I generally don’t like to read /duck/ because it has a lot of pro-sodomy propaganda such as illustrated by the following screencap:
But sometimes I just have to quote the epic flame wars.
The following is all quoted from:
>I feel very strongly that one’s first reaction to even one suggestion like “There is no other solution other than the final solution,” let alone a long list of such suggestions, ought to read more like this:
>”Well, obviously I don’t think we should exterminate the Jews.”
>One might add:
>”After all, they’re not all bad, and I am willing to accept the help of Jews who want to pitch in.”And then
>This proves even “Jews” can be pro-white, and a valuable addition to any pro-white activist group.
>If you are stupid enough to believe that all Jews, because of their Jewishness, are bad people, or racists, or supremacists (pot/kettle situations, all), then you are (a) stupid, but I think I covered that, and (b) a racist, not a race realist. You should also find another blog, because I’m not interested in your opinions.
>Jewish conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish racism (basically, any time you make a claim about all Jews) are no longer permitted on Unamusement Park.
NRx is JEWISH at its core. It has never been anything else. A purge among the central leadership is indispensable.
>I have so far been positively disinterested in approaching the subject of the Jews because I’m not being interested in being understood as an anti-Semite, were I to say something which might be construed as negative
>I’m not interested in a “Jewish question” as though “what to do with the Jews” were a question of any specific significance not shared in “what to do with Arabs” or “what to do with Chinese.”
>That the Jews are overrepresented in banking and media, indeed the Cathedral itself, does not seem to me to be a strike against the Jews.
>it seems to me that one is committing a genetic fallacy by pointing to overrepresentation in the Cathedral as proof that there is something innately odious about the Jews.
From the comments:
>My argument is more to the claim that “Jewish clannishness can do more good than harm to host populations.” The purpose is to rebut the claim that Jews are necessarily parasitic
>So I guess you could say I am sort of, kind of pro-Semitic?
Yes, Bryce. “Sort of.”
>Folks, it’s a bad equilibrium. A coordination problem of a sort that we’d be better off solving than perpetuating. Given the track record I, for one, would prefer to have the Joos on our side.https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/hate-bait/
Of course you would.
>I’m not anti-Jewish… Jews are, generally, just really progressive – I see no reason to create a separate category.
>Those on the right would do well to remember that America’s enemy is not the Jews, but the Protestants.
>It’s also strange how many people are able to believe that under-performance by one group with an IQ that’s one standard deviation below the mean is entirely explained by genetics while simultaneously believing that over-performance by another group with an IQ that’s one standard deviation above the mean must be explained by some nefarious process.Stupid Goyim! Can’t you see that the ONLY REASON Jews are overrepresented everywhere is that Whites are like Niggers when compared to YKW?
>We are not ruled by Jews. We are ruled by people who hate themselves and hate us and hate Jews most of all.Jim: The Cathedral hates Jews “most of all.” You can’t make this stuff up.
>I don’t write anti-Jewish things because I’m not particularly anti-Jewish…Of course you’re “not particularly anti-Jewish.” We shall see just how not anti-Semitic you are.
>On a group level, I view Jews as I do any other out-group not engaged in war with my in-groups, with benevolent neutrality. They are not my group but neither do I wish them ill.
They are “not engaged in war” with Whites. Sure.
>Some would point to the Jewish over-representation in progressive causes as an attack on my people, but I do not think Jewish over-representation in progressive causes indicates any purposeful, malign attack on the part of Jews.
Didn’t expect you to.
>Those minority of Jews who have not been liberal have acquitted themselves proportionately well in anti-progressivism. Jews were the largest minority who fought for the confederacy. Jews wereimportant aides to McCarthy in his anti-communist fights. Barry Goldwater himself was half-Jewish. More revealingly, 1% of the John Birch society were Jews, despite the fact that at the time, only 10% of Jews voted for Goldwater. So, .2% of the population that were Jewish conservatives were over-represented by a factor of 5 in the JBS.
See, Goyim? There are good Jews.
>The answer to the Jewish question is subsidiarity or patchwork. Different groups, whether ethnic, religious, or ideological should have their own regions to live as they see fit without interference from other groups. In the particular case of Jews, this should be easy, as they tend to be geographically concentrated in the Northeast, Florida, and California. When we divide the country, we can allow these areas to either be cosmopolitan or give them to the Jews to run as they see fit. Then Jews and blue tribe whites can have their progressive utopia, blacks can have their welfare state, and red tribe whites can have agrarian conservatism.
Jews should be given lands that belong to Whites. Likewise, Mexicans. And Arabs. It all makes sense now; I finally understand NRx.
>On the other hand, the nation (city-state) I want to live will be smaller than the United States, and much more focused. Whatever kind of government it has will be ruthless in dealing with seriously anti-social behavior and will not subsidize single motherhood and unemployment. In these conditions I, personally, welcome Jewish physicists, Chinese engineers, Japanese cartoonists, Argentinian dance instructors and Black American former Green Berets, if they’re superb contributors to the polis (did I miss any stereotypes? Apologies).https://neovictorian23.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/nationalisms-white-and-otherwise/
NRx racist? Anti-Semitic? ROFLMAO
But NRx is not only overrepresented with Jews, even the good goyim in NRx are distinctly philo-Semitic and some are even anti-racist.
NRx is rotten at the root.
>JQ is a litmus test for a group I have no intention of joining.
Good Goyim, some questions must not be asked, here in NRx…
From the same thread, Alrenous speaks up his mind:
>Nationalism is dumb. It’s a sophistry designed to fool you into thinking your government is not your enemy. This goes double if you’re talking groups like ‘white’ and ‘black.’ Look at Zimbabwe or Iraq or even China. While being white is certainly extra-bad, being black doesn’t make you Mugabe’s pal. Certainly, foreign governments are more your enemy, but that doesn’t mean your government is an ally.
>Just do a little A/B testing. If they’re bad, then don’t reject them for being Jewish, reject them for being harmful or derelict in their elite duties.
>But I suspect most of the JQ is envy and the plebe/patrician discontinuity. More Jews get into the elite, which means they look more elite as a group, which means they make a good scapegoat in plebe/patrician conflicts of interest.
This stuff is awesome.
Nick Land is pure gold:
>NRx (mainline) is not tribalistic, because Moldbug isn’t.
No comment necessary.
>moldbug ain’t tribalisticNow that’s irony at its finest.
>U MAD, kike?Of course not. I’m Whiter than you.
You’re obviously descended from Southern or Eastern European peasants.
In other words, you’re not truly White.
>In short, Rosin, like many Jews, is a gifted story-teller. If the incentives of the Liberal Democratic regime were aligned differently, she could use her skills to entertain us in a way that was wholesome and not a threat to traditional norms. Instead, she wins points for being: Progressive. And Liberal Democratic regimes cannot NOT do that. Situation Normal—All Fucked Up.It’s the Goyim’s fault, you see. If only Whites had given Jews better incentives, they’d be “wholesome and not a threat to traditional norms.” It’s as if Jews have no agency of their own.
Asked by a commenter regarding this bizarre proposition, NBS replies:
>It is nevertheless possible for a people to benefit from the presence of a few high functioning minorities.
I guess these “high functioning minorities'” ethnicity is just not a thing, it’s just some trivia like whether or not they like spicy food. Totally irrelevant. Yep.
Dear HBD Sperglords:
WNism doesn’t deny HBD. It places it in the right context. The implication that because there are differences between Whites ethnicities, these can’t pursue a shared common-goal of racial interests is retarded. The strawman about “muh all whites are homogenous” is way too obvious. Like Niggers and Gooks, White ethnicities are not all exactly 100% the same. Doesn’t matter here. Ashkenazis allegedly have some White blood (about 40%). Doesn’t matter here. Whites have racial interests which diverge from those of Jews.
NRx seeks to deny this biological reality, because it is a Jewish ideology which serves Jewish interests.
>New York City remains my favorite city. It’s full of Jews. Even the Asians look Jewish.But alas! Bryce knew beforehand that this suggestion would arise, so he has already devised a retort:
>If you talk about the Jews… People on the right will tend to suspect you of being Semitophilic.
I have NO IDEA how could such a suspicion develop. It shall remain a mystery.
Gray is also a mixer. What is the connection between philosemitism, yellow fever and libertarianism?
Moldberg defending the Israeli attack on the Liberty.
>>7190Basically, when Bryce talks about “memetic sovereignty” and how NRx won’t allow WN “entryists” to infiltrate it, what he really means is “I’m okay with Jews, in fact I actually like them, so that’s how things shall be.”
What I gather from this thread:
Karl: anti-anti-Semitic Jew
Foseti: married to a Jew, philo-Semitic
Bryce: consciously, admittedly philo-Semitic
Free Northerner: philo-Semitic
NBS: white-knights for the Jews
Jim: ardently philo-Semitic
Land: persistently philo-Semitic
E. Antony Gray: hysterically philo-Semitic
These are their words. The evidence is indubitable. The denial must end.
>>7194Good to see someone’s stayin out of trouble.
You all DO realize I hope that /duck/ exists as an alternate reality in which Joo-tards are kept busy and distracted from participation in actual neoreaction. Which consists mainly of elaborate rituals to RE-circumcise true judeoreactionary believers. Yes this includes the oral suction thing.
And thanks for not shitting on my rug.
>I… do. For now I will sketch my basic position on the Jews.
>A Jewish liberal/whatever is exactly as bad as any other equally talented liberal/whatever. Fortunately/unfortunately for them, Jews are unusually talented. This seems to be the source of endless conspiracy theories: “look at all these Jews involved in [something bad] at the highest levels.” Well, look at all the less talented non-Jews involved at every other level.
>In short, I don’t believe in conspiracies. I believe in idiots acting alone, idiots acting in small groups, and idiots who get swept along in a great wave of idiocy they can neither control nor understand. Some of these idiots are Jews. Most are not.
>This, I think, better accounts for the state of the world than a secret Zionist conspiracy. For example, my explanation for Jewish involvement in immigration reform is as follows.
>They were idiots, dangerous idiots, like all the other (non-Jewish) immigration reformers. Unfortunately, they were unusually clever idiots.
Followed up by
>That is the problem with bringing up Jews in the context of white racial consciousness: there’s a schism in the movement.
>I haven’t done any research on Jews. I will, if and when I wrote a post about them.
January 2014, it seems Karl has had some “research on the Jews.”
>I have a big folder full of stuff on Jews.
Strange… I see no posts presenting this “research.”
>These leaflets say that white people exist and have the right to exist. This is something so basic that it even gets Jews and mixed Jews on board, like JAY [Jewish blogger “Jew Among You.” – Judeoreactionary Stormfronter] and our host here.The allegation that Jews generally don’t recognize “that white people exist and have the right to exist”, and that Karl is an exception to a rule, prompts Karl to this:
>Yup. I was totally opposed to white rights (like all mixed Jews), posting radical anti-white propaganda on my Zionist blog here, right up until a guest poster explained to me that white people exist and have the right to exist. Then I was like, “okay, maybe I should set aside ZOG for a minute or two and allow white people to live.” Then I ate a bagel and counted my enormous pile of cash.
How dare you suggest Jews are generally anti-White?! This nonsense deserves ridicule! Most Jews LOVE Whites!
>Which female IDF soldiers are deliberately targeting civilians, including children, with remote-controlled gun turrets, for their own enjoyment?
>I really don’t want to talk about Israel. However, I have to ask, because (a) you said it, and (b) unfortunately, I can’t just trust your claim, basically because it is willing to set honesty aside to achieve emotional impact.
>First, it clearly implies that the killing of civilians, including children, by the IDF is deliberate (“They especially like…”) without actually saying it. And not just deliberate, but a source of pleasure for the IDF. Second, the phrase “at zero physical risk to themselves” is an utter red herring. Is it supposed to be better if they’re risking their own lives to kill civilians?
>This sort of thing is typical of these one-line critiques of Israel.
>Another example: I have been referred to Mossad’s supposed motto, “By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War,” as evidence that, basically, Israel is bad (or whatever). But setting aside the American Standard Bible translation (“For by wise guidance thou shalt make thy war”), deception has been an element of war — by everyone, against everyone — since the dawn of time. Sneak attacks? Deception. Encrypted messages? Deception. Military intelligence/counter-intelligence? Deception. Any time you don’t announce to your enemy what you’re about to do, it’s deception.
>Why is this sort of thing (favoring emotional impact over honesty) so often used to criticize Israel specifically? I mean, for crying out loud, “zero physical risk to themselves”? Why is that phrase in there? Why?
>I see an agenda in the pro-miscegenation messages in the media. This anti-Israel material isn’t nearly as egregious (or important), but there’s still an agenda.
Just so we know who we’re dealing with here.
>Go ahead and call them ethnically Jewish. No one’s going to scream at you here. We would rather you say it and then also make a case for its relevance, of course.
>That said, I think it’s a stretch to say that Jews were “the ancestors of those behind the Cathedral” (which is what you were actually saying) and just leave it at that. If you only look at the 20th century, focusing on Progressivism since the 1930s, I guess you can make that case. (Though I notice you’ve listed Marx but not Engels, Trotsky but not Lenin [Lenin had 25% Jew blood. – Judeoreactionary Stormfronter], Boas but not his disciple Mead—I mean, they’re notall Jews, right? These people “behind the Cathedral”?)
>You believe I’m “not being objective about The Cathedral” and have “a strong personal motive for muddying the water.” (Presumably, I suppose, this “strong personal motive” is a fantastical ‘group selection/group action strategy’ passed down from whatever Jews may lurk in my family tree.) The truth is simpler: I think the antisemitic* theory of history, though loosely tied to reality, is basically wrong. That, it seems to me, is also basically the judgment of, e.g., Nick Land, Steve Sailer [Sailer has at least 50% Jew blood. – Judeoreactionary Stormfronter], John Derbyshire, and many others who cannot possibly be confused with crypto-Jews.
>(*A descriptive term, not a normative one.)
>But your cryptic claim about Jews, on the other hand, was: “The ancestors of those behind the Cathedral — e.g., Marx, Trotsky, Boas, Freud, Alinsky, Friedan, Gould — did not spend much time in cathedrals as opposed to, say, synagogues.” That’s the complete sentence (with my emphasis)—which I could only interpret to mean something like: Jews are behind it all. I didn’t see any subtleties on the centuries-long evolution of Progressivism, so I just pointed out some of your obvious omissions, like Engels and Lenin, and that Locke and Rousseau are way more important than Friedan and Gould—and your response has essentially been to accuse me of Jew tricks.
>Hey man, if you want to talk about the history of Progressivism, I’m all about that. We can go back to the “Stone Age” and talk about John Calvin and John Locke—or we can talk about the 20th century. In the 20th century, we are sure to encounter Jews. So you want to talk about Jews? Cool. I have a big folder full of stuff on Jews. But you led with that cryptic claim and, having encountered what I would call mild skepticism, appear to be making this (a) personal and (b) racial-essentialist.
>So at this point I’m wondering if your laudable attempt “to understand 2014″ by “looking first and hardest at patterns in the 20C” has brought you to what I would call unreasonable conclusions; e.g.,all Jews are bad because something something scorpion and the frog. If so, I’m thinking we really do need to go back further than the 20th century and muddy up the waters a little just to get the proper perspective. Because when you tell me I have “a strong personal motive for muddying the water”—well, I know that something has gone wrong with your theory of history, and while obviously I cannot convince you of that, I’m confident the audience will get the same answer as me.All quotes taken from here:
Neo-Reaction is JUDEO-Reaction.
>The encounter with actual Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and other assorted flavors of social occasionalism (race is god) has left a very bad taste in my mouth. Not that I had any real sympathy for these types, beyond admitting that race is a thing, among others, but it appears that upon confrontation with a rightist of insufficient anti-Semitism they all turn into Nazified caricatures of leftists.
Alrenous, meanwhile, is consistent with the theme of Jews not having any ethnic interest of their own:
>The Jews are easy to control, they’ve always been the whipping boys of real power. Being antisemite marks you as a weak pleb and a gull that accepts scapegoats for your impotent wrath. That said, philosemitism seems dumb to me – the Jews are nobody’s friend. They’re dogs, and you either get the leash end or the tooth end. But, I repeat, don’t blame the dog for its master’s command.
“I’m not a philo-Semite. I just think all bad things done by Jews should be 100% blamed on Whites. How on Earth is that philo-Semitic?”
The evidence is here for all to see.
>As I’ve said before, I don’t buy that a Jewish Conspiracy is controlling the West… Frankly, the reason there are so many left-wing Jews working to degrade our culture is A) Jews, as a whole, are highly intelligent and thus gravitate towards positions of prominence, and B) all the right-wing Jews are busy being productive members of society. It ain’t a conspiracy; it’s a structural flaw in our society. Democracy leads to the promotion of Any and All left-leaning, social deconstructionist movements, and in that sense at least it’s colour blind.
He is explicitly against White Nationalism:
>Thus do they demand that all be their slaves.
>And that – at its core – is White Nationalism. It is most certainly not the simple argument that the White race deserves to exist, and have the opportunity to thrive; rather, it is the demand that all whites sublimate themselves to the ideology, and blame all failings upon the enemy. It’s just another form of Identity Politics, premised upon warfare, lashing out with the same childish rage you see in Feminists and Race Baiters.
>It is a movement for losers. And I want no part in it.
How philo-Semitic is he? Insanely philo-Semitic.
>Which brings me to this question: why all the hatred of the Jews?
>It’s inevitable whenever you read a post about interracial violence, immigration, or the destruction of European culture, that somewhere in the comment section somebody will bring up Zionism and the Jewish Controlled Media.
>I find this boggling.
>Jews might be a lot of things as a race; they’re funny – they’re smart – and, yes, they’re certainly over-represented in Law and Banking… but Evil? One of my closest friends is an Italian Jew, Libertarian at heart, who hopes to run as a Conservative; he grew up in poverty, and never told me about any Master Plan. Then you get folks like Jerry Seinfeld, standing by Michael Richards when that man made the mistake of thinking that funny-on-screen would translate into funny-in-the-comedy-club. From where I’m sitting, Jews look like Fine People Indeed.
>Jewish Conspiracy? What are you, New? Never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
>The Jews are not Evil – no more than Women are Evil because of Feminism – they’re just the perfect Useful Idiots for the Leftist memeplex to infect.
>White Nationalists – I get it. You’re pissed off about the erosion of traditional European values, and I largely agree. But could you please drop the lunatic conspiracy theories? You’re making us all look like loons.
As I said, Aurini is not technically NRx. But tell me who your friends are…
>Satisfied with the question of the Jews, neoreactionaries notice that…
Does he genuinely believe that NRx is “satisfied” with the solution to the Jewish Problem, which is complete deportation to Israel of all Jews (if not something more radical)? Or is he projecting his own stance to the whole of NRx?
At Radish, Karl promotes the Lovecraftian view that
>the trouble with the Jew is not his blood — which can mix with ours without disastrous results — but his persistent & antagonistic culture-tradition
>Certainly, a dash of alien blood of a superior race (among which a large section of Jews as well as Mongols must be included) does not harm another superior stock so long as the culture is unimpaired.
>So I say that, whilst it is eminently desirable to salvage good Jewish race-stock by very gradual absorption into the Aryan and dominating body, it is absolutely necessary that this salvaging be accompanied by a total effacement of the newcomers’ traditions.
>That will call for concessions on both sides — the Jews will have to realise that they can’t drag their folkways into our national patterns, while we will have to abandon the tight race-lines of the Hitlerites.
>With the negro the fight is wholly biological, whilst with the Jew it is mainly spiritual
A view that is in perfect accord with the fact he (Karl) is a Jew himself. Is that the Official Neoreactionary Position? It’s not less “official” than Yuray’s stance.
>Neoreaction is demographically less Jewish than a Hamas birthday party.
>Jews, far from running the show the way they do for neoconservatives, communists, or progressives (but I repeat myself), are conspicuously missing. If neoreaction is a Jewish conspiracy, it is the first one without any Jews.
>Judaeoreaction? Why not Sinoreaction or Islamoreaction?
>My Jew-dar just isn’t detecting anything.
Which is utter crap. First, it is important to distinguish core NRx and obscure bloggers who never had any influence on the NRx “essence” and never had any traffic. Moldbug is core NRx. So is Karl. Antidem isn’t really important, though. So even reducing NRx from 3 to 2 Jews, these are BIG Jews in a SMALL gang. Second, there are, in fact, Jews in NRx, as point 1 states. Their number is larger than zero, unlike Yuray’s implication. Third, Jews don’t have to be a majority in NRx for NRx to be philo-Semitic. Jews prefer being a minority-in-control than forming Jew-majority groups. Fourth, what is it with labelling the noticing of Jews/philo-Semitism as “conspiracy theory”? There is no conspiracy – everything’s pretty obvious in plain sight. Next:
>Moldbug alone is not the sole arbiter of neoreactionary thought.
Strawman: no one has reduced NRx to Moldbug solely, at least not here. The last point is that
>Neoreaction answers the Jewish Question, once and for all.
Yeah… Nice try.
He also claimed that
>In other words: faith, blood, and property. God, family, and guns. Everybody’s got a favorite, but nobody maintains less than all three.
The Techno-Commercialist wing is explicitly against “blood” and implicitly against “family”. They’re partly atheists as well. The Theonomists are also not keen on “blood”.
>If you don’t see neoreaction doing anything, that’s just because you haven’t looked — or, because neoreaction doesn’t want you to see what it’s doing.
Shut up. You don’t do anything; that’s TOTALLY OKAY with me, but don’t claim you do things when you don’t.
Yuray made an attempt at humor, writing
>Moldbug hasn’t been scheming for years behind-the-scenes, directing neoreaction from a synagogue.
Reading this thread, it sure looks like it.
>Racial impurity is only a problem to the extent that is leads to dysgenesis – importing slaves, then mingling with them is dysgenic. Importing and absorbing east asians not a problem. Nor is importing blacks and not absorbing them a problem.
>But we have already lost cohesion. If civilization survives, and if whites continue to be a part of it, it is going to be a eurasian civilization. Reality is that the white civilization of the future, if there is one, is going to be in substantial part a mingling of western europeans and east asians.http://blog.jim.com/politics/neoreaction-and-identitarianism/
>The only reason some people want ethnic purity is that they want everyone within the state to be equal. If you are fine with some people ruling over other people, some groups ruling over other groups, ethnic purity does not sound so important.
This is NRx, folks.
>Just as #NRx’s antisem is a ploy to scare off prog infiltrators, #NRx’s philosem is a ploy to scare off natsoc-tards. It’s really one ploy.Notice he makes two equal claims here: they’re not just using philo-Semitism for tactical purposes (which they don’t, and runs 180 degrees counter to NRx philosophy), but even the little-to-nonexistent “anti-Semitism” in NRx is fake as well.
Basically, everything in NRx could be a “ploy” to “scare off” someone; or rather, everything could be dismissed as such.
NRx was supposed to be an unabashed, memetically-independent critique from a Reactionary Weltanschauung of modern and historical Progressivism. In reality, it’s high-IQ atheist assimilated/crypto Jewish nerds promoting their ethnic-interest to gullible Goyim who (claim they) can’t tell whether they’re philo-Semitic or anti-Semitic, though judging by the actual texts they produce they’re 95% philo-Semitic; when not outright Jewish, that is.
You know, NBS, you could have just claimed NRx isn’t really philo-Semitic, just pretends to be. (LOL no) But instead you claimed that it is also not anti-Semitic. Think what that means about your whole ideology.
>Of course, the Jews, the Blacks, poor whites, union members and others newer to the game (feminists, queers, hispanics etc) think they will control the Cathedral and will talk like they are making the decisions.See, there are just different power groups. Nothing unique about a specific high IQ hostile-elite ethnic group; they’re like union members or Hispanics. Go to sleep, Goyim.
>There’s far too much A) self-deprecating Jew-baiting (IE, “the white race — who are really a bunch of naive humdrum do-gooders unlike us, the great White Nationalists — were all tricked by the intellectually superior yet nefarious evil Jews!”) and B) insistence that whites are in an existential battle for their own survival.http://www.xenosystems.net/white-fright/
Jim, as always obsessed with Kikes and Gooks, tells it like it is:
>But I wonder – is it possible to be a non-white neoreactionary? That seems to be my situation.
>There are a lot of Jewish and some east asian neoreactionaries, some fairly whitish mestizo neoreactionaries, and at least one distinctly black neoreactionary (He hates black people too)
Okay guys, seriously, this is NRx in its own words. I’m not making this stuff up.
>I’d go further — If there’s an ‘entryism’ issue in NRx (an inherently comical formulation, but leave that for now) it’s primarily about ethno-nationalists trying to latch onto something cool — i.e. smart — and by doing so dragging its average intelligence level down discernibly. Their input at the high-end is a valuable source of stimulation, but they’re not ‘us’.At a different thread, he has this to say:
>For those (not exclusively found in the Tech-Comm camp, but I suspect concentrated there) who consider Moldbug‘s work canonical, the distinction between NRx and White Nationalism (as also antisemitism) is already quite clearly defined.
NRx and WNism are antithetical. That much is clear.
Hurlock, do you have something to add?
>The problem with focusing on “The Joos” as a whole evil ethnic group is that it is misleading. Yes plenty of Jews through history did some pretty bad things and were hyper-leftists in a lot of cases, but so were a lot of whites. Yet all those people who want to focus on the jews, on the ethnicity as a whole do not want to focus on whites in the same way.
>Basically to generalize “a lot of jews were bad ergo all jews are bad” is bad logic.
He does show a deep, comprehensive grasp of each and every argument against Jews.
>Was it explicitly the jews who started brazilization? Was it whites? Was it whites who then got help from the jews? Was it the other way around?
>Historically jews have played vital economic roles, because bad laws wouldn’t allow native whites to do them. Of course this doesn’t result in whites blaming the government or the church at the times, but the jews. Logic has taken a holiday. And of course the jews were the favorite scapegoat of the country’s elite; everyone already hates them because they get rich thanks to the church canon laws.
Deep, comprehensive grasp.
Meow Mix, who goes by “Meow Blitz” (I didn’t make up these names) at therightstuff.com, is convincing:
>I’ll repeat what I said on Amerika. My position on the JQ is simple: right wing Jews are allies, left wing Jews (most unfortunately) are enemies.
>Yes some jews played a significant role in that process. Some whites did too. We are back to square one.Why is Hurlock even IN NRx? I thought this Synagogue is for the above 115 IQ-points people.
Truth is, you spergs can’t even control an image board.
How do you expect to control a city-state?
Are Jews responsible for American decline?
>there’s this floating meme that Americans were all earnest good-ol’ cowboys who own guns and did low taxes, until Jews came over and imposed socialism on them.
>Narratives are always easier if you map ideologies to ethnic groups.
You… you ought to read some MacDonald, pal.
>Not all Jews are progressive.Phew. And here I was thinking that..
>Rather, when a Jew abandons Judaism, he is apt to convert to progressivism.
>Orthodox Jews are not progressive. By and large, Jews act as if progressivism was still a branch of Christianity.
I see. Judaism is incompatible with Progressivism. The world has just been made more clear. Thanks to you, Jim. Thank you.
>They hate Christmas because progressives have always hated Christmas even when progressives were nominally Christian, not because Jews are obligated to refrain from the rituals of competing religions Their children, to the extent that they have any, are unlikely to be aware of their Jewish identity.
The children of Jews never identify as Jews. It’s a known fact.
>Progressive Jews are conversos, and are apt to exhibit the pathological characteristics of conversos of centuries past, hating both the community they abandon, the community they attempt to join, themselves, and Christianity.
Oh. Progressive Jews are not REAL Jews. Because they’re really anti-Semites. Now that is solid logic right here.
>Your humble blogger has come under a bit of fire for believing that the Puritans are the problem instead of the Joos.
>If I had to summarize the neoreactionary position on American history in one sentence, I’d go with: American history is the slow process of Massachusetts taking over its region, the nation, and the world.https://foseti.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/the-joos/
Well, it’s good thing Handle is here to clarify even further:
>I grew up around a lot of high-IQ non-Jews, who are all now just as progressive as any of the Jews I’ve known. If deranged, hysterical Palin-hatred circa 2008 is any indicator of progressiveness, the elite Anglos I knew then were the absolute worst. I’ve also known a lot of Jews, and the accusations here of their non-Jew contempt or dismissiveness are incredibly exaggerated.
But maybe Jews are still a little, like 5%, at fault?
>It’s interesting to note how many people on the right just want White people in general to think and act as they imagine the Jews / Israelis do… Sometimes I think that their own frustrated ethno-aspirations are responsible for a good deal of psychological projection and motivated beliefs regarding the sinister ‘other’.
>The most obvious modern right-wing state is Israel. I’m not sure a left-wing Israel is possible, but formalism would suggest that Israel will either be eliminated or turned into a left-wing state.And why would that happen?
>In short, perhaps it’s right-wing because it’s so not progressive. It’s a social democratic paradise . . . for Jews, which is unacceptable to progressives.
>Look at its foreign policy. Look at the number of condemnations from the UN for violations of “international law.” The list goes on.
Yes. The list does go on.
>Why I don’t believe that Jews are all powerful
Foseti explains the truth as he sees it.
>If the Jews control the world, or whatever… we would also expect to see the Jews advancing some sort of Jewish agenda. It’s then fair to ask whether we see Jews as being particularly successful at advancing some sort of Jewish agenda.
>We do not.
That’s it, I give up. Sometimes you can, sometimes you can’t. I can’t.
>The fundamental question for those who wish to suggest the existence of a Jewish conspiracy is: if the Jews are organized and intelligent enough to create a world-dominating cabal, why are they so bad at running said cabal to further their own ends?
>Until that question is answered, I think it’s wise to ignore suggestions of a Jewish conspiracy.
Well go ahead. No one’s stopping you.
>as I’ve said elsewhere, if you correct for intelligence, personality, and creative energy, then I don’t see Jews as particularly more important to the development of modern progressivsm than their Anglo or European counterparts. The reason people pick up this pattern is because, like Solzhenitsyn said, ‘the astonishing number of Jewish names’,
Spandrell is here to take a more nuanced view. And it shall be taken.
>If you focus on modern pundits, as you often do, of course it all looks likes a Jewish conspiracy.
>If you focus on pre-WW2 history, as Moldbug likes to do, it all looks like Exeter Hall and loony missionaries and their children.
Forget Communism, Boasian Anthropology, Psychoanalytic Theory, Frankfurt School, etc. Clearly, it’s only “modern” Jewry that is Progressive.
Is Moldbug somehow, to whatever miniscule degree, affected by his Judaism? Handle:
>aside from his talent, as far as I can tell, Moldbug’s half-Jewish lineage affects his political and religious theories to no level distinguishable from zero.
I swear I don’t make this stuff up. Now, responding to commenter “mukatsuku”, Foseti quotes and confirms:
>“ONLY AFTER American Jews converted from being a New Deal ethnic group to being SWPL elitists / Eloi / New England Puritans, were they allowed to climb the heights of Anglo-American power in the Cathedral. Only after they became Puritans were they allowed to displace actual WASPs”
>Precisely. The timeline only allows for one interpretation.
Something is not quite right with your timeline, dock.
Here’s some more jewels about the Jews & their antics:
>Actually, super-protestant Communistic societies in the US pre-date Marx… In other words, the timeline clearly shows that Marxism was not some sui generis. It followed – it didn’t lead.
>If, Jews in fact went out of their way to select other Jews for membership in the elite, we’d expect to see low levels of intermarriage. Instead, we see the opposite. So much so that in the near future to speak of American Jews will almost require one to specify what that means. Can a quarter-(progressive) Jew really be part of the conspiracy?
>Why are Christian societies so easily overcome by such a small number of sort-of Jews (frankly if such societies are so easy to take over, I’d think we could do a lot worse than the Jews, but I digress)? How has Judaism changed the direction of Progressivism since say the end of the Civil War (I can’t see any meaningful shift in views at all)? Do we really see a disproportionate number of Jews among the elite when adjusted for IQ differences across the populations? etc? In any society with some level of meritocracy, we’d expect to see disproportionately rise to the top.
>Jews took over very recently. Indeed during the entire rise of progressivism and its total victory in the New Deal, Unz’s standards would suggest that the Jews were discriminated against by the progressives. By the time the Jews show up then, the game is long since over.
>At the absolute best… evidence suggests that Jews may be inserting themselves into the top levels of the progressive hierarchy, without changing its form in any way. Forgive me for being wildly underwhelmed.
Ash Milton, do you agree with all this?
>This is an excellent introduction to Neoreactionary analysis regarding progressive ideology. The term “cathedral” has been criticized by some who don’t understand its full meaning… But as Foseti and Moldbug show here, it’s not just a rhetorical device. The overarching ideology of today stems back hundreds of years to at least the radical elements of the Reformation.
E. Antony Gray
Social Matter (blog)
Aurini (not NRx, but affiliated)
Meow Mix (affiliated)
Do you need more evidence, Yuray?