international affairs including by means of military force.[3][4] The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish[5] monthly review magazine Commentary.[6]”

        It wasn’t tough to find them. They don’t hide this stuff. They’re proud of it.

        • jim says:

          Neoconservatism does not rule the US. It is a minor and impotent right wing tendency, which is to say, a minor and impotent tendency lagging behind, and chasing after, the progressive consensus. It is some Jews that got left behind and abandoned by the ever leftwards movement.

      • Peppermint says:

        Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are Catholic because they need to have a mainstream religious identity, and the rest are Catholic due to the hope that they will follow the Church on the issue of murdering babies.

        Your point is that they are not Jews. That is true, but the Catholicism thing isn’t due to any kind of political power held by Catholics. That’s not to say Catholics are powerless. The Pope can say things and those things are mainstream Christian views by fiat, which isn’t completely insignificant in a PR-driven world.

  17. VXXC says:

    “They’re not the problem but they are a problem.”

    Well in a vacuum yes, we have no ruling class. We have their idiot Childerics sitting around drooling and looting. In such an environment

    Jim you’re making an important point here: “The problem is that “Frankfurt School” [sic Get Rid Of] is the way smart people say “Let us have socialism”.

    YES: because the New Deal was American Social Democracy for the Majority. And they liked it as much as say the Scandi’s like theirs and for the same reason. I’m not a socialist BTW.

    But they did have Social Democracy for Whites –Who in 1965 unexpectedly found themselves locked out of not only their Social Democracy they had sacrificed for but their own Cities, Schools, Universities and suddenly becoming the scapegoats for everything in their own country. This is at last ending. The back-swing will be most unpleasant for the Fools who organized all the aspects of 1930’s Germany (as well as many earlier pogroms in Europe) except you know that one important detail: The delivery of Force. The delivery of Force was of course accomplished through Vibrants, as they’re out of gas who, WHO is in the forefront of trying to replace them desperately with anyone and everyone else? Mexico just happens to be closest.

    Who is immigration’s leading proponents after the both self-interested and mindless chump Hispanic pols?

    No, they’re not the problem. They’re just all that’s left of the Problem…who are long dead now Jim. When Daddy Bush dies he’s the last WASP on earth. Margaret Mead is dead too. So’s FDR. So’s Kennan. And so on.

    You know who’s alive? Lloyd Blankfein, Harvey Weinstein and so on.

    Sorry Jim, they’re the ones left holding the Bag. They wanted it…and they got it. I myself believe in and will practice names not groups, but as a group they’re in the proverbial. Not from me, but I’m you know only 1 man.

    Maybe if it happens here in America it will dawn on certain types they need not to raise Hell and call it doing good.

    The real problem of course is they don’t self-police their bad element.

    We all have bad elements, most of us self-police them. Even the Vibrants used to until ah…they met their new friends.

    The real problem of course is they don’t self-police their bad element. Now it’s too late. As I have no group animus esp towards innocent I do think you should leave.

    We were due for our housecleaning anyway, you just let your idiots put all of you on the blame line.

    • jim says:

      But they did have Social Democracy for Whites

      Which is a bad idea. I favor socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rich, like the excellent Thai and Singaporean health systems.

      The problem with medical care is that hospitals are besieged by people looking for a free bed, a free meal, and some human attention. Under the Thai system when the bums apply to a private hospital (capitalism) security (capitalism) sends them off to a public hospital (socialism). If the public hospital (socialism) is embarrassed to send them away, because they know, by trial and error, the magic words to say to get some attention, then it murders them, after the style of the British National Health Service. The rich get treatment, the poor maybe get treatment or maybe get killing fields

      Socialism needs killing fields.

      –Who in 1965 unexpectedly found themselves locked out of not only their Social Democracy they had sacrificed for but their own Cities, Schools, Universities and suddenly becoming the scapegoats for everything in their own country.

      The entirely predictable result of democracy and socialiism.

      This is at last ending

      Not it is not. People at last noticing and complaining, but it is getting worse, and is about to get a great deal worse.

      When Daddy Bush dies he’s the last WASP on earth. Margaret Mead is dead too. So’s FDR. So’s Kennan. And so on.

      You know who’s alive? Lloyd Blankfein, Harvey Weinstein and so on.

      A bunch of people I have never heard of, showing how hard you have to dig to find Jews.

  18. […] down to this day. The problem was more with what was not said. Now that Hurlock, Samo, and Jim have sketched in the missing details, all is extremely right (and extremely rightist) with this […]

  19. […] doesn’t vulgarize to a denunciation of Cultural Marxism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 …). Yes, ‘Duh!’, but well worth making explicit. Widening perspectives […]

  20. […] doesn’t vulgarize to a denunciation of Cultural Marxism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 …). Yes, ‘Duh!’, but well worth making explicit. Widening perspectives in time […]

  21. […] of progressivism. Related: The Frankfurt School is not the cause of progressivism. Related: Forget cultural Marxism. Related: Culture Marxism exists. Related: Not all reaction is equal. Related: Democracy and […]

  22. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Actually, for those who believe that a three-estate monarchy (to match the Trichotomy) is the right way forward, all of these allusions to heresy of the first estate is suggestive of a theocracy in which the clergy rules and dictates policy. This is quite a deviation from the European understanding of monarchy, an aristocracy which military generals, the heads of leading families, rule as nobility and lords…

    A.J.P.

  23. Ron says:

    Thank you Jim.

  24. […] Jim nas podsjeća da je napad na kulturni marksizam zapravo – promašena bitka: […]

  25. […] you smell latkes? I don’t. Jim has done a lot of his own commentary on Jews and cultural Marxism, Jews and anti-Semitism, Jews and Puritans, and Jewish misbehavior. Nick Land has staked his […]

  26. […] has since been championed by various bloggers, which recently has erupted into a debate (see here, here, here, here, here, […]

  27. Joshua Chamberlain says:

    Sorry, Jim. Queen Caroline is not ideology, it’s just misconduct. Do you expect your government to eliminate both actual and original sin?

    • jim says:

      Making Queen Caroline into a cruelly victimized saint is an ideology. I expect the government to refrain from making women who commit adultery into saints and victims.

  28. Turtle says:

    >> The problem with getting rid of Jews is not that it is rough on Jews, … [rather] that you wind up with socialism. If the Frankfurt School is the root of all evil, then the New Deal is just peachy.

    >> The problem is not that “Frankfurt School” is the way that smart people say “Get rid of the Jews”. The problem is that “Frankfurt School” is the way smart people say “Let us have socialism”.

    If they want socialism, how are they smart? Aren’t they intellectually-minded fools?

    And the *JEW* Deal was not so WASP. It was frighteningly Jewish to ordinary white men at the time, which is why they called it the Jew Deal. I tried to talk to B about this, but he focuses on Jewish issues from a perspective I don’t understand.

    Maybe you, Jim, haven’t read source materials about how Jewish the Deal was. I have read some entries in an encyclopedia of Jews’ biographies, and done similar boring crap academic work to review what was going on. FDR was totally subverted by his disloyal sycophant Felix Frankfurter, and yet Frankfurter became a reactionary later on, by liberal standards. I think Jews never “started” subverting, rather that it’s just what they do. “Critical mass” was probably between 1885-1925. The anarchist/communist/whatever terrorists, like Emma Goldman, were not rejected by other Jews. So all Jews are like that, and Jews violently extorted what they wanted, especially hurting white men.

    Harding and Coolidge, as white men, did what they could, but had few children, so to speak. I guess Trump is the first fecund president- have any had 5 children before? I don’t think so.

    • B says:

      My perspective on the New Deal is very simple.

      It is true that the New Deal included Jews like Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch and Henry Morgenthau, as well as WASPs like Henry Stimson,Alger Hiss and George L. Harrison.

      However, Stimson, Hiss and Harrison did not aspire to be what Frankfurter, Baruch and Morgenthau were. It was the other way around.

      Furthermore, Stimson, Hiss and Harrison believed what their educated WASP forebears had believed for a long time. Frankfurter, Baruch and Morgenthau ALSO believed what Stimson and co.’s forebears had believed.

      The New Deal was an implementation of a set of ideas that had been elucidated in, for instance, Clinton Roosevelt’s book, published in 1841: https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_FDR-3.pdf

      It was certainly not the implementation of any set of ideas you’ll find in classical Jewish philosophy and literature.

      Similarly, Marx, who desperately wished to become a part of the Gentile intelligentsia and enthusiastically predicted the disappearance of the Jewish people, plagiarized a book by Victor Considerant into his Manifesto. He did not plagiarize a work by Maimonides or the Vilna Gaon. So if you want to know whether the philosophy held by the Western intelligentsia, much of which is ethnically Jewish, is a Jewish philosophy, I can tell you that it is not.

      To put it another way, if I see some Phoenicians sacrificing infants to Moloch, and among them is a Jew who is wearing Phoenician dress, speaking Phoenician, affecting Phoenician manneurisms and referring to himself as “a proud Phoenician of Jewish descent,” I do not assume that the sneaky Jew has corrupted the Phoenicians into Moloch-worship. Especially if I can open Jewish scriptures and see Moloch-worship being condemned explicitly.

      • Turtle says:

        Thanks for the thorough answer and pdf, B. I’ll assume you’re right.

        I also remember what I read in a biography of very prominent Jews, and think they’re all conversos, but it’s weird. They still act Jewish, despite being totally anti-Jewish culture and religion!

        Why didn’t Americans call it the WASP Deal? Were the WASPS shifting blame to their Jewish cronies? And why do I sense that the Jews were never loyal to their ‘friends?’

        Finally, I don’t think the New-Jew-WASP Deal could have happened without Jews supporting it. Maybe FDR would have lost without Jewish support. I don’t think the Supreme Court could have been disbanded, in effect, by FDR without a Jewish takeover of America. I’ll assume you’re mostly right about the ideologies and 19th c. stuff, but not 1915-1945.

        • peppermint says:

          WWII was the apocalypse and we’re growing up in a post-apocalyptic world, in which lying is the price for existence. Post-WWII Christians had a detente with the WASP/Jew rulers that they could have normal families provided they teach their children cuckoldry. Post-WWII libertarians had a detente that they could countersignal communism if they also countersignaled nationalism. These detentes have now collapsed, but while the libertarians have all joined the Alt-Right, the Christians mostly choose the cuckoldry suggested in Matthew 25.

          Prior to WWII, however, we need to recognize that Christianity motivated Charles V to cuck out and let the king of France go. Christianity then motivated the thirty years war over the heretic Luther who Charles V refused to do anything about.

          Christianity is identifying and binding when Aryans are at war, especially with mud slimes, though in a number of cases Catholics have chosen to fight Orthodox instead of mud slimes. When Aryans are comfortable, Christianity shows its true nature as bogomilism (where we get the word buggery from), the Muenster revolution, and other instances of communism. And when Christians become holier than God, they say “anti”-Christian things, like the declaration of the rights of man, presumed to be a soul like the other souls with a state of nature like the Garden of Eden.

    • jim says:

      > > The problem with getting rid of Jews is not that it is rough on Jews, … [rather] that you wind up with socialism. If the Frankfurt School is the root of all evil, then the New Deal is just peachy.

      >> The problem is not that “Frankfurt School” is the way that smart people say “Get rid of the Jews”. The problem is that “Frankfurt School” is the way smart people say “Let us have socialism”.

      > If they want socialism, how are they smart? Aren’t they intellectually-minded fools?

      Rather, they are foolish intellectuals, who have excessively clever rationales for believing what they want to believe.

      This is a characteristically Jewish failing, and there were a lot of biological Jews involved, but the New Deal is not Judaism descended memes. Roosevelt was not a tool of the Jews. Rather, some Jews, quite a lot of Jews, were tools of Roosevelt.

      It is an old story: Disloyal elements of the ruling class use Jews, because they are disloyal. They are not disloyal because they use Jews. It is foolish to blame Jews, because you are missing the target.

      It is not that they matador’s cape does not deserve goring, rather the problem is that if you gore the matador’s cape, the matador laughs at you.

  29. Anonymous says:

    >I do not assume that the sneaky Jew has corrupted the Phoenicians into Moloch-worship.

    Fuck “assumptions”. There’s solid evidence.

    • Turtle says:

      Lol you’re ready to blame as always. But I think there is some such murderous idolatry, among most pagans who have not assimilated to Christianity, meaning, most people. So it’s not so Jewish, more generally human.

      • peppermint says:

        The problem is you believe in souls and philosophy about souls instead of organisms and evolution. Until you move on from naive philosophy, you will continue to say retarded things like that everyone inherently wants to sacrifice babies to Moloch, even though the Romans used that as propaganda for their war of destruction on the Phoenecians and destroyed all the statues of Moloch.

    • jim says:

      > > I do not assume that the sneaky Jew has corrupted the Phoenicians into Moloch-worship.

      > Fuck “assumptions”. There’s solid evidence.

      There is not solid evidence.

      The question is, who is the puppeteer, who is holding the strings, the matador or the cape? And it evident that Roosevelt was holding the strings.

      • Cavalier says:

        Roosevelt was holding the strings, but who had plucked his mind-wires into formation?

        • jim says:

          That is easy. Roosevelt’s memes were Puritan descended – abolitionism, temperance, and all that.

          “All men are created equal” There is your race denialism right there. Cannot blame the Jews for that one.

      • peppermint says:

        Wilson was a feckless university man, a professor of social science. He was the first president to have been bought by Jews and weepy eyed Christians.

        • jim says:

          Repeating, yet again. Jews are the matador’s cape, they are not the matador. They are not emitting evil mind control rays at us. We are emitting evil mind control rays at them. This does not mean Jews are not a problem. Alien ethnicities and hostile religions are inherently a problem. But they are far from being the big problem, or even a big problem. It was not Jews that drove whites out of the inner city and Detroit. A Jew will likely get unduly creative about interpreting the fine print on your contract, but he is not going to beat you up with a jack handle and take your wallet.

          • Cavalier says:

            (((Christianity))) drove whites out of the inner city and Detroit; (((Christianity))) denies race and all that; (((Christianity))) loves the poor and the sick and the needy, and no one is more poor and sick and needy than the ever-expanding Great Nigerian Bomb:

            And speaking of Catholics on the Supreme Court, why did our Fathers regard the Papists with more suspicion than they did the Jews? Why did the Nazis, a breakaway political faction if there ever was one, target the Catholic Church, and especially the Jesuits, as a great political enemy? (“The Nazi regime considered the Jesuits one of their most dangerous enemies.”) Why did they also target Freemasons, and why does Pope Francis make all kinds of fancy handshakes?

          • Cavalier says:

            Oops. Here’s the Bomb: https://i.imgur.com/8kCr6x4.gifv

          • peppermint says:

            Obama was at best motivated by the Christianity he saw as good for his peoppe and was taught to view as Americanism, and at worst motivated by a barely concealed but easily explained away to Christians as righteous hatred for Whites. As a nigger, however, he never really wanted to he in control, just look like it.

            Clinton was the first black persident, wanting the appearance of power to hook up with fat ugly sluts. Late in his term he wanted to be treated well by history professors so he tried to fix the Palestine situation.

            Bush was a moron who failed up and gave great talking points while leaving the business of government to the experts.

            Reagan may have tried to be in charge.

            Was Lyndon Johnson really in control? Why did he pass the Great Society? By then the talmudvision was already subverting America showing racial solidarity for Whites as low status bigotry and racial solidarity not just within Blacks but between all mud people as principled and admirable.

            The talmudvision didn’t exist in the ’30s and Lothrop Stoddard was still at Harvard. Was Roosevelt really holding the strings?

Leave a Reply