Posts Tagged ‘anti semitism’

The PC trajectory

Tuesday, June 19th, 2012

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.

Curious cuddles between the Cathedral and Islam

Tuesday, January 11th, 2011

If someone is a called a “moderate Muslim”, he is probably part of the establishment, part of our ruling elite, or spends much of his day in their circles.

If someone is a Muslim, and part of our ruling elite or close to it, he is probably a terrorist, or spends much of the rest of his day in their circles.

There is at most one degree of separation between the elite, and Islam.  In contrast, there are several degrees of separation between the elite, and conventional Christianity.

Exhibit A in this story is Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, who spent a great deal of time walking and talking with US presidents Clinton and Bush and the usual parade of the good and the great – and who also addressed terror rallies demonizing the US. In 2004 was an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to assassinate the man who is now King of Saudi Arabia. So Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi is zero degrees of separation between the Cathedral and the terrorists.

Well, perhaps the Cathedral just happened to have one bad apple? But it’s other Muslim apples have smelly connections also.

Suhail Khan: Wikipedia tells us “Khan serves on the Board of Directors for the American Conservative Union, the Indian American Republican Council, the Islamic Free Market Institute, and on the interfaith Buxton Initiative Advisory Council. He speaks regularly at conferences and venues such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Council for National Policy (CNP), the Harbour League, and the National Press Club and has contributed to publications such as the Washington Post/Newsweek Forum On Faith, the Washington Post, Foreign Policy, and Human Events.”

Suhail Khan is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement, a Christian organization dedicated to religious freedom worldwide.

And yet this same Suhail Khan, moderate, pillar of the establishment, advocate of tolerance, also seems to spend a lot of time with people dedicated to blowing up infidels.

So Suhail Khan is one degree of separation between the Cathedral and terrorism.

Similarly for Imam Feisal Adbul Rauf, of the ground zero victory mosque. So of three Muslims that I noticed as being Cathedral insiders, three had ties to terror.

It does not appear the Cathedral is consciously and cynically cozying up to terrorists – Suhail Khan put quite a bit of effort into appearing to be moderate.  Rather, they turn a blind eye to terrorist connections, because to do otherwise would be racism and discrimination – while quite slight and vague connections to conventional Christianity cause them to reel back in shock and horror, like a vampire at the sight of the cross, as they do from Sarah Palin.

They want to include Muslims, but terrorism is as central to Islam as the Eucharist is to Christianity, and so if someone is an important Muslim, he is apt to have important connections to terror, and if a Muslim is in with the Cathedral, he is an important Muslim.  In contrast, if a nominal Christian knew what the Eucharist was, the Cathedral would treat him with extreme suspicion.

This is not a pro terror bias, but an anti discrimination bias – which bias in practice means we are not allowed to discriminate against people trying to kill us.

Anti semitism

Friday, January 7th, 2011

As Moldbug tells us:

Anti semitism is the faulty, paranoid, and obsessive belief that Jewish elites are significantly different from gentile elites.

Jews, as Jews, simply were not an are not influential in the development of the theocracy that ruled us. Jews really do not matter so much, so any belief system that causes one to focus on Jews sends one crazy, detaches one from reality.  If we look at the elite and bad conduct by the elite, and start asking:
“Who is a JOO? Look I see a JOO!  See the JOO!” then we are apt to attribute to the elite an ethnic solidarity that it conspicuously lacks. The elite is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews, entirely white, and hates whites, mostly anglophone, and hates anglophones, mostly American, and hates Americans and America.

Before any Jew was allowed to get anywhere near the reins of power, he had to convert to progressivism, or plausibly pretend to. Lots of them did so, as the progressive theocrats intended, which was highly beneficial for those Jews that converted and ascended, but a disaster for Judaism, and none too good for the Jewish people as a people.

Progressivism is an American branch of left protestantism, which sought theocratic power, in particular wanted all educational institutions to inculcate all children, especially Jewish and Catholic children, in their religion. Since the American constitution forbade this, they over time, ditched Christ, ditched redemption, and in large part ditched God. This started in 1900 or so and was largely completed by the time they were running reeducation, denazification and anti-colonialism.. They retained, however, a great pile of Christian and specifically protestant beliefs that are incompatible with Judaism as a religion, a culture, and a society. If Jews were influential as Jews, progressivism would be post Jewish, rather than post Christian.  But progressivism is, in practice, a post Christian heresy from Christianity.

For an example of the post christian character of progressivism, consider the ludicrous progressive belief that all people are equal in ability and virtue and so forth, which is what remains of the Christian belief that all people are equal in the sight of God, after God and Christ have been removed from the belief system.

The proposition that men and women are literally equal, that races are equal, leading to the conclusion that they are interchangeable, that women can be soldiers and firemen, men can marry other men, can only be understood as proposition about souls, rather than bodies, and when this doctrine is doubted, the reaction is religious rather than empirical. Understood as a species of Christian belief, it makes sense, because the Christians believe that the most important part of the self is immaterial. If it’s immaterial, then material differences have nothing to do with it. So Christians are free to believe pretty much anything they want about this most important part of the self, unconstrained by material evidence of any sort. They are free to believe that deep inside everyone, there is a core, an essence, that is not the slightest diminished by bodily infirmity etc. etc. I.e., the soul. The progressives jettison God, replacing God with, presumably, Nature. So “equality before God” becomes “equality before Nature”. That is, natural equality (of some unspecified sort). And this could be how the progressives manage to believe in some unspecified “natural” (biological or whatever) equality even though no evidence backs them up. Their belief is derived, not from evidence, but from the Christian heritage of progressivism. Their belief looks superficially like a scientific hypothesis because all the terms in it could be interpreted as referring to natural things, but it doesn’t really have any empirical content, because “equality”, while it could refer to something measurable, does not actually refer to anything measurable. Any attempt to measure something to test the claim of “equality” is attacked by progressives.

Progressives are using naturalistic-sounding words to talk about equality, but they are behaving as though it didn’t make any sense to try to measure it, which is how Christians would behave with respect to attempts to rigorously test equality before God. The Christian reaction would range from skepticism that it could be done, to the sense that it doesn’t even make sense to try, and finally to the certainty that it is heresy to even suggest such a thing and the person suggesting it is evil and possibly a sorcerer and should be burnt at the stake – and if you express doubt about natural equality, the progressive reaction you will get is not an appeal to empirical evidence, but condemnation and threats.

Progressivism is today influential world wide, and everywhere it is primarily American. For example “Gay pride” was applied throughout Europe often before it was applied in America, but with made in America propaganda, directly translated and retain American idioms, and often American neologisms, such as “Gay” as the new euphemism for homosexual; the hand of the master was visible; the muppet’s lips were moving, but the voice was not that of a local. Similarly American schoolchildren are taught about America, and are primarily taught that America is the most evil nation in the world, and German schoolchildren are also taught about America, and are primarily taught that America is the most evil nation in the world.

But, I hear you ask, if the Cathedral, the progressive ruling elite, is primarily American, rather than Jewish, why is it so maniacally anti American? Why you, ask, do they hate people like you and me. Surely that they hate Americans shows they are not Americans, do not think of themselves as Americans, therefore must be Jews?

Alas, self hatred is depressingly common, and progressives hate themselves, and therefore hate everyone like themselves, and therefore they hate you, and hate me, for reasons I will now explain:

Central to Christianity is sin and redemption. Christians are held to a standard so high that they cannot possibly attain it, and even if they attained it, they are condemned by original sin; we are all sinners and should be ashamed and guilty. But the preacher offers us a way out. Accept Christ as Lord, Christ will forgive you, Christ loves you, Christ will shoulder the load. Yes, you are a sinner, but Jesus loves you. And thus, central to progressivism is sin. Progressives are held to a standard so high that we cannot possibly attain it, and even if we attained it, we are condemned by original sin in that we are beneficiaries of colonialism slavery racism and blah blah blah. But the sensitivity trainer cannot offer us a way out, since God is dead and Jesus never existed. And so progressives are required to hate themselves. And they do.

The Progressives, the Left, the Cathedral, does not hate non Jewish whites because it is disproportionately Jewish; it hates all whites because it is white and hates Jews disproportionately because it is disproportionately Jewish.  It hates America and Americans because it is primarily American.

The most honest political ad of all time illustrates the perils of the politically correct only listening to each other. When they speak, their purpose is not truth, but power – and since they understand power as meaning the capacity to harm, everything they say is a lie intended to harm the hearer – and since they listen respectfully, indeed worshipfully, to each other …

The ruling elite is theocratic, hence the nickname “the Cathedral”. Their religion is simultaneously altruistically self hating, as illustrated by environmentalism and the fact that the disproportionately Jewish elite hates Israel and Jews, yet contradictorily, at the same time nihilistic and cynical, with the Alinksyite approach that anything goes in the pursuit of power, a contradiction resolved in their own minds since they are pursuing total, limitless, and absolute power, not on their own behalf, but on behalf of the oppressed and downtrodden – they are doing it for the proletariat, for the colonized. And if the proletariat and
the colonized are so rude as to talk back to their betters, well then, they are doing it for the trees.

The Cathedral will destroy everything, starting with itself, just as the most honest political ad of all time ended with the murder of the narrator. Its self hatred renders it powerless against more self confident theocracies, such as Islam, and its self destructiveness renders it incapable of holding power for very long even absent external enemies.

If the Jews were running things, we would have decent airport security like they have in Israel, instead of naked body scan and genital gropedown.   If the Jews were running things, the CIA would operate more like Mossad and less like the Keystone Cops.

The antiprofiling fetish is a left superstition and ritual, derived from progressivism’s Christian roots,  not a Jewish superstition and ritual – so it is obvious who is in charge.

Similarly, Israel had no banking crisis, despite the fact that their banks are full of Jews, who are doubtless as crooked as bankers elsewhere:  The reason there is no banking crisis in Israel is because banks in Israel did not make political loans to voter blocks and special interest groups notorious for not paying their debts; such loans being a progressive, rather than Jewish, superstition. And when the US government put the heat on banks around the world to buy mortgage backed securities, Israel “refused to support the world banking system”.  Since when did we have a world banking system? One worldism is a progressive superstition centered on the UN, and the UN hates Jews.

The left is lily white (as we saw at the “rally to restore sanity”) and hates whites.  The left is dominated and largely controlled by America and anglophones (as we saw with the export of the “gay pride” program to the non English speaking world) and hates anglophones and hates Americans most among anglophones.  The left is disproportionately Jewish, and hates Jews.

We are not ruled by Jews.  We are ruled by people who hate themselves and hate us and hate Jews most of all.

Here is the Bank of Israel’s take on the Global financial crisis:  You will notice that while everyone else is lying about it, they are telling the truth:

What are the factors that led to the global crisis?

The main factor that initiated the crisis was the accumulation of mortgages in default in the US as a result of the reversal of the trend of US housing prices. This occurred against the background of easy mortgages over a period of several years during which mortgages were provided to homebuyers who did not have sufficient ability to repay them. The losses spread to large financial institutions in a number of countries through the globalized financial markets, which facilitated the creation and marketing of complex financial instruments world wide. These instruments had a variety of terms to deal with default that had not been in use in the past and some of the instruments were sold and guaranteed by large financial institutions. Large investment houses worldwide held the view that advances in the study of finance had enabled a better understanding of these products and the correct valuation of the products and their guarantees. In retrospect, the risk assessment of these products was extremely deficient. Thus, significant losses were incurred by these large financial institutions and their customers. As a result, uncertainty regarding the financial stability of these institutions spread at a surprisingly quick rate and activity in the markets for more basic financial products-in which these same investment houses are active-was also affected.

How has the crisis so far affected the Israeli financial system relative to its effect on the financial markets and institutions in other advanced economies?

One of the main causes of the global financial crisis was the provision of mortgages, primarily though not exclusively in the US, to borrowers with insufficient ability to repay them. As a result, housing prices rose sharply in these countries, as did the prices of financial assets. When the financial institutions began to realize that they had provided mortgages to homebuyers with insufficient ability to repay them and these individuals were forced to sell their homes, a downward trend began in the prices of houses that served as the collateral for not only sub-prime mortgages, but higher quality mortgages as well. The drop in the value of other assets also eroded the collateral for loans that were made by the financial institutions in these countries. These developments, together with the collapse of the markets for mortgage-backed securities, had a multiplier effect that among other things led to the collapse of several financial institutions in the US, the UK and Europe. The large-scale provision of such mortgages in these countries to individuals with insufficient means to repay them was not,  however, characteristic of the Israeli financial system

You will observe that members of the Israeli elite can and do speak close to the the truth about the crisis, (the problem was mortgages to deadbeats) while members of the American elite, including their European muppets, cannot and do not. (Supposedly the problem was “excessive leverage”.)  Thus the financial crisis was brought to you by progressivism, not by the Jews, despite the  disproportionate presence of Jews in finance and financial regulation.

Hatred of softly influential groups

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Wherever a group has disproportionate economic or cultural success that does not rest upon political power, does not involve the ability to kill people and break things, does not depend upon hard power, for example Jews, Americans, Indonesian Chinese, Indian Fijians, Indians in Africa, the Ibo in Africa, the same hatred occurs, the same accusations, the same fantasies, the same excessive and disproportionate attention, the same concoction of utterly trivial grievances into supposedly enormous crimes – even if the disproportionately successful group and the less successful group have no previous history, but only encountered each other fairly recently. I observe that we also get such interesting phenomena as self hating members of the successful group – the psychopathologies so characteristic of Jews are also characteristic of other disproportionately successful and correspondingly hated groups.

This phenomenon is the inverse of Stockholm Syndrome. Stockholm Syndrome is that we are apt to love those who control us by fear and murder. Hatred of softly influential minorities, such as anti Americanism and hatred of overseas Chinese in various third world countries, is that we are apt to hate those whose intellectual creativity entertains or inspires us.

Amy Chua, author of the book “World on Fire”, which examines the problem of softly influential groups, under the demonizing and politically correct name “Dominant Minorities”, is a pretty good example of a self hating Filipino Chinese. It would seem that the Chinese sinned by being industrious and successful, and therefore the system that allowed them to succeed is supposedly to blame for bringing repression upon them in the Philippines, and massacre upon them in Indonesia.

There are a great many diverse newly affluent ethnic groups, among them the overseas Chinese of various Asian countries. An ethnic group succeeds, perhaps because of genetic superiority, perhaps because of a culture that encourages education, thrift and hard work, and so people hate that ethnic group – hate Amy’s ethnic group among others. Her analysis of the problem is absolutely accurate and spot on, though of course her implied solution – a political elite that imposes equality on all the non elite – has failed disastrously. She sees, and explains in detail, that her ethnic group is in the same hole as the Jews, and as a great many other similar groups, correctly analyzing the problem that afflicts overseas Chinese and Jews and many other groups as a single problem with many groups and many examples. The flaw in her analysis is the self hating and politically correct phrase “dominant minority”.

The groups she is talking about are not dominant, rather they possess soft power. If Americans wandered around shooting people to force obedience, everyone would love them, but Americans are hated because they persuade people to drink coca cola and watch terminator movies.

Similarly Hitler, a failed artist, was primarily enraged by the influence of Jewish plays and art. When people complain that America rules the world, they really complaining that they watch American movies, and thus people are playing attention to Americans instead of themselves.

The correct description of the problem is “non coercive influence”, and “softly influential group” Non coercive influence, soft power, is what a softly influential group possesses, and it makes that group hated. Dominant minorities are often loved, and are never hated. The problem, rather is hatred of softly influential groups.

I observe that since the surge, since Americans flattened half of Fallujah, we have at last seen large numbers of Arabs clerics, all of them Iraqis, most of them not very far from Fallujah, preaching genuinely moderate Islam, and large numbers of Arab intellectuals, a great many of them Iraqis, arguing for moderate and realistic behavior by Arabs and Arab countries, accurately perceiving the faults of Islam and the Arabs. The American attempts to directly build a state were all miserable failures, and continue to be so, but when the Americans showed persistence in slaying their enemies, there was considerably greater willingness to examine American ideas and beliefs honestly and thoughtfully. Arab intellectuals and clerics changed their position, and we now increasingly hear from Arabs that Arabs have problems because their society has something wrong with it, not because the outsiders are holding them down. Seeing that Americans would fight and not yield made in much easier for Arabs to understand and agree with the Americans, though I think Americans could have made the same point at considerably less cost to themselves.

The critical variable is hard power, and hard power is the costs you can inflict on others. If a softly influential minority exercises sufficient hard power – that is to say, hurts enough people and destroys enough wealth, or demonstrates willingness and ability to do so – irrational hostility diminishes among those people who are potentially vulnerable to being hurt, and the softly influential group becomes able to make its case intellectually, able to win hearts and minds through persuasion and good deeds. The good deeds are only appreciated from people who can and do also do bad deeds.

Not only is the group less hated, but it less apt to hate themselves. Not so very long ago Americans were having orgasms of guilt because a guard at Gitmo tortured a poor helpless terrorist by pissing a short distance upwind of a Koran. Today Americans have flattened half of Fallujah and no one gets indignant.

When Americans knocked down a few dozen houses in Fallujah and killed a few people, there was a big outcry about the Fallujah massacre, just as there was about the Jenin massacre when Jews knocked down a few houses and killed a few people.

But when Americans came back a couple of years later and proceed the flatten half of Fallujah and kill a great big pile of people, not only are Fallujans fine with that, but more importantly, Americans are fine with that. If you google, you will still get five times more hits on Jenin massacre than on Fallujah massacre, and most, probably all of the hits for Fallujah massacre are for much smaller events from long ago where Americans were doing very little damage to people or property. When Americans rolled their sleeves up and really started killing people and breaking things in vast numbers, then there was no more talk of “Fallujah massacre” – not from Arabs, not from Europeans, and not from Americans.

The solution to the problem that Amy so accurately describes is the Fallujah solution, the opposite of the solution she inaccurately prescribes. The answer to irrational hatred is to hurt people and break things. Since the hatred is irrational, crazy, and self destructive, a sufficiently hurtful and destructive response to hatred snaps people out of their madness, and creates an environment where communication and good deeds can work, as is happening in Fallujah and Anbar province.

Of course, that strategy can also lead to holy war, if people incorrectly evaluate other people’s legitimate grievances as irrational, crazy, and self destructive, but what we are seeing in Iraq is the quenching of holy war, with, to my great surprise, a massive outbreak of moderate Islam, We are not seeing any signs of a functional democracy or national unity, which was supposed to be the mechanism that would supposedly produce moderate Islam, but we are seeing moderate Islam despite, or perhaps because of, the severe disfunction of the institutions that were supposed to encourage it.

How much hard power is required? Small doses are counter productive, merely giving people superficially rational excuses for their irrational hatred. Gitmo produced the insane hysteria about torturing a prisoner by pissing upwind of a Koran, making the problem worse, not better. The Fallujah sized dose, however, has had dramatic good effects in Fallujah and noticeable good effect in America, winning the hearts and minds not only of Fallujans, but of Americans.