May 7, 2009

Spengler comes out about being an ex-Larouchie

A reader pointed out to me a few years ago that the interesting but excitable Asia Times columnist Spengler was almost certainly David P. Goldman, an ex-acolyte of Lyndon LaRouche. I published the LaRouche connection, but kept Goldman's name a secret to protect his privacy.

Now, Goldman, in his new job at First Things, has come out of the closet about his eight years working for LaRouche:
In 1981 ... I ran the economics desk for LaRouche’s publications. Among my colleagues were several researchers who went on to distinguished careers. The Asia desk chief, for instance, was Dan Sneider, afterward a distinguished correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor and the San Francisco Mercury, and now director of a university research institute. European economics was handled by Laurent Murawiec, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; the Middle East desk was headed by Bob Dreyfuss, now a regular contributor to the Nation, American Prospect, and New Republic; and the chief science writer was Jonathan Tennenbaum, a brilliant mathematician who had taught at the University of Copenhagen.

We were all about thirty, and most of us were Jewish. The question, of course, is what were a group of young Jews doing in the company of a cult leader with a paranoid view of the world and a thinly disguised anti-Semitic streak.

Here is one answer: We were all long-in-the-tooth student radicals. LaRouche’s organization was the flotsam washed up by the wave of the collective madness that had swept through the youth of the world in 1968 and left many of its participants maladapted to ordinary life for years afterward....

In reviewing my own missteps in life, I feel that temptation to represent myself as a monster in order to cover up something even more painful: I was a coward. I was afraid of being Jewish. Everything else is rationalization. My intellectual life really began only a quarter-century ago when I reconciled myself to being Jewish.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

71 comments:

agnostic said...

that had swept through the youth of the world in 1968 and left many of its participants maladapted to ordinary life for years afterward....Indeed, many of them continued to dress like they just got back from a Weathermen meeting.

Lloyd G. said...

Next stop: Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew.

Pat Shuff said...

participants maladapted

David 'Ramparts' Horowitz?
Nothing worse than a reformed smoker.

Richard Alpert aka Ram Dass of the Chicago Seven. Moral, never eat anything larger than your head.

"I always said there's a very fine line between fiction and nonfiction, and I believe I snorted it in 1976."

-Kinky Friedman

'Spengler' continues to be an interesting writer.

W Baker said...

He could have been involved in Bahaism, a Mooney, or fought with the Tamal Tigers and still have written what he wrote.

It's not that he wasn't just stupid for falling for Larouche: he wasn't Jewish enough...

At least he's making the trek to Father Abraham slightly sooner than most secular Jews. They usually wait until the fourth wife or three score and ten, whichever comes first.

Anonymous said...

"I reconciled myself to being Jewish."

Boy, did he ever, with a vengeance.

Typical "out of the frying pan, into the fire" transformation of a former campus-radical.

mark said...

What stands out to me is his refrain of "reconciling myself to being Jewish." To me that sounds almost like reconciling oneself to having, say, cancer, in the sense that he clearly sees Jewishness as 1) absolutely central to his identity yet 2) somehow physically transmitted (regular readers will recall his fascination with Jewish genetics and his barely disguised racialism). And so he's desperate to escape universalism for the warm feeling of belonging to a tribe. Physical heritage should, IMO, be peripheral to one's identity as human. Culture is a different matter because it engages the whole personality.

Question: why would Steve want to protect the identity of a wealthy investment banker spouting the most extreme form of Zionism under a veneer of religiosity designed to win Christian support for that project?

rob said...

Has anyone else noticed that Lucius Vorenus cites Spengler less often now the he knows Spengles a Jew?

RobertHume said...

Steve,

I don't read Spengler and never really followed LaRouche ...

So I really don't understand what's going on here. Could you please connect the dots?

Anonymous said...

Kevin MacDonald is such an idiot.

He should be fired from the universe for his stupid views.

Dutch Boy said...

Read all about it folks:
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones

Agio said...

Yeah...yeah, been underwater so long didn't know that you were wet,
Welcome back...bacala.

Figgy said...

Gee, couldn't he just have reconciled himself to being an average American? Oi Vay!

Anonymous said...

"We were all about thirty, and most of us were Jewish. The question, of course, is what were a group of young Jews doing in the company of a cult leader with a paranoid view of the world and a thinly disguised anti-Semitic streak."



Well, it is a good question, But it is hardly something unusual. Jews seem exceptionally prone to falling under the spell of cult leaders of all descriptions. See Rand, Ayn. And the frequently anti-Semetic communist movement was well stocked with Jews. As a general rule, Jews seem notably deficient in political intelligence.

Anonymous said...

I think it's wonderful that Goldman is proud of his Jewish heritage.

Now, if he could only swallow the idea that it is not fascistic for non-Jews to have similar feelings about their own ethnic groups, we'll really be making progress.

But for some reason I think we'll be wating awhile for that breakthrough to occur.

Anonymous said...

"Question: why would Steve want to protect the identity of a wealthy investment banker spouting the most extreme form of Zionism under a veneer of religiosity designed to win Christian support for that project?"


Question: what makes you think that Steve is even capable of giving such "protection", let alone that he "wanted" to?

Anonymous said...

"Question: what makes you think that Steve is even capable of giving such "protection", let alone that he "wanted" to?"

Because he said so, several times. Do you even read this blog?

mark said...

mark: Question: why would Steve want to protect the identity of a wealthy investment banker spouting the most extreme form of Zionism under a veneer of religiosity designed to win Christian support for that project?Anonymous: Question: what makes you think that Steve is even capable of giving such "protection", let alone that he "wanted" to?Answer: As for capability, I didn't address that. As for wanting, I guess this would be the reason:

Steve: I published the LaRouche connection, but kept Goldman's name a secret to protect his privacy.

Svigor said...

As a general rule, Jews seem notably deficient in political intelligence.Possibly the most mind-numbingly counter-factual utterance made by a presumed literate here at Steve's blog, ever. Kudos.

Jews backed Communism (insofar as they didn't author it) because it promised to overthrow the old, "anti-Semitic" order and offered them ringside seats.

As for cults, oh yeah, so politically clueless! As if tightly-knit, autocratic groups prone to erecting cults of personality could ever get anything done politically. Pshaw!

Svigor said...

And Steve, yes, now I get your bit about people assuming LaRouche is Jewish, heh.

testing99 said...

"Spengler" Anonymous does indeed devote considerable time in his writing about national/genetic/tribal identities. I think he comes up with a lot of bunk (stuff about how all peoples save Jews and Christians will cease to exist and they know it) but he's certainly not one to deny nationalistic feelings or condemn them as bad.

And here's where Jews get a bad rap. The harshest critics of national feelings, of tribalism, and so on are NOT Jews but SWPL yuppies, in Europe, where they formed the sort of "Joschka Fischer" elite of ex-radicals seeking a hereditary social dominantion, and here in this country as SWPL Yuppies. Obsessed with power, status, standing in a mating game that never ends, like an episode of Seinfeld that just goes on, and on, and on.

Most Jews in the US voted for Obama, to give one example, KNOWING he was very hostile to the existence of Israel, and would do his best to help Ahmadinejad to "wipe Israel off the map." Because most Jews have as their primary identity SWPL Yuppie-ism. Seen most forcefully in stuff by say, Richard Fairey (the poster artist) that poses a fuzzy, "Green" and post-Christian internationalist, universalism.

This is a huge shift among Jews, who historically (Superman's Siegel and Schuster, Captain America's Jack Kirby, Warner, Goldman, Louis B, Mayer, etc.) embraced heartily American Nationalism because of it's assimilationist views.

Think about Superman. The most "Jewish" of tales becomes the most American, heck Superman himself is a fantasy of America as a superhero. The guy who fights for "Truth, Justice, and the American Way."

What happened was that most of the cultural elites post WWII, starting in Europe and coming here, rejected Nationalism because of the threat Nationalism posed to the power elite.

Think again about Superman, Captain America, and the like. What's the lesson? Embrace of American Nationalism as a "national champion" can let even a Kansas Farm boy or scrawny 4-F draft reject become a hero and IMPORTANT. Given that the most important part of WWII was the mass mobilization and awesome power of the American (and British) Everyman, it's no surprise that most elites rejected the very basis for it.

As such, Jews held on longer than most to assimilationist Americanism, but even that ended in the 1960's. It's notable that just as Jazz became mostly a White music performed and listened to by Whites, so too has Comics become a mostly WASP or Catholic creation (often embracing Catholic guilt as a theme, ala Frank Miller).

As far as Christian embrace of Judaism, Evangelicals like and embrace Jews and Judaism and Israel from the bottom up. Because their congregants like them and view them as fellow beleagured believers against Muslims who they detest. This is why Sarah Palin has an Israeli flag in her office. It is Catholics, and various post-Christian mainline congregations that don't like Jews, Israel, or Judaism (any more than they like Christianity for that matter).

For all that, Spengler DOES have insight into Demographics, he was one of the few who pointed out the decline in the urbanized, wealthier Muslim countries, connected to female earnings, and higher female literacy.

Bill said...

The question, of course, is what were a group of young Jews doing in the company of a cult leader with a paranoid view of the world...Haha, that's a good one.

RobertHume said...

Steve,

I don't read Spengler and never really followed LaRouche ...

So I really don't understand what's going on here. Could you please connect the dots?
I could tell you. I went to a Larouche meeting once when I was around 21 or so. Of course, the guys who took me didn't tell me it was a Larouche meeting. They had an idealistic young Jewish man give the presentation at a library, and admittedly it was kind of interesting stuff. However, I figured out pretty quickly that it was a pyramid scheme. The idea was to get people in on the Larouche movement and make money at the same time. This was accomplished by selling Larouche publications as though they were gospel. Dupes would be given so many magazines or whatever and would sell them at inflated prices, keeping some meager amount of the profits.

It reminded me of the process of "double up" in which little kids would sell crack cocaine on the streets, returning half the profit to the older dealer. Of course, Larouche magazines aren't crack, but I was suspicious nonetheless, and after promising I'd "get in touch" I avoided them.

You combine zeal for profit and converts with a somewhat appealing intellectual argument, and it's bound to attract quite a number of a certain type of young people, not all of whom will be Jewish, but a lot certainly are.

Anonymous said...

but he's certainly not one to deny nationalistic feelings or condemn them as bad. - T99

He as good as did that in his communique outing himself.

Ronduck said...

Testing99, about your comment on the Mainline Protestants and the Catholics:

In the next decade or so those Mainline Protestants will go back to Rome, as will many of the State churches of Europe.

David said...

I blame Napoleon.

sj071 said...

"As a general rule, Jews seem notably deficient in political intelligence."

Perhaps echoing Mr Moldbug's morning assertion that "Israel lobby is a piece of dental floss compared to the arm-thick steel cable that is the Palestine lobby"? Eeer, big No, on both counts.

It's not easy being real Adam Sandler.

Concerned said...

Lots of people do stupid things when they are young.

More important, what's wrong with this picture?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26165134/

It doesn't look like America!

Anonymous said...

"Possibly the most mind-numbingly counter-factual utterance made by a presumed literate here at Steve's blog, ever. Kudos."

Tha's as tightly reasoned as anything else you've written here. Well done!


"Jews backed Communism (insofar as they didn't author it) because it promised to overthrow the old, "anti-Semitic" order and offered them ringside seats."

And predictably enough, the monster they helped create then devoured them. Who could have seen that one coming? Not Jews, it seems.


"As for cults, oh yeah, so politically clueless! As if tightly-knit, autocratic groups prone to erecting cults of personality could ever get anything done politically."

I already mentioned your boundless skill at constructing iron-clad arguments, right? If you possessed one tenth of the intelligence you think you have, I'be be mighty concerned about tangling with you.

David Davenport said...

Notice the similarities between the bio. of this inconsequential "Spengler" scribbler -- and that of Dr. Alan Greenscam, who has effected and affected your life:

From Wikipedia.com:

Greenspan was born in 1926 to a Hungarian Jewish family in the Washington Heights area of New York City.[9] The family name was anglicized from the German and Yiddish surname Grünspan[citation needed]. He studied clarinet at The Juilliard School from 1943 to 1944.[10] He is an accomplished saxophone player who played with Stan Getz.[11] While in college, he played in a jazz band[citation needed]. He then attended New York University (NYU) and received a B.S. in Economics (summa cum laude) in 1948 and an M.A. in Economics in 1950.[citation needed] Greenspan went on to Columbia University, intending to pursue advanced economic studies, but subsequently dropped out.[citation needed] At Columbia, Greenspan did study economics under the tutelage of future Fed chairman Arthur Burns, who constantly warned of the dangers of inflation.[12] Much later, in 1977, NYU also awarded him a Ph.D. in Economics. He may not have done a dissertation, normally required for that degree. ( He did do a dissertation, but it was a rather easy, Mickey Mouse collection of papers. -- DD ) [13]On December 14, 2005, he was awarded an honorary Doctor of Commercial Science degree by NYU, his fourth degree from that institution.[14]

In the early 1950s, Greenspan began an association with famed novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand that would last until her death in 1982.[15] He wrote for Rand’s newsletters and authored several essays in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.[16] Rand stood beside him at his 1974 swearing-in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.[15]

From 1948 to 1953, Greenspan worked as an economic analyst at The Conference Board, a business and industry oriented think-tank in New York City.[citation needed] From 1955 to 1987, when he was appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan was chairman and president of Townsend-Greenspan & Co., Inc., an economic consulting firm in New York City, a 33-year stint interrupted only from 1974 to 1977 by his service as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Gerald Ford[citation needed]. In the summer of 1968, Greenspan agreed to serve Richard Nixon as his coordinator on domestic policy in the nomination campaign.[17] Greenspan also has served as a corporate director for Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa); Automatic Data Processing, Inc.; Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.; General Foods, Inc.; J.P. Morgan & Co., Inc.; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York; Mobil Corporation; and The Pittston Company.[18][19] He was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization between 1982 and 1988.[20] He also served as a member of the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty in 1984.


... On May 18, 2004, Greenspan was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve for an unprecedented fifth term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He was previously appointed to the post by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Greenspan's term as a member of the Board ended on January 31, 2006, and Ben Bernanke was confirmed as his successor.

Alan Greenspan is blamed by the followers of the Austrian School for creating excessive liquidity which caused lending standards to deteriorate resulting in the housing bubble of 2004-2006 and the market meltdown beginning in 2008. Currently the American Federal Reserve follows a modified form of monetarism, where broader ranges of intervention are possible in light of temporary instabilities in market dynamics.
Got that, temporary instabilities in market dynamics?

At least he's making the trek to Father Abraham slightly sooner than most secular Jews. They usually wait until the fourth wife or three score and ten, whichever comes first.OK, that part is different. As far as I know, Alan hasn't returned to Abe yet, though Alan's well past 3 and 10.

...


In the next decade or so those Mainline Protestants will go back to Rome, as will many of the State churches of Europe.Why do you think that, Ronald Duck?


"As a general rule, Jews seem notably deficient in political intelligence."Have you ever counted how many current US Senators and Congresspersons are Children of the Old Covenant?

Reg Cæsar said...

The question, of course, is what were a group of young Jews doing in the company of a cult leader with a paranoid view of the world and a thinly disguised anti-Semitic streak.Change 'anti-Semitic' to 'un-American', and this could be asked about Franklin Roosevelt as well as LaRouche. (Indeed, you could change 'Jews' to 'Southerners', 'Westerners', 'immigrants', or a few other things, and it would work for FDR.)

LLR has more than a little resemblance to his hero: an ethnic surname, a Yankee mother, disrespect for that side of the family, patrician or near-patrician accent (which makes him sound smarter than he is), tremendous confidence in government, adulation for aliens, and for alien dictators (Stalin in FDR's case; FDR in LaRouche's).

Why wouldn't Jews like him?

Don't forget, too, that French-Canadians, like Irishmen and Mexicans, have a little problem with Anglo-Saxons..

Anonymous said...

"Kevin MacDonald is such an idiot.

"He should be fired from the universe for his stupid views."

Wow, what elucidation!

I mean, the gravitas of your comments, how you 'intelligently' articulate your feelings...

You must have put a lot of time and mental effort into writing this post!

NOT!

togo said...

Perhaps echoing Mr Moldbug's morning assertion that "Israel lobby is a piece of dental floss compared to the arm-thick steel cable that is the Palestine lobby"? Eeer, big No, on both counts.Like I said at UR , I think MM is referring to a metaphorical "Palestine Lobby" that is an epiphenomenon of the
loony democratist,PC, Multicult Anti-HBD worldview. Presumably, this
dominant worldview spells doom for Israel just as it did for Rhodesia and South Africa.

But Israel has a infinitely more clout in DC than Rhodesia or RSA ever had. And there's always the threat of the Samson Option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
(...)
n 2003, Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at Israel’s Hebrew University, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence[18]. Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch" (2003) as saying "I consider it all hopeless at this point. ... We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under." He quoted General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

ben tillman said...

Perhaps echoing Mr Moldbug's morning assertion that "Israel lobby is a piece of dental floss compared to the arm-thick steel cable that is the Palestine lobby"? Eeer, big No, on both counts.-
And I have a degree from his alma mater. I feel like Neusner talking about Goldhagen. Oy vey!

ben tillman said...

Wow, what elucidation!Isn't the "Kevin MacDonald" comment, like the "pro-Asian" comment a couple posts age, a bit of satire?

Andrew Ryan said...

"I was afraid of being Jewish. Everything else is rationalization. My intellectual life really began only a quarter-century ago when I reconciled myself to being Jewish."

Give the guy a break. I, too, reconciled myself to what I am - a now nasty word once used by a lot of people all throughout Europe and the world for a while - and that is when my own intellectual life truly kicked off as well. Unfortunately, I'd have my career ruined by flouting it.

Ronduck said...

I wrote...

In the next decade or so those Mainline Protestants will go back to Rome, as will many of the State churches of Europe.

David Davenport replied...
Why do you think that, Ronald Duck?

The Reformation and prior to that the Great Schism have been black eyes for the Roman church for centuries, black eyes that it seeks to reverse. The church has been reaching out to Protestant and Orthodox churches for at least the last century in the spirit of ecumenism, and for the last half century those lost sheep have been reaching back.

But why wouldn't the RCC accept that these churches are separate and be happy that all, or at least some, propagate the gospel to the lost? Because the Catholic church views salvation differently from your local Evangelical church. The Evangelicals seek to get every person to hear the Gospel and make a decision, preferably for Christ. Whereas, the RCC sees communion as the defining mark of salvation, and as such seeks to have as much of the world receive communion as possible. This is why the Vatican is constantly harping over whether baptisms by various mainline Protestant denominations and Protestant state churches are not in accordance with Vatican policy and therefore may not be valid. At base the RCC sees itself as the only valid church and Protestant as infidels who must also be saved, just like the heathens. You may think this is laughable, but the RCC has lasted almost 2000 years and as a bureaucracy seeks to expand its power and personnel the way all bureaucracies have through the centuries, so working incrementally over the centuries is no problem for the RCC.

Now that most mainline and state Protestant churches have walked away from God and the Reformation thay no longer have a reason to exist except as a way to maintian tradition, deliver communion and confer status on their members as belonging to a church that their family has belonged to for generations.

The mainline Protestants here in the the US are already behaving the exact same way the RCC does here in the US, such as:

1. Queer clergy
2. Entrenched liberalism (social justice)
3. Enabling the Mexivasion (Lutherans in America)
4. Loyalty to the Democratic party
5. Weekly communion
6. Giving weekly communion to MP reprobates the way the RCC gives communion to Ted Kennedy

Now on to my evidence that the state churches and the MPs are reaching back to the Vatican:

1. The Archibishop of Cantebury has befriended the Roman church and if you look at his bibliography on wikipedia you will find he has written the following books:

a. The Dwelling of the Light—Praying with Icons of Christ
b. Ponder These Things: Praying With Icons of the Virgin
c. Essays Catholic and Radical
Any minister that writes a how-to book on worshipping Pagan idols of wood and stone, has no relationship to God, or Reality.

If the head of the CoE has walked away from God, then so has his church, which therefore serves no purpose. If the CoE serves no purpose, then those members who want communion will go back to Rome to find it.

2. The Orthodox churches of Europe are beginning to return, beginning with allowing each other to receive communion at each other's churches. The next step is forming common national dioceses.

3. Here in America most of the mainline churches and many of the Protestant churches are part of ecumenical organizations, most of which have the RCC as a member. As I stated earlier with the CoE, as these churches rot further, the conservative members will join the RCC, usually the Latin Mass division, the others will be in communion with the mainstream, liberal wing. Here are the ecumenical organizations that the RCC belongs to here in America:

a. Christian Churches Together wiki

b. The United Methodist Church sees itself as part of the Holy Catholic Church wikic. The Joint Document on Justification (wiki) was a joint document issued by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation. The document was also adopted by the World Methodist Council.

Anonymous said...

"And here's where Jews get a bad rap. The harshest critics of national feelings, of tribalism, and so on are NOT Jews but SWPL yuppies...'

"...and here in this country as SWPL Yuppies. Obsessed with power, status, standing in a mating game that never ends, like an episode of Seinfeld that just goes on, and on, and on.

"Because most Jews have as their primary identity SWPL Yuppie-ism..."

***

Ah Testy --

...with your [sic] interesting synthesis of things!

Never missing a single beat!

We love ya anyway man. Keep posting!

bg said...

My intellectual life really began only a quarter-century ago when I reconciled myself to being Jewish.and the goyim trembled.........

Svigor said...

And here's where Jews get a bad rap. The harshest critics of national feelings, of tribalism, and so on are NOT Jews but SWPL yuppies

Yeah. ADL, SPLC, organized Jewry...hotbeds of WASP Swipple anti-nationalism.

Evil Neocon, the "Scots-Irish" guy who recently informed us that Susan Sontag and Norman Mailer are "Swipples."

Svigor said...

And predictably enough, the monster they helped create then devoured them. Who could have seen that one coming? Not Jews, it seems.Indeed. You seem to have all the answers. And they explain perfectly why, after the fall of Russian Communism, 7 of the 8 oligarchs who emerged to "devour" Russia were Jewish. Kudos again.

I already mentioned your boundless skill at constructing iron-clad arguments, right? If you possessed one tenth of the intelligence you think you have, I'be be mighty concerned about tangling with you.

Well, I'm sold. Let me scratch "autocratic personality cults" off my list of effective political paradigms. I'll just pencil in "cuz anonymous told me I'm stupid" in the "reason" field.

Tangle with me any time you wish. Feel free to bring up the old arguments you allude to. When I lose, I revise my positions, so you'll be helping me out.

Svigor said...

"Wow, what elucidation!"

Isn't the "Kevin MacDonald" comment, like the "pro-Asian" comment a couple posts age, a bit of satire?


That's the way I took it.

P.S., you can keep your breaks after HTML tags if you put a space after them. Sadly, I've forgotten which conscientious poster figured that out (feel free to name thyself, oh Good Samaritan of iSteve code), while taking flak for it from a useless regular poster who doesn't even use HTML.

ben tillman said...

Because most Jews have as their primary identity SWPL Yuppie-ism....Yeah, what's 5769 years compared with a few superficial preferences and affectations?

Anonymous said...

"Have you ever counted how many current US Senators and Congresspersons are Children of the Old Covenant?

By "political intelligence" I am not referring to "the intelligence it takes to get elected".

(In any case, judging by our Congress, that intelligence is very minimal. What it takes to get elected are money and connections.)

I am referring to the intelligence required in being a good steward of the public good. And in this particlar case, to the intelligence involved in Jews looking out for their own best interests.

Perhaps there is some brilliant three-dimensional-chess strategy involved as Jews work assidiously to turn the worlds pro-Semitic superpower into just another anti-Semitic Latin American kleptocracy. But I'm inclined to think they do it because they are badly lacking in what I'm calling "political intelligence".

It's understandable if slightly counter-intutive that Svigor is sticking up for Jewish intelligence here. As a quick look at "Majority Rights" will demonsrate, there are certain people who badly need to believe in Jews as diabolical geniuses.

But an excellent rule in life is to never attibute to malignancy that which is more easily explained by stupidity.

Anonymous said...

Boy, did Testy just LOVE this SWPL concept.

Which raises the question, when are we getting a "Stuff Jewish People Like" list?

Let me propose item #1:

In any historical period and in any societal context, SJPL types will always find an angle to put the blame on the Goyim:

* If SJPL types are backing Communism, then Whites are evil hyper-individualist capitalists excluding the "underdog" (an oblique reference to "Jews" although blacks, mestizos or other non-whites are traditionally used as the synecdoche to refer to the "Other") from Humanity by "ownership" rights;

* if they're backing Autistic Individualism (also known as "Objective-onanistic-self-worship-ism"), then Whites are "muscle mystics" collectively (the horror) trying to exclude "self made persons" (another implicit reference to "Jews") from Humanity;

* if they are supporting all out ethnocentric hypernationalism, then Whites are self-destructive SWPL types trying to exclude "patriotic" and "pro-Western" people (yet another reference to Jews, since "Western" means "living in upper east side, NY") from "patriotic Humanity" defending what is rightfully theirs (i.e. the privilege to be the global top-dog in all moral and intellectual matters, and to rule the rest of us by-default-anti-Semitic unwashed benevolently through the "expert" management of finance capital).


A "Stuff A**holes Like"-list member

Anonymous said...

""Jews backed Communism (insofar as they didn't author it) because it promised to overthrow the old, "anti-Semitic" order and offered them ringside seats."

And predictably enough, the monster they helped create then devoured them. Who could have seen that one coming? Not Jews, it seems.""

If you call the taking away of power to murder with impunity from the genocidal NKVD 'devour' then I guesss 'devour' it is. If you call Stalin killing some Jews in the process that his over-represented jewish commisars killed tens of million of Russians, Ukrainians, Baltic people, etc. then 'devour' it is. If you call moving away and living in New York and other western cities with the blood of thousands and thousands on your hands while the western governments do nothing about it 'devour', then 'devour' it is.

Anonymous said...

Spengler's/Goldman's Larouchie past fits right in with Dr. MacDonald's research that states Jews are particularly prone to collectivistic and authoritarian movements/organizations as well as rigid dogmatism and submission to
ingroup authority and charismatic leaders.

See - http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol3no2/km-understanding.html & http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-2.htm

Anonymous said...

"(feel free to name thyself, oh Good Samaritan of iSteve code)"

The problem is google-wide, you can't pin this one on Steve.

Anonymous said...

"...like an episode of Seinfeld that just goes on, and on, and on."

Is it just me, or does it seem like 'Mr.T'99's commentary feels like an episode of Seinfeld?

Not that there is anything wrong with that...!

TomV said...

Svigor:

you can keep your breaks after HTML tags if you put a space after them. Sadly, I've forgotten which conscientious poster figured that out (feel free to name thyself, oh Good Samaritan of iSteve code)

It's Lucius Veronius, which reminds us once again that it's the obsessives that make the world go round. Thanks for your sacrifice, Lucius. Now go out and have some fun already.

Svigor said...

P.S., you can keep your breaks after HTML tags if you put a space after them.

Err, not exactly crystal clear, was it? You can keep your breaks after HTML tags if you put spaces after the latter.

Svigor said...

I am referring to the intelligence required in being a good steward of the public good.

Then your choice of words was spectacularly bad. Intelligence is value-neutral, like abilities in general.

Case in point: I agree with you, now that you've explained yourself. Jews are very low on that scale.

And in this particlar case, to the intelligence involved in Jews looking out for their own best interests.

I find this common thought fails the smell test; Monday morning quarterbacks telling Joe Montana how the game should be played, or what his motivation should be.

And I find your definitions contradictory.

Perhaps there is some brilliant three-dimensional-chess strategy involved as Jews work assidiously to turn the worlds pro-Semitic superpower into just another anti-Semitic Latin American kleptocracy. But I'm inclined to think they do it because they are badly lacking in what I'm calling "political intelligence".

I chalk it up to self-deception. Jews are amazingly endowed in this regard. There are big benefits, but the big downside is a shriveled capacity for introspection.

It's understandable if slightly counter-intutive that Svigor is sticking up for Jewish intelligence here. As a quick look at "Majority Rights" will demonsrate, there are certain people who badly need to believe in Jews as diabolical geniuses.

Nice sleight of hand there. From me, to certain people (but perhaps necessary, because I've inveighed against the "diabolical Jews" thing for years (to an extent - generally the diabolical Jews thing is for people without the intellect to handle nuance and the ramifications of self-interest; so, at least the DJ crowd have a grip on the shorthand, which is more than I can say for the average lemming)).

I always find this amusing. Yeah, we pick on Jews 'cause it's so darn in right now! If your theory's true, it means I have no interest in my stated goals whatsoever, because if I'm picking on Jews for no good reason, I'm doing everything I can to shoot myself in the foot vis-a-vis the perceived legitimacy of European ethnic nationalism, the interests of whites qua whites, etc.

I mean really, is there a more radioactive category in America than "anti-Semite"? (Why is that, btw? Because Nazis killed 6 million of them? Then why aren't Commies, "anti-racists," and blank-slaters many times as radioactive due to their "association" with the far higher body counts of the gulags? And why in God's Name must I pose the same questions over and over? For people without even a consistent handle, who argue via ad hominem?)

In other words, I'd LOVE to be able to give up on Judeo-skepticism. I'd LOVE to be wrong.

Please prove me wrong. I'd throw a party.

But more to the point, if Jews are no biggie politically, then what's all the fuss about? Why do they have rhetorical ninjas popping up out of nowhere, constantly? Why is it just such a big deal that I don't want to share a polity with them? They don't even have to explain their ethnic state (thriving on my dime), but I have to explain the theory for mine. And I'm crazy enough to sometimes kinda wonder if large swathes of our non-Jewish population are maybe even actively Jewish-supremacist. Go figure!

I can understand that people think I'm a fool for my behavior. I can't understand why that's such a threat; why letting me set up Foolsville is soooo baaaaad.

I'm never treated like a fool for my behavior. I'm treated like an enemy. I find this telling, even if no one else does.

But an excellent rule in life is to never attibute to malignancy that which is more easily explained by stupidity.

Indeed. And I find the converse to be equally true.

Svigor said...

then 'devour' it is.

Remember, this is the crew that calls intermarriage (largely with racially similar groups, mind, and at far lower rates than comparable groups) "genocide" and gets away with it. Not a peep from within (despite being so very, very "anti-nationalist," "anti-racist," etc.), or without.

Anonymous said...

RE the italic problem...

My solution is put a punctuation mark, usually a full stop (period for you American chaps) right after the close italic tag. Then the usual break and away you go.

Anonymous said...

Larouchie past fits right in with Dr. MacDonald's research that states Jews are particularly prone to collectivistic and authoritarian movements/organizations as well as rigid dogmatism and submission to
ingroup authority and charismatic leaders
.

Uhhh,

you could apply this genius "theory" to Nazi Germany's cult of personality with Hitler.

Or MacDonald's charming cult worshippers...

Remember, this is the crew that calls intermarriage (largely with racially similar groups, mind, and at far lower rates than comparable groups) "genocide" and gets away with it.

Then why is the intermarriage rate at least 47%?

Anonymous said...

Jewish political smarts, or not...

In serving their own interests in a highly successful manner they end up doing themselves down.

How about media ownership?

Simple thought experiment.

If there ten national newspapers in a country and through business acumen, Jews end up owning eight of these papers. This gives them big political clout, its clearly a sign of political success and understanding.

Trouble is, at some point, the knowledge that they own 80% of the papers becomes widespread and deemed to be of significance. The the Jews now have a political problem.

And its not easy to solve, do they divest a majority of the papers? Well they could but losing that control is still losing political clout, not something they might want to risk, not with all those anti-semites out there. Better to keep hold of that tiger by the tail.

Perhaps they try and mask ownership through various proxies? Problem is if that becomes known its going to look a lot like a grade A conspiracy theory come true.

That's the dilemma, a group end up controlling the media (political parties, whatever), a clear sign of political genius yet it carries the seeds of its ultimate demise.

I think thats Svigor's case more or less.

For the anon showing up and saying that the ultimate outcome proves a long run failure of strategic political thinking on the Jews behalf. Well, you are probably right but it's a useful admission of the strength of the Jewish lobby that you can admit that their full spectrum influence over the media/political discourse is real. Thanks for clearing that up.

Anonymous said...

"Is it just me, or does it seem like 'Mr.T'99's commentary feels like an episode of Seinfeld?

"Not that there is anything wrong with that...!"

He he he he he!

Anonymous said...

Jewish political smarts, or not...

In serving their own interests in a highly successful manner they end up doing themselves down.


There's a deeper reason for this, but it’s essentially OT on iSteve. Basically Christ, that ultimate hate object of organised Jewry, said that we should serve one another. In a goyim environment with a sizable Christian population, that translated into national institutions which to some extent tried to serve the common good. Of course the model often broke down, and there are myriad problems with it, especially in multicultural societies [which is why one should at least avoid increasing the problem through forced immigration]. But the bottom line is that what makes the West so attractive to everybody, including Jews, is not democracy or multiculturalism but that throughout 1000+ years, its institutions were often inspired to some extent by Christ's teaching (through the coupling of state and Church, which is somehow OK in the ME but bad in the West). It became public good through concepts such as gentlemanliness, hospices, abolitionism, public education, developing infrastructure to the good of all, the rule of law, taking care of the poor through social programmes, fair wages, a dislike of corruption, monogamy, some form of impartial justice, chivalry etc. This enlightenment is tenuous in the best of times, and is threatened when organised groups representing Old Testament-type religions, with their archaic legalisms, group-think and lacking Salvation through Grace, take over.

Anonymous said...

"For the anon showing up and saying that the ultimate outcome proves a long run failure of strategic political thinking on the Jews behalf. Well, you are probably right but it's a useful admission of the strength of the Jewish lobby that you can admit that their full spectrum influence over the media/political discourse is real. Thanks for clearing that up.



I was not even aware that the existence of Jewish "full spectrum influence over the media/political discourse" was a topic about which there was serious debate. The sources of the influence are debatable, as are the effects of it on the wider society. But to deny its existence would require full-blown insanity.

For the record, I think that nepotism and cronyism have as much to do with it as "business acumen".

Anonymous said...

"Then your choice of words was spectacularly bad. Intelligence is value-neutral, like abilities in general."


Even assuming that intelligence is "value neutral" for the sake of argument, you failed to make the case that "political intelligence" was a spectacularly bad choice of words, preferring to make assertions as usual.

Stupidity in political intelligence, like stupidity in any other sort of intelligence, can have harmful effects on society. In fact it is more likely to have harmful consequences than mere stupidity about math. No value judgement is neccessary to note this.

Anonymous said...

"Nice sleight of hand there. From me, to certain people (but perhaps necessary, because I've inveighed against the "diabolical Jews" thing for years (to an extent - generally the diabolical Jews thing is for people without the intellect to handle nuance and the ramifications of self-interest; so, at least the DJ crowd have a grip on the shorthand, which is more than I can say for the average lemming))."


You're sort of long-winded. But where exactly is the "slight of hand" again? I presume you know that your name is a hyperlink to the Majority Rights website, and that you are aware of the views posted there.


"I always find this amusing. Yeah, we pick on Jews 'cause it's so darn in right now!"




I pick on Jews myself. It's just that I pick on them for being dumb while you regard their actions as being all part of a clever plan.

"I chalk it up to self-deception. Jews are amazingly endowed in this regard."


See? You're agreeing with me that they're dumb, you're just agreeing with me in a disagreeable fashion.

Anonymous said...

" a group end up controlling the media (political parties, whatever), a clear sign of political genius yet it carries the seeds of its ultimate demise."




Sorry, but I don't regard Jews "controlling the media" to be a sign of genius. To some extent it's simply a historical accident. Jews were involved in newspapers and movies and television back in the days when these were rather crummy jobs and the media (and Jews) were pro-American.

If, twenty years from now, Dunkin Donuts morphs into the most powerful institution in America, it won't be a sign that Indians are brlliant and sized control of our foremost donut francise in order to run the country.

Svigor said...

You're sort of long-winded.

And you're clearly an ass.

But where exactly is the "slight of hand" again?

See above.

I presume you know that your name is a hyperlink to the Majority Rights website, and that you are aware of the views posted there.

Yes. And?

Wait, never mind. You win. I bow before your superior arguments.

Anonymous said...

I bow before your superior arguments.


If only you did. Instead you respond to them with snark.

Anonymous said...

Anon: "Uhhh, you could apply this genius "theory" to Nazi Germany's cult of personality with Hitler."

MacDonald views Nazi Germany and the Nazi strategy as a "mirror image" of Judaism..."Nazism, [MacDonald] explains, was only a “mirror image of Judaism, with its emphasis on creating a master race.” - http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/laksin.htm

Anonymous said...

MacDonald views Nazi Germany and the Nazi strategy as a "mirror image" of Judaism..."Nazism, [MacDonald] explains, was only a “mirror image of Judaism, with its emphasis on creating a master race.” -

Err, no.

You'll have to think harder than that KMac...

Anonymous said...

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/laksin.htm


Did you bother to read you own link? I get the distinct impression that you did not.

The quotation used by Laksin is actually a slightly reworded passage from Judith Shulevitz’s critique of my work, where she wrote, “Even the most extreme forms of anti-Semitism, such as Nazism, can be seen not as aberrations but as ‘a mirror image’ of Judaism, with its emphasis on creating a master race.” The fact is that I did not state that Judaism had an emphasis on creating a master race, but by moving the quotation marks, Laksin makes his readers think I did.



You'll have to read harder than that, Anon.

Svigor said...

If only you did. Instead you respond to them with snark.

Nope. Meant it. You win. I concede defeat.

Anonymous said...

The fact is that I did not state that Judaism had an emphasis on creating a master race, but by moving the quotation marks, Laksin makes his readers think I did.

You'll have to read harder than that, Anon
.

Whatever.

My original point that you can still apply MacDonald's "theory" about Judaism and cults of personality to Hitler's Germany, or Napoleonic France, or Imperial Japan, or any totalitarian government, still stands.

And MacDonald truly is the last person in the world who should be critizing others for lying about the work of others:

MacDonald's Use of SourcesMy concern, at present, with Mr. MacDonald's work, is with his use of
sources. For example, in MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Jewish involvement
in
influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical
review. Population and Environment, 19, 295-355. Mr. MacDonald uses
Neuringer, S. M. (1969). American Jewry and United States immigration
policy, 1881-1953 Ph. D. Dissertation, University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Ann
Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Inc., 1971; reprinted by Arno Press
(New
York), 1980. He cites Neuringer extensively throughout the article.
Here
is an example of how MacDonald uses this source.

On page sixteen MacDonald writes:
Neuringer (1971, p. 164) notes that Jewish opposition to the 1921 and
1924
legislation was motivated less by a desire for higher levels of Jewish
immigration than by opposition to the implicit theory that America
should
be dominated by individuals with northern and western European
ancestry.
The Jewish interest was thus to oppose the ethnic interests of the
peoples
of northwestern Europe in maintaining an ethnic status quo or
increasing
their percentage of the population. ...


Here is the relevant passage from Neuringer:

Neuringer (1971, p. 164): "What is of at least equal significance is
that
the members of this group opposed these laws more because they
possessed
the taint of discrimination and anti-Semitism than because they would
drastically limit Jewish immigration."

It seems to me, Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this
case
and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the
literature
might have a judgement on MacDonald's use of the historical data.

Barry Mehler

Anonymous said...

Whatever.


Whadda you mean, "whatever"? You just displayed your own set of blinkers. How about you worry about them first before you presume to lecture others?


And MacDonald truly is the last person in the world who should be critizing others for lying about the work of others


You know, I did not even check your latest link. But from what I've seen from you so far you failed to understand it, plus the person writing it is probably as stunningly dishonest as the hack MacDonald was rebutting in your first link.

Clear up your own act if you expect to cast stones.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me, Mr. MacDonald is misrepresenting Mr. Neuringer in this case and I posted my query hoping that a historian familiar with the literature might have a judgement on MacDonald's use of the historical data.

Really iron-clad stuff you have there.

Anonymous said...

plus the person writing it is probably as stunningly dishonest as the hack MacDonald was rebutting in your first link.

All Mehler did was contrast MacDonald's OWN words with what his references actually said. Mehler didn't force KMac to distort his own references when he cooked up Critique.

But maybe the Jews somehow hypnotized MacDonald into lying; those sneaky Jews are afterall behind everything else.

Anonymous said...

But maybe the Jews somehow hypnotized MacDonald into lying


Sadly for you, you have yet to demonstrate any instances of MacDonald "lying".

You merely posted one instance of one person raising a question about one thing MacDoald said, while admitting that he did not know the truth of the matter and askng for further clarification from others.

That you somehow managed to twist this into an open-and -shut instance of MacDonald "lyng' says a lot about your own standards of truth, none of it good.

If you yourself are Jewish than you are engaging in exactly the sort of behavior Mac is attacking. Why would you want to do that? This sort of dishonest character assassination does not help your cause, it hurts it.

I'm starting to wonder if you're not a neo-Nazi plant.