Post: #26

(04-15-2015 03:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Armenian American lobbying to pass pointless Congressional resolutions declaring the killing of Armenians in World War I a genocide, again pissing off Turkey.

Why was this pointless?

1. Because the state which ruled Turkey at the time, the Ottoman Empire, no longer exists and the Turkish Republic is not a successor state.

2. Because all those involved were dead;

3. Because it's not the best role of the U.S. Congress to rule on historical controversies except insofar as they relate to actual policy decisions now, and there is no policy to be made now on that subject. Like the Cambridge City Council passing resolutions on the Pilgrim landings.

Not to mention that the cost to US relations with Turkey, a host of US bases, a contributor of forces to Afghanistan, and a needed partner in the Middle East, on a real geopolitical basis far exceeded any benefit from making Armenian-American constituents feel powerful.

Post: #27

(04-15-2015 03:25 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  The more I think about the term “group evolutionary strategy,” in fact, the more I wonder if it is not complete nonsense. From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from AD 79 to AD 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?

[/quote]

The problem with this harsh slamming of the book is that it is based on Jewishness as a religion and not as an ethnic group. It is an ethnicity, more than anything. An ethno-religion, which is why the topic is evolutionary. Books don't evolve, tribes and ethnicity do. This misunderstanding completely undermines the whole criticism.

Post: #28

(04-15-2015 03:42 PM)Jneg Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 03:25 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  The more I think about the term “group evolutionary strategy,” in fact, the more I wonder if it is not complete nonsense. From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from AD 79 to AD 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?

The problem with this harsh slamming of the book is that it is based on Jewishness as a religion and not as an ethnic group. It is an ethnicity, more than anything. An ethno-religion, which is why the topic is evolutionary. Books don't evolve, tribes and ethnicity do. This misunderstanding completely undermines the whole criticism.

That is Derbyshire's point - that it would have been better for Jews the ethnic group to convert to Christianity as an evolutionary strategy than to adopt the strategy MacDonald posits. If Jews had become Christians, they would not have been killed, confined and exiled as much. They would have had more and better reproductive opportunities.

Post: #29

The idea that Jews should have converted to Christianity would have led to Jews as an ethnic/cultural group disappearing from this earth.

Women in your own genetic population have more genes that are identical to you than women in different populations. Therefore a Russian man who has kids with a Russian woman has a kid that is more similar to him than if he had kids with a Japanese woman. In this way, groups that practice endogamy and have cultural practices that help ensure it help their genes as a package persist down the line.

Many groups of people have just assimilated to the dominant religion/culture/identity of their time, and as such are just historical memories now.

The fact that the Jews persisted in their religion/culture was a way to enforce endogamy and the survival of the group. That separation had its downsides now but hey, Jews are still here.

You see modern day there are many Jews who are, if not converting to Christianity, marrying Christians and raising their families in ways that are no way Jewish. And then there are separate groups of Hasidic/Haredi Jews who practice extreme endogamy, have customs in their dress/behavior that separate them from the rest of society, and have high fertility. But Jews who are not very "Jewish" have really low fertility and are basically a dead end.

Post: #30

(04-15-2015 02:55 PM)Jneg Wrote:  People that post silly pictures like this are what many refer to as "useful idiots".

I say this because everyone in upper echelons knows about this phenomenon but its rarely spoken aloud. Then some oblivious fellow like Joe Biden, who is like the uncle that drinks too much and starts telling inappropriate stories, comes along and says the Jews are behind pushing the homosexual agenda in America to the world:

Biden says, quote, "Think … behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry."

Biden says the influence is immense and that those changes have been for the good.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/biden-...m-1.525296

Jewish groups push homosexuality on white countries so hard its unbelievable unless you actually look into it. They don't push it in Israel though. Why do you think they do this? Honestly, why do you think they do this? Perhaps you have a funny picture that explains it?

Biden was talking to a Jewish group so he wanted to make them feel good about themselves as he would when talking to any audience. Talking to a group of urban cosmopolitan Jews that's one point he could say. Northeastern WASPs also have most of the same positions as cosmopolitan US Jews but I've yet to see evidence that they are part of some kind of conspiracy.

The fact that these liberal Jewish groups haven't gotten the same legal changes made in Israel could be due to their desire to destroy the US or it could be due to the fact that hardline religious Jews in Israel have far more power and influence there. Which of those seems more likely?

Post: #31

Maybe Jewish retention of Judaism had an evolutionary purpose, but the fundamental evolutionary strategy is individual and family survival. Plus conversion might not have eliminated the Jews as a group - there are many ethnic groups which maintain identity while adopting the surrounding religion. Kurds among the Arabs and Persians comes to mind.

The Jews' situation in the diaspora was distinctive though. Without religion or land of their own, it would have been very hard to maintain identity.

It goes back to the particularist / universalist issue I wrote about earlier.

Post: #32

Hollywood mostly became an active force for decadence and depravity when the dominant gentile class stopped making wholesome fare a priority. People like Macdonald and supporters in his thread keep trying to deny that reality - that a few leftists, Jews or not, could not bring the masses of gentiles to do something they didn't already want to do. Some say World War I broke the West's spirit of innocence and earnest belief in the good life, others contend that decadence became prevalent in the gay 90's... And still others, the French Revolution or the Enlightenment, events in which Jews had more modest participation.

"Northeastern WASPs also have most of the same positions as cosmopolitan US Jews but I've yet to see evidence that they are part of some kind of conspiracy."

Precisely. If you compare Jews to similarly situated gentiles, the difference is not great. But that doesn't play to the Macdonald narrative...

Blacks vote 90-95% Democrat, yet the Macdonald types fundamentally don't see them as competition, so they don't really focus on them, blacks are small fry to them in comparison to the omnipotent Jews.

Post: #33

(04-15-2015 05:01 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Maybe Jewish retention of Judaism had an evolutionary purpose, but the fundamental evolutionary strategy is individual and family survival. Plus conversion might not have eliminated the Jews as a group - there are many ethnic groups which maintain identity while adopting the surrounding religion. Kurds among the Arabs and Persians comes to mind.

The Jews' situation in the diaspora was distinctive though. Without religion or land of their own, it would have been very hard to maintain identity.

It goes back to the particularist / universalist issue I wrote about earlier.

Yes Kurds have their own homeland, language, ethnicity, and culture that keeps them distinct as a group. Obviously sharing a "Muslim" Identity with their neighbors has done nothing to ever ease tensions between the two groups.

There were many groups of people who assimilated into the broader "Arab" milieu who were not, properly speaking "Arabs", yet their identity is now "Arab" based on their language, religion, etc. The Arab/Muslim conquests incorporated tons of people who once had distinct ethnic identities. Kurds survived as a distinct group but many didn't.

Now that Jews do have a homeland it is interesting... Their fertility there is pretty damn high and despite a large proportion of Israel being non-Jews they are up until now maintaining their Jewish character rather well.

One thing I noticed there was a large amount of Russians, who are undoubtedly the biggest "foreign" group in Israel, immigrate but are thought by many Israelis to not be "really" Jewish. Ie. people had a Jewish grandfather or something but that was the extent of it. I met a Ukranian guy who was like "Yeah, I'm not Jewish, but I'm Israeli and I celebrate all the customs and holidays."

That community could be the biggest "intake" into the Jewish community that's happened since Ashkenazis originally arrived in Europe.

Post: #34

(04-15-2015 05:26 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  Hollywood mostly became an active force for decadence and depravity when the dominant gentile class stopped making wholesome fare a priority. People like Macdonald and supporters in his thread keep trying to deny that reality - that a few leftists, Jews or not, could not bring the masses of gentiles to do something they didn't already want to do. Some say World War I broke the West's spirit of innocence and earnest belief in the good life, others contend that decadence became prevalent in the gay 90's... And still others, the French Revolution or the Enlightenment, events in which Jews had more modest participation.

"Northeastern WASPs also have most of the same positions as cosmopolitan US Jews but I've yet to see evidence that they are part of some kind of conspiracy."

Precisely. If you compare Jews to similarly situated gentiles, the difference is not great. But that doesn't play to the Macdonald narrative...

Blacks vote 90-95% Democrat, yet the Macdonald types fundamentally don't see them as competition, so they don't really focus on them, blacks are small fry to them in comparison to the omnipotent Jews.

"Jews are doing everything you're saying they're doing. It must be because gentiles want it!" but Gentiles don't want it, thats why Jews have been kicked out of every country they've ever been in. They use their 'holocaust' victim status to get away with murder now. "You don't like the Jews pushing homosexuality and depravity? You must be anti-semitic" -phobic -ism -ist, etc, etc

Post: #35

(04-14-2015 05:38 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Kevin MacDonald covered how this happened at length in The Culture Of Critique, which I will review on ROK soon.

TLDR version: Jews became disenchanted by the left when parts of it started throwing Israel under the bus.

(04-14-2015 07:17 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  So is this topic..er..kosher to discuss here? The extent to which Kevin MacDonald's theory can be used to explain the modern day West is definitely a fascinating topic for debate. With that said, going by precedent, I was wholly expecting to see that the OP had been afflicted with the banhammer when I opened this thread, haha.

Roosh, just yesterday I was considering sending you a private message asking if it was okay to start a thread discussing The Culture Of Critique. I also wasn't sure it would be acceptable even though it is all properly sourced.

The book has really been changing the way I view things.

I will wait for your review.

Post: #36

(04-15-2015 06:26 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I came from a very tribal environment myself, one in which taking care of "our own" was standard practice in hiring, politics, and the law. I took advantage of this when it was presented to me. On one end of this tribalism, this just means social and buying preference. On the other, it means corruption and "mafia."

It's fairly common in 1st generation, or even 2nd generation, immigrant communities to exhibit this sort of affinity/trust towards "their own kind," but I think the standard prejudice held against Jews is that this tribal affinity is generally ceaseless.

Post: #37

Jews aren't a monolithic entity. They are overrepresented in intellectual and academic spheres, meaning that there will be a disproportionate number of Jews in the learned professions - especially media and law - devoted toward both sides of any policy debate. In short, anywhere you look for the major proponents of a cultural mode, you'll find Jews - which has the appearance to the more paranoid eye of conspiracy.

Post: #38

(04-16-2015 11:00 AM)kerouac Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 06:26 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  I came from a very tribal environment myself, one in which taking care of "our own" was standard practice in hiring, politics, and the law. I took advantage of this when it was presented to me. On one end of this tribalism, this just means social and buying preference. On the other, it means corruption and "mafia."

It's fairly common in 1st generation, or even 2nd generation, immigrant communities to exhibit this sort of affinity/trust towards "their own kind," but I think the standard prejudice held against Jews is that this tribal affinity is generally ceaseless.

By using "was," I meant that was in my past. The practice continues among my tribe, as it has for a long time.

There are several tribes in the USA in which tribal identity and preference have persisted for several generations, even 150 years or more, examples:

New Mexico/Colorado "Hispanics" (descendents of the original Spanish settlers, not recent Mexican immigrants);
Texas Germans in places like New Braunfels;
Boston/NY Irish;
NY/NJ/RI Italians;
Boston/New England "Brahmins;"
Scotch-Irish southerners;
various black American groups or black Americans as a whole;
Chicago Polish;
French Canadians in NH/MA/ME (like Kerouac);
Chinese
Armenians
Greeks
obviously Navajo, Sioux, etc.

One of the best movies about America ever made:

Post: #39

I doubt there is a Jewish conspiracy, however I've noticed that super smart individuals tend to get lost in their ways. They'll rationalize decadent and hedonistic behavior on the basis that "If it feels good, why restrict it?" completely oblivious to the effects such wonton behavior has on their psyche. Now obviously this isn't wholesale across the board, but it's noticeable none the less.

High intelligence is dysgenic. If you don't have any or few kids, the ones having the most kids (ie the dumb ones) will be the ones dominating nature. Not to mention, being smart can lead to nihilistic behaviors which then leads us down the path towards decadence and once again we're back at square one where the super smart one who need to be passing their genes onto the next generation are socially stunted. Long term relationships never form because the smarter you tend to be, the more BS existential problems form.

I've told a few people that if you don't have kids, you have failed in nature's eyes. Nature has dictated that your genes are unfit for the next generation.

Post: #40

There are people at very high levels of society playing Frankenstein with the western culture. This shit is going to blow up in their face. While playing equalist for vibrant minorities they should have be instilling discipline, ethics and hard work as fundamental values. We now have a culture of misfits ruling the kingdom and there will be a reckoning.

Post: #41

(04-16-2015 12:00 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  There are several tribes in the USA in which tribal identity and preference have persisted for several generations, even 150 years or more, examples:

New Mexico/Colorado "Hispanics" (descendents of the original Spanish settlers, not recent Mexican immigrants);
Texas Germans in places like New Braunfels;
Boston/NY Irish;
NY/NJ/RI Italians;
Boston/New England "Brahmins;"
Scotch-Irish southerners;
various black American groups or black Americans as a whole;
Chicago Polish;
French Canadians in NH/MA/ME (like Kerouac);
Chinese
Armenians
Greeks
obviously Navajo, Sioux, etc.

The majority of those groups you listed stay fairly regional in scope, and you rarely see many of them organized across the nation in order to influence domestic and international policy. The only one I can think of off the top of my head are the Miami Cubans who vehemently oppose any sort of reconciliation with the current Cuban regime.

I can't imagine the Boston Irish getting together to welcome the leader of Sinn Fein to our congress the way Sheldon Adelson, and the Israeli Lobby, did this past year in that despicable showcase with Netanyahu. The scope of power and influence is absolutely different.

And just as a side note, here's an interesting letter written by Einstein about the Israeli party that eventually merged with Likud (Netanyahu's Party): "Einstein Letter Warning Of Zionist Facism In Israel"

Which led me to read about "Revisionist Zionism"

Quote:Revisionism's foremost political objective was to maintain the territorial integrity of the historical land of Israel and establish a Jewish state with a Jewish majority on both sides of the River Jordan. Jewish statehood was always a major ideological goal for Revisionism, but it was not to be gained at the price of partitioning Eretz Yisrael. Jabotinsky and his followers, therefore, consistently rejected proposals to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state. Menachem Begin, Jabotinsky's successor, therefore opposed the 1947 United Nations partition plan. Revisionists considered the subsequent partition of Palestine following the 1949 Armistice Agreements to have no legitimacy.

Post: #42

(04-20-2015 02:31 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 12:00 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  There are several tribes in the USA in which tribal identity and preference have persisted for several generations, even 150 years or more, examples:

New Mexico/Colorado "Hispanics" (descendents of the original Spanish settlers, not recent Mexican immigrants);
Texas Germans in places like New Braunfels;
Boston/NY Irish;
NY/NJ/RI Italians;
Boston/New England "Brahmins;"
Scotch-Irish southerners;
various black American groups or black Americans as a whole;
Chicago Polish;
French Canadians in NH/MA/ME (like Kerouac);
Chinese
Armenians
Greeks
obviously Navajo, Sioux, etc.

The majority of those groups you listed stay fairly regional in scope, and you rarely see many of them organized across the nation in order to influence domestic and international policy. The only one I can think of off the top of my head are the Miami Cubans who vehemently oppose any sort of reconciliation with the current Cuban regime.

I can't imagine the Boston Irish getting together to welcome the leader of Sinn Fein to our congress the way Sheldon Adelson, and the Israeli Lobby, did this past year in that despicable showcase with Netanyahu. The scope of power and influence is absolutely different.

You don't have to imagine it: it happened!




Maybe not with a joint address, but in most ways the Irish American support for the IRA was worse than Jewish American support for Israel.

The Irish Northern Aid Commitee (NORAID) collected money from Irish Americans for years.

Quote:In May 1981, US District Court Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. in New York ruled in a Justice Department suit against Noraid that the organization was acting in America as an arm of the Provisional IRA. Judge Haight wrote in his decision: ``The uncontroverted evidence is that [Noraid] is an agent of the IRA, providing money and services for other than relief purposes.'' Flannery objected. Noraid lawyers appealed the decision but lost.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0114/anor1.html

Here is Congressman Peter King, a fuckwad who is always trying to take away our rights because of "terrorism" now, in 1984 with Gerry Adams. King used to speak at NORAID gatherings regularly in those days.



In those years, in the 1980s and 1990s, I traveled to London regularly, both for U.S. military duties and on holiday. Bombs by the IRA were regular occurrences.

When you consider that the IRA was fighting an active insurgency both in N. Ireland and Britain against the United Kingdom, which was a NATO ally and host to U.S. bases at the time when we were confronting the USSR in Europe, and the IRA was allied to the USSR by receiving direct funding from the KGB and through Soviet proxies like Gaddafi's Libya which supplied the IRA with explosives and arms, it was worse.

When you consider that the struggle between the NATO West and the USSR was an existential one, yeah it was worse.

When you consider that none of the Irish Americans like King who supported the IRA were ever charged with material support for terrorism because of political power, yeah it was worse.

You picked the wrong example there, Kerouac.

Post: #43

(04-20-2015 04:27 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  You picked the wrong example there, Kerouac.

I did.

I meant to say the IRA, not Sinn Fein.