The PC trajectory

VDare complains that PC is getting worse. Ya think?

Vdare compares a truth telling 1994 article appearing in the mainstream press, which points out systematic legal, state sponsored, and private persecution of whites in majority “minority” regions, which today could never appear.

Of course, if you read old books, it is apparent that political correctness has been getting worse ever since the eighteen thirties or thereabouts.

“Conservatives” think that last year or last decade was lovely, but things have gone too far left since then, our current Republican Presidential candidate being more of the “back to last year” persuasion. He promises slightly less Obamacare, a deficit that escalates not quite as fast, but proposes to continue demographic replacement and continue affirmative actioning blacks and women into government employment even where they vastly overrepresented relative to their numbers in the general population, and continue affirmative actioning women into college, even though they are already overrepresented in college despite significantly lower typical LSAT scores.

Nazis, neo nazis, and white nationalists think the nineteen thirties or early nineteen forties was politically fine, that Franklin D. Roosevelt and social security was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and there is nothing wrong with social security that soaking the rich could not fix, but that things went too far left once Jews were encouraged to convert to progressivism and join the ruling elite and promptly launched the civil rights movement. They don’t think there was any such thing as political correctness in the early twentieth century. In this sense, Nazis are leftists – and the Tea Party are also leftists.

But everything that is going wrong today was visible in the middle of the nineteenth century.

The first political correctness was the doctrine that women were naturally sexually pure and were oppressed by men’s rapacious sexual lusts, a doctrine that would have met with hearty laughter and obscene jokes in any earlier period. This doctrine was enforced to justify the dismantling of patriarchy, and is, surprisingly, still going strong, with ever more unreasonable sexual harassment laws, and rape trials with rules ever more weighted against the accused and in favor of the accuser, with an ever expanding definition of rape.

Fertile age women lack maturity, future orientation, and ability to defer gratification, thus tend to make bad decisions, which is why they need supervision and control by their father, and subsequently their husband. Their voracious hypergamy is apt to undermine the family, hence the need for patriarchy, the need for social and legal enforcement of a marriage contract where a woman promises to always love, honor, and obey, in order to preserve the family against hypergamy. Like children, they should not be allowed to make binding contracts without the permission of their father or their husband. The first political correctness was, in early Victorian times, to prohibit anyone from mentioning any of this.

Around the eighteen seventies or eighteen nineties, blacks also got protection against people so unkind as to mention group differences, and things have been going downhill ever since. If you read old books about the Great Zimbabwe ruins, it is apparent that the writers are walking on eggshells.

While the civil rights movement was Jewish converts to progressivism being lefter than thou, everything before that was due to groups descended from Quakers and Puritans, who in the pursuit of power focused more and more on this world, and less and less on the next, becoming today’s anglosphere left, which rules the world. A Jew who in the pursuit of power converts to progressivism is a converso, not a Jew, and if he should have any children, he is likely to have children with a non Jew, his Jewish identity swiftly dissolving into his Cathedral identity.

Tags: , ,

34 Responses to “The PC trajectory”

  1. Carl says:

    It’s bad enough that our society has lost all respect for tradition (see all those ridiculous scientific studies that tell us what we should already know), but worse than that, we no longer respect truth. Ours is a normative society, that lives by the motto of that guy from Mythbusters (ie. “I reject your reality and insert my own”).

  2. spandrell says:

    Woody Allen’s son is the poster child of our ruling class.

    • jim says:

      Not sure what you mean by this. On looking him up, I find he is officially certified as genius and child prodigy, and has been appointed Obama’s Czar for youth affairs at the early age of 24, but has not shown any output suggestive of above average intelligence. In academia, he switched from biology to bullshit, which suggests he could not handle the standard biology course. Among the elite, switching from a hard elite course to a moronically easy elite course is elite replacement for simply failing, and everyone knows it, so that is like a great flashing neon sign that says “stupid”.

  3. Alrenous says:

    If women can’t make binding contracts without supervision, nobody can. But supervision isn’t a problem. Privatized contract enforcement would de facto implement your condition if it is in fact true. The profit discipline is blind to ideology.

    Specifically, the cost of insuring a contract would be higher if there was a woman’s name at the bottom. If what you say is true unqualified, it would become prohibitively expensive. In other words, you seem to prefer coercion to solving the problem. Banning such things additionally prevents even fully informed parties taking the risk voluntarily.

    • jim says:

      In other words, you seem to prefer coercion to solving the problem. Banning such things additionally prevents even fully informed parties taking the risk voluntarily.

      “Banning” is not quite the word.

      In practice, the state is apt to not enforce contracts when a woman wants out of them, in various official and unofficial ways that treat men and women differently to women’s favor, which in a free society would result in women finding it difficult to sign contracts. Reality is that in practice, a woman’s name on a contract means less than a man’s name on a contract, both because, on average, men and women are different, and because the state quietly and unofficially acknowledges the difference by differential enforcement, but prohibits anyone from admitting that there is a difference, prohibits anyone from treating female promises as of lesser value than male promises, even while the state itself quietly and unofficially treats men’s promises as more binding than women’s promises.

      This differential enforcement is not a ban, but selective admission of reality, an unprincipled exception, where a difference is both denied and admitted. I suggest simply admitting the difference – under a state as much as in anarcho capitalist society. I suggest, simply admitting reality, and openly acting accordingly. This is not a ban, but shear pragmatism. We should be substantially less willing to enforce contracts against women because in most cases it is too much work, and too cruel. An up front admission that a contract is less binding on a woman, or unlikely to be binding under circumstances where it would be binding on a man, is not coercion, but truth and reality.

      • Alrenous says:

        Well, okay, close enough.

        There are some women that are good for their word. How many? Who in particular? Don’t know, don’t care. Not my business.

        It is cruel to enforce a contract because women rightly think that their signature doesn’t mean much, and thus actually enforcing it is a bait-and-switch. However, a credible statement that a contract will be enforced changes the matter. Even if women really are hopeless at responsibility, they’re responsible enough to fear enforcement and not sign a contract as a result.

        • Bill says:

          However, a credible statement that a contract will be enforced changes the matter.

          Not really. First, how are we going to make such a statement? Right now, contracts say they are enforceable, and courts say they are going to enforce them, and courts claim to be enforcing them even when they are not enforcing them. We are going to sprinkle pixie dust on judges so that they forget what they know about people? Replace them with robots?

          Second, it’s not that some people are not good for their word: that’s easy to deal with. Rather it’s that some people make shitty decisions because their brains suck. Now, if you are a particularly nasty piece of work, you might say “Don’t care, my brains don’t suck.”

          However, you are going to get old, at which point your brain will suck, at least with high probability. Furthermore, a system in which contracts are rigorously enforced even when it’s clear that one side out-smarted the other in the writing is going to give rise to an ever-less-sucky definition of “brains suck.” Steve Sailer posts on this here.

          It’s even worse than that, though. We humans consistently over-estimate our own abilities, so that you can’t even reliably follow a rule like “my brains happen to suck, so I won’t write any contracts.” Even if you could do so, this would be an awful solution since it means that people with sucky brains can’t take advantage of the benefits of a market society.

          Obviously, we do not and should not enforce contracts written by children and retards. Usually we say that these people are not competent to give consent; therefore, there never was a contract to start with. But there is no bright line dividing competent from incompetent, and any line there is is relative to the complexity of the cognitive task. This complexity depends both on the complexity of the contract’s terms and the complexity of the context. Even worse, it depends on the details of enforcement—which aspects of contract fulfillment can be easily proved and which not, how is the court going to fill in all the inevitable left out contingencies and whatnot, how much can I depend on my counterparty to tell the truth about the (unwritten) terms and conditions as we both understood them, etc.

          Almost nobody knows any of this stuff before signing contracts. They implicitly depend on the fact that courts will just refuse to enforce contracts where you are getting royally screwed by some scumball or that some law enforcement or regulatory authority will come spank the scumball.

          Some categories of people should just be excluded from making binding contracts because it’s too expensive, case by case, to figure out which ones are competent. Some categories of contracts should just be unenforceable because almost only idiots would sign them. What do people smart enough not to frequent payday lenders lose when payday lending is banned? Nothing, unless the smart person is the payday lender.

          • Alrenous says:

            I must agree with most of this.

            I should add the idea of competition between contract-underwriting agencies, with the attendant variation between their underwriting policies. The one that underwrites the right contracts will be most profitable.

            The problem with proggie philosophy is that it makes the right answer illegal. The problem with illiberal philosophy is that it may make the right answer illegal.

            Proggie philosophy also makes finding the right answer illegal.

          • Bill says:

            I think where this leads, though, is to something that looks a bit like feudalism.

            If somebody, though sharp dealing, out-smarts me in a contract, I want my enforcement agency to be willing to go to war to get me out of the contract. I am willing to pay extra for this, possibly a lot extra. Probably, there is a big market for this kind of service.

            But, the enforcement agency is not going to want to give me carte blanche to write contracts if they are committed to going to war when I think I’ve been ripped off. So, they will demand the right to supervise me, pre-approve my contracts, tell me what kinds of things I’m allowed to do and what kind I’m not. Say, if I’m constantly trying not to pay my restaurant bills because I think the food sucks, then they may forbid me going to restaurants. I’d be willing to put up with a fair amount of this to get that agreement I want from the agency to get me out of deals when I’m getting screwed. This isn’t exactly like the relationship between a serf and a feudal lord, but it sure is tending in that direction.

          • jim says:

            Anarcho capitalism assumes rational actors, honest deals, and competent fulfillment of contracts wisely and competently entered into – assumes that people act like a Georgian period gentlemen.

            People who do not, or cannot, act like a Georgian period gentlemen, may well get something more like the low end of feudalism, or a good deal worse. If someone persistently gets in trouble through incompetence or wickedness or a combination of both, his protection is going to be limited and conditional – in the worst case, conditional on obedience.

            What does anarcho capitalism do with the underclass? Answer, something that makes it a lot less fun to be underclass, which would lead us to expect fewer underclass, but not, however, zero underclass.

            Anarcho capitalism is not sharply distinct from several worse systems:

            1. Anarcho piratism – where people are out of law, which is to say, at war, with most people. Some people lose their freedom, are robbed or enslaved, not for crimes committed but merely for being on the wrong side of a battle.

            The pirates are apt to settle down to become stationary bandits, which can lead to conventional states or to:

            2. Feudalism with weak Kings, or Kings that are merely coalition leaders, as in early Medieval period or late dark age period.

            Anarcho capitalism is anarcho piratism where the set of people you are allowed to do violence to is quite small, and has it coming to them (outlaws), and feudalism where there are no substantial barriers to entry to the noble class, so that all competent respectable people are nobles.

            When anarcho capitalists are at war with some outgroup, it is going to look quite a lot like anarcho piratism, particularly from the point of view of the outgroup, and when it has problems with a large class of people who are wicked or incompetent, it is going to look a lot like feudalism, particularly from the point of view of the class of people who are wicked or incompetent

          • Alrenous says:

            People on the receiving end of ancap warfare will easily be able to tell the difference, but won’t. If you stop attacking an ancap state, they stop attacking you, it’s pretty simple. But, the aggressor always has to justify their aggression.

            In other words, morality, or more precisely legitimacy, is already a major player and concern. Replace racism with anti-property and an ancap society falls out automatically.

            -

            An ancap society may look almost exactly like feudalism. Or it may have a parliament. The idea is not to outlaw either of them beforehand and find out. The market is smarter than me; most likely, it will be neither.

          • jim says:

            In other words, morality, or more precisely legitimacy, is already a major player and concern. Replace racism with anti-property and an ancap society falls out automatically.

            Not automatically, but if impairment of contract and violation of property rights got the “racism” treatment (which is pretty plausible, seeing as racism was not a word until recently, whereas the ten commandments puts envy up with murder, adultery, and disrespect to one’s parents) then society would tend to wind up approximating anarcho capitalism.

            If education was truly private, I rather think that violation of property rights would get the “racism” treatment, as it does in the commandments. But truly private education is Moldbug’s “separation of information and state”. As Moldbug observes, since theocrats are so useful to the state, and the state so useful to theocrats, how do you stop them from mating?

  4. JRoy says:

    Nazis, neo nazis, and white nationalists think the nineteen thirties or early nineteen forties was politically fine, that Franklin D. Roosevelt and social security was the greatest thing since sliced bread

    No, they mostly hate FDR. Social security has nothing to do with racial suicide or even cultural leftism. Welfare state Europe was not multicultural until it became Americanized. The U.S. did not become multicultural until Jews redefined Progressivism. It is a long, long way from Madison grant and Margaret Sanger to the Jewish political correctness of the Civil Rights movement.

    and there is nothing wrong with social security that soaking the rich could not fix

    That is a questionable statement…at best.

    but that things went too far left once Jews were encouraged to convert to progressivism and join the ruling elite and promptly launched the civil rights movement.

    They needed no encouragement. Without them there is nothing to suggest the racial political correctness that followed. Unless you are claiming that recognition of minorities as human must lead to majoritarian suicide. There are thousands of years of history to show otherwise.

    They don’t think there was any such thing as political correctness in the early twentieth century

    There are truths that cannot be spoken in every society and in every period of world history. Racial political correctness was rare and mostly irrelevant throughout the Western world until after WW2.

    While the civil rights movement was Jewish converts to progressivism being lefter than thou, everything before that was due to groups descended from Quakers and Puritans

    Jewish pressure put a stop to French racial science before WW1. Neither Red Rosa nor Franz Boas was Puritan.

    Every other paragraph here reads like something Moldbug would write. Drawing sweeping conclusions from questionable and erroneous assertions to establish a narrative. Truth is better.

    • jim says:

      They [the Jews] needed no encouragement. Without them there is nothing to suggest the racial political correctness that followed.

      I see JJ Thomas arguing in 1869 for what we would now call Ebonics, and being paraded around London by all the good benevolent intellectuals of Exeter Hall like a chimpanzee in a business suit.

      Racial political correctness was rare and mostly irrelevant throughout the Western world until after WW2.

      Obviously people in 1940 could and did say things about race that would be unthinkable today. But people in 2000 could and did say things about race that would be unthinkable today, and people in 2011 could and did say things that would unthinkable today.

      Reading early twentieth century accounts of the great Zimbabwe, it was evident that the writers were walking on eggshells, that they feared the destruction of their careers and perhaps physical attack should they mention the obvious fact that the great Zimbabwe was built by Hebrew gold miners and their mulatto descendents, not by African blacks, and that the workmanship deteriorated as their descendents became blacker. Books typically say that they are not going to discuss X, where X is any body of facts that might point in this dangerous direction. Research into the great Zimbabwe and similar ruins was cut short, silenced, and drowned in lies, around 1900 or so. The plain speaking Thomas Carlyle was curbing his tongue in 1849, bowdlerizing offensive truths about blacks so as to imply the truth without quite saying it. It was not Jews he was afraid of, but Exeter Hall.

      Jewish pressure put a stop to French racial science before WW1. Neither Red Rosa nor Franz Boas was Puritan

      That was Europe. In the anglosphere, it was primarily progressives that were to blame. When Boaz came to America, it was his pupil, Margaret Meade, wife of a Christian progressive pastor, that did the dirty work.

    • spandrell says:

      For Christ’s sake you gave blacks the right of vote in 1870. It doesn’t get much more PC than that.

      The problem about Jewish pressure is why did gentiles let themselves be pressured?

      • RS says:

        Just a ways up-thread is some talk about the trouble with contracts when people have asymmetrical powers. I’m guessing Mead was appreciably dumber and more naive than Boas, though I don’t actually know.

        Giving Blacks the vote in 1870 – touche. However, after Reconstruction ended, this was somewhat of a de jure affair. I admit, having them vote at all is still somewhat telling even if it’s partly-to-largely a de jure thing.

        • RS says:

          Obviously Boas was very talented in IQ and otherwise, we know that much. Mead was a woman, which for Jim should almost be evidence enough that she’s far from solely responsible, given Jim’s very skeptical view of female cognition and morality.

          • jim says:

            Indeed, Mead was personally irresponsible in that she spent most of her time in Samoa in a white person’s house fucking one of their Samoan servants, and fabricated much of her data. That her data reflected her teacher’s ideology was not so much a sinister plot, as that she was largely generating it by confabulation. She knew what was expected, and cooked up the expected data, not so much as an ideological plot to deceive the world, but because she had rather little actual data. If she was engaged in a sinister plot to deceive the world, she put far too little work into it.

            But then one has to ask how she became famous and influential. It was because her data was wanted and desired. So one has to ask who promoted her. And the answer is, White Anglo Saxon Protestants, in particular Ruth Benedict.

            Very likely she confabulated the data the way she confabulated it because of her Jewish teacher’s influence – but her pediatrician was Benjamin Spock, and her confabulations were promoted by her female lover Ruth Benedict, who reshaped the field from science to the promotion of political ideology, and from science to obtaining sexual favors from students and academics. Meade was part of a circle of powerful protestants who hijacked the culture into promoting the ideology expressed in her books and Spock’s books.

            Kevin McDonald suggests that Margaret Mead, Spock, and Ruth Benedict were puppets, the public non Jewish face of a behind-the-scenes Jewish conspiracy, and in the same breath similarly suggests that Stalin was the public face of a Jewish conspiracy. But Ruth Benedict was free to use her very great power in an alarmingly and ludicrously self indulgent way, to obtain sexual favors from heterosexual women, and Stalin was no puppet. That Ruth Benedict was running a casting couch and not Boaz shows that she really was the one that controlled the casting. Similarly when Stalin said “frog”, Jews jumped.

            Margaret Meade fucked lots of men, but the only women she is known to have fucked is Ruth Benedict, who was in a position to make her famous or obscure. She did not fuck Boaz, therefore it is unlikely that Boaz was in a position to make her famous or obscure. Therefore, not a Jewish conspiracy.

            You can tell who the power, by who it is that well connected women fuck. Mead fucked protestants.

          • josh says:

            Mead was a Rockefeller change agent, btw. She was an interchangeable part with anyone else who promised to reach the right conclusions.

          • jim says:

            Certainly: But Rockefeller was a baptist, a White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Everything bad that the communists did started with Jews doing it, but everything bad that the progressives are doing in the anglosphere doing started with protestants – and can be traced all the way back to Cromwell’s puritans.

        • jim says:

          Yes, Mead was conspicuously dumber, more naive, and more malleable than Boaz, and she wrote up Samoa the way Boaz wanted it written up. However, she was also conspicuously dumber, more naive, and more malleable than Ruth Benedict, and it was Ruth Benedict that promoted Mead.

          One can plausibly interpret Mead as a sock puppet, but who’s sock puppet? One cannot plausibly interpret Spock and Benedict as puppets.

          And, of course, a large part of the fact that Ruth Benedict had so much power was that she was a woman, and a bunch of Wasps were hungry to promote women academics.

          Giving Blacks the vote in 1870 – touche. However, after Reconstruction ended, this was somewhat of a de jure affair. I admit, having them vote at all is still somewhat telling even if it’s partly-to-largely a de jure thing.

          From 1900 to the present, we see affirmative action for women in academia. One can plausibly blame Jews for the massive affirmative action in favor of blacks starting 1970 or so but large numbers of women were being promoted beyond their abilities from much earlier and it was obviously evangelicals doing it. Jews just did not have the power. Jews were excluded from the establishment. Further, as I said upthread, the first black poster boy, the beginnings of affirmative action for blacks, was JJ Thomas in 1869. Women and blacks were being promoted, back when Jews were still being excluded.

          Who was promoting JJ Thomas? Exeter Hall, the evangelical movement.

  5. fnn says:

    How does Margaret Sanger fit into your WASP-Bolshevik conspiracy theory?
    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2012/06/margaret-sanger-as-yankee-utopian.html

    Margaret Sanger, daughter of Irish Catholics

    At first, Maggie Higgins and Bill Sanger shared their alien status: she the migratory, rebellious daughter of a poor Catholic family, he a Jewish immigrant still living at home at twenty-six years of age. The, for the rest of their lives, they both obscured the facts of his family heritage, which became easier to do when his father died in 1903. Finding Bill’s background exotic at first, she later erased it, lest it compromise the fragile birth control movement and her credibility to lead it. To be married to a Jew in the first decades of the twentieth century was to be associated with the radical political views of socialists and to invite the pervasive smear of anti-Semitism.

    • jim says:

      Margaret Sanger was twice as anti Catholic as anyone, because the progressive elite was still theoretically protestant. Progressive Jews are conversos. They want to assimilate, and do assimilate. Margaret Sanger was the daughter of a converso Jew, signing up with a progressive elite that was then still theoretically Christian and protestant. I suspect that Bill Sanger, like Marx, was twice as anti Semitic as anyone.

  6. RS says:

    > Jews just did not have the power. Jews were excluded from the establishment.

    I think it’s a mixed picture. Feynman couldn’t get into the ivies because of numerus clausus against Jews. Jewish refugee ships were turned away from US harbors during WWII — I don’t know how many, and it could have been a strategic deception, but it seems unlikely.

    At the same time, Benjamin Ginsburg’s history says that the massive American judeo-skeptic movement of WWII (see Father Coughlin and all that) got nowhere, largely because the ‘powers that were’ directed tactical audit-raiding against its natural leaders — much like your guy who was disciplined for his op-ed about how he had predicted the 2008 real estate rupture, and how honest and independent-minded people conversant with the field could generally have done same.

    And Eric Kaufman says the fight for the 1920s immigration restriction — which had a large head of steam going for quite a few years before the bill actually passed — was one in which Jews were the main opponent of the change, Protestants the proponent. Indeed, it seems like the question of further Jewish immigration was also the main bone of contention ; Protestant restrictionists talked mostly about Jewish weaknesses that tended to make them undesirable, but it’s rather plain that their real concern was Jewish strengths. Ethnopatriotic Protestant elites out-wrestled them, but only barely so. As I recall, the three or so presidents immediately prior had each opposed the restriction act. In any case the fight was a very long one. Just who do you have to fuck around here to finally get a bill like that passed after ten years — I’m not certain. Apparently someone eventually zeroed in on the key skids to grease.

    Stalin turned out to be more than a match for bolshi Jews, but that probably wasn’t their plan. Hitler never planned to lose WWII.

    Wilson is said by Greg Johnson to have had a lot of Jewish advisers. But few people with an interest in the subject seem to doubt that Jews were much more powerful in America from the 1960s onward.

    • RS says:

      If that’s really her, then Mead looks much too sultry and painted for me — but as a reasonable man I wouldn’t exactly shoo her away, just the same:

      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_66mr7N1rBSE/TDdNf7MuscI/AAAAAAAAA9A/o9EaNDTWu7k/s400/Margaret+Mead.jpg

      …so I can see what you’re saying about her biography, she could certainly have been in a position to power up by way of sexuality if she wanted to. And she does look like she would have the propensity, she’s certainly broadcasting a licentious vibe by the standards of the day.

      • josh says:

        In the early 20th C, there was an anti-semetic establishment centered around the House of Morgan, and an emerging philo-semetic establishmen centered around Rockefeller/Kuhn Loeb. The latter won.

        • jim says:

          The question was: would progressives permit Jews to join them, thus abandoning what little remained of their nominal Christianity and becoming a purely political movement? That some progressives favored allowing Jews into the progressive movement/conspiracy does not make them Jews, nor does it make the movement Jewish.

          All the bad stuff that is happening now, was happening back then in less extreme and overt form, before Jews were allowed in.

          Once the progressives proceeded with the violent suppression of slavery they had effectively abandoned Christianity, and so allowing Jews to join was logically inevitable. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon prescribes a more other worldly way of dealing with the wrongs of slavery. Ditch that book, might as well ditch the rest.

          The Epistle to Philemon implies that Christians should free their Christian slaves, and that Christians should not participate in the more unpleasant stuff needful to make slavery work. But it also implies that Christians should not free slaves with fire and steel, nor should slaves free themselves, making Christian leftism logically impossible. So inevitably, the Christian left must cease to be Christian, so inevitably, must allow Jews in.

    • jim says:

      Stalin turned out to be more than a match for bolshi Jews, but that probably wasn’t their plan. Hitler never planned to lose WWII.

      By and large, Jewish Bolsheviks were purged from the party by Jewish Bolsheviks, rather than by Stalin.

      All communist parties that were composed largely of Jews were antisemitic. The largely Jewish Old Bolsheviks purged all the Jews from the Bolshevik party, giving rise to an entirely non Jewish party. The Trots have remained predominantly Jewish, but continue to this day to hate Jews all the more because of it.

      Similarly, the Khmer communist party, composed largely of foreign educated intellectuals, bitterly hated foreign educated intellectuals, and proceeded to murder them all, including each other.

      Analogously, recall the Duke university lynching party. The rich white Anglo Saxon protestants were determined find rich white Anglo Saxon protestants guilty on the basis of their richness, whiteness, and protestantism.

      The left hates itself.

  7. RS says:

    > Progressive Jews are conversos. They want to assimilate, and do assimilate.

    Ehhh… yes and no. If you mean they want to altogether drop ethnocentricity (or ethnopatriotism to use the honorific), then no.

    The acid test is of course outmarriage. The American outmarriage figures you often encounter, that approximate to 50%, and were already nearly that high by something like the mid-70s to 1980, include half-Jews.

    Outmarriage for full Jews in the US is more like 30%. (Note that these are expressed as individual rates, the corresponding couples rates being a little different.) It’s still rather high, it just ain’t no 50%. In Europe, it is generally about the same as in the US. In the former USSR it is higher ; Jews qua volk have abandoned that area.

    • jim says:

      We need to distinguish between orthodox Jews, commie Jews, and progressive Jews. I said that progressive Jews were conversos. My theory predicts that progressive Jews should have extremely high rates of outmarriage, commie Jews low rates of outmarriage, though rising after the fall of the Soviet Union, and orthodox Jews very low rates of outmarriage.

      On my theory, all those evil Jews who caused the civil rights movement should be marrying non Jews. Seems easy to test, though I have not tested it. Who are the husbands, wives, sons in law and daughters in law, of the people running the Southern Law Poverty Center?

      Although I have not checked that, I did check the physical appearance of the people running it, and it seemed to me that many of them, most of them, were dying their hair red or blonde – which struck me as an indication that they were acting like conversos.

  8. [...] – Jim on PC [...]

  9. RS says:

    > On my theory, all those evil Jews who caused the civil rights movement should be marrying non Jews.

    I believe the US pop is about 5% separatist-Ortho and 5% integrationist-Ortho. Both have negligible outmarriage — so the real outmarriage for the other 90% is more like 33% instead of 30.

    In the Conservatives (the religious ‘denomination’), the outmarriage rate is greater than in Orthodox, less than in Reform. Not sure Reform really differs from nonpracticing/irreligious (might depend on definitions of both ‘Jewish’ and ‘nonpracticing/irreligious’). But basically it’s going to be something like 18% for Conserv and 38% for Reform/agnostic/atheist. The Conservatives don’t differ much from Reform/etc in political beliefs, though it’s still possible they’re easier to get along with — if they’re a little less drastic and intransigent, say. I don’t have much of a problem with their legitimate interests.

    Some future conflict of interest between separatist Orthos and (other) Euros exists, but it’s quite different from the classical Ashkenazi-Euro ethnic conflict, and perhaps much more tractable. The obvious settlement is give them X amount of land but obviously not all of North America.

    Activist-type lefty Jews with a dislike of Euros might become a weak force someday — first a force that must come to terms with others, then a small force. But it would be decades before any of this would, possibly, occur. It’s possible Jews will eventually cognize their present trajectory as considerably irrational, and pretty weird. It seems like the West will probably already be very deep in a process of denoument by a time like 2070. Things of yore may or may not be highly relevant. Things are likely to worsen with time, broadly, and parties may be compelled to come to terms somewhat in order to have the West remain standing at all. It cannot be fully ascertained IMO that dysgenesis will afflict our future, but if it does then surely something will have to be done at some point, rather than just permitting famine and violence to swell — a choice that could lead to war. That would simply be ludicrous. As would letting the civilization etiolate, when it has competition.

    Jews have kind of a hard time figuring out what’s beneficial, even for themselves — and of course it’s not very common for them to have much of an external perspective on their own history. The problem is not necessarily that they rule per se (or rather, exert hegemony) — the worse problem is that they haven’t got the hang of it.

Leave a Reply