Prof. MacDonald drives me crazy because he is an antisemite who is rational and does not see the world in black-and-white terms, but recognizes that not ALL the problems of White America are caused by those eeeeevil Jews. The media industry of Hollywood was created and dominated by ethnic Jews from its very beginning, yet MacDonald is able to see that its products do not represent the Jewish character but are a function of the public's demand and the political framework. Thus till the 1960s Hollywood product was highly moral and patriotic as a consequence of the strong controls emanating from political conservatives and from religious and cultural traditionalists that kept a lid on Jewish influence on culture. MacDonald describes quite graphically how fanatical Jewish communist screenwriters and production teams were forced to create films diametrically opposed to their own tendencies and convictions, but agreeable to conservative Christian majority, "doubtless much to the chagrin of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals who prided themselves in their alienation from that culture."
I think that he describes quite fairly what was going on during the first part of the 20th. Century.
"This all ended when the culture of the left finally triumphed in the 1960s. At that point, when the multi-cultural, anti-White left had seized the high ground in the cultural wars, they had far less reason to engage in the types of cultural criticism so apparent in the writings of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Hollywood and the rest of the American media were unleashed."MacDonald fails to analyze why the revolution thriumphed. He implies it was the intellectual strength of the Frankfurt School that caused the change. Nonsense. What happened is that the Right Wing White Ethnic forces lost a big war, the Viet Nam war. Loss of wars are unavoidably followed by the public's loss of faith in the regime, by the regime's loss of its self-confidence, and a tendency to give up more or less voluntarily its political and cultural power to the opposition. Which, yes, was the heavily Jewish left.
I was there in this process as MacDonald was, and I was particularly shocked by the popularity of High Hefner's amoral ideology and Gore Vidal's brilliant "pleasure-loving" novels. I enjoyed them but I felt uneasy with pagan ideology. I am not very religious but somewhere in the back of my mind are inscribed the "diney nidah" (the rules of sexual relations). Hefner and Vidal were everything that is repugnant to Jews. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the golden era of Hollywood was paradoxically while "the lid was on" and also American Judaism had its best time before the sixties. Nowadays it is not reproducing itself, it is disintegrating and falling into pieces, it has lost cohesion and purpose, it is becoming anti-Zionist, and it has adopted the pervert morals of the increasingly pagan American society. MacDonald does not care to think about the fact that the Leftist triumph in America is bad and destructive for the Jews, and in his obsession with cultural issues he forgets that the real cause of the Left's triumph is the defeat of the mighty American Army by barefoot natives in Viet Nam and the consequent dramatic loss of prestige by White American leadership.
Another thing he perceives is that the triumph of the largely communist Left did not bring about the demise of Capitalism in America. Paradoxically, the Left has been left without any ideas about the management of the economy. President Barack Obama, who emerged from the far Left, has appointed Wall Street bankers to manage the economy, which demonstrates the total ideological bankrupcy of Marxism.
(Pic. Erich Fromm in 1970. I am familiar with his works because he was well known in Latin America, as he spoke and wrote in Spanish and was an UNAM professor.)
25 comments:
A few issues -
The "Jews" of Hollywood no longer have any idea what d'nai nidah are. Their upbringing and ideology was secular (and often Marxist), and being men they were not at all opposed to the idea of "free love".
The US Army was not defeated by a bunch of barefoot peasants. The US largely suceeded in destroying the Viet Cong (the partisan style group). The Vietnam War was won by the highly organized North Vietnamese Army, supplied with tanks, etc. by the Russians and Chinese. Even then, it was a political failure, not a military failure - the S. Vietnamese Army only collapsed after the US Congress withdrew financial support. (Lesson for Israel, as if the Shoah were not lesson enough - do not put fate in the hands of others, even "well meaning" Americans.
The Wall St. bankers appointed by Obama have nevertheless proceeded to socialize large sectors of the economy - the US government now owns large stakes in GM, Chrylser, AIG, etc.
Regarding the US Army being defeated in Vietnam, I am sorry, it is a historical fact. That the Viet Cong fought barefoot or in rubber-tire sandals, is of minor importance. I disagree with you that it was not a military defeat. Military defeats are never military, armies collapse when they lose their will to continue fighting. When the fight starts to seem pointless, when they start to "understand" the enemy's point of view. America lost and went home defeated, and the regime that caused that defeat lost prestige and legitimacy.
I dont think that Goldman Sachs's chiefs are turning America into a Communist State. State owned properties will be sold eventually. Soon we will know the names of the new American "oligarchs".
Prof. MacDonald drives me crazy because he is an antisemite who is rational
MacDonald rational LIAR:
http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/scholarship-or-propaganda/
It is an open question whether whites will ever again see themselves as a "group" with an identity worth defending, and being proud of.
What is clear to me is the massive effort invested in depriving whites of their cohesiveness, spirit and self-consciousness, while at the same time other groups are receiving massive moral and financial support (ironically,from some white people)to take pride in themselves and to challenge whites in every sphere of human endeavor.
There are several equally staggering aspects of this: one is the sheer scale of the hypocrisy and double-standards, and another is the passivity with which most mainstream whites just accept the attacks on them. Pride in one's people is a virtue if you are part of a a "minority" group, but always form of "fascism" in whites.
This is a collapse probably unequalled in human history.
But if the truth be told, the one large group of whites who have not been conned are those who survived the Communist Experiment in Eastern Europe. Probably they are well-trained to recognize a Big Lie.
Anon.
Your post is so full of falsities and muddled thinking, for instance: "MacDonald does not care to think about the fact that the Leftist triumph in America is bad and destructive for the Jews..."
The Jews of America WERE THE LEFT for the last 75+ years! If leftism ruined the USA and American Jews, the Jews then brought it upon themselves because they were the main pushers of leftist/Marxist policies in the USA just as they were in the USSR.
Jews are in the forefront of many things, among them, the American left wing, as well as financial capitalism. I for one hold the strange idea that America's conversion into a fragmented multiracial society is BAD for the Jews. I must be alone in this, but I think that the White Protestant America of the fifties, mildly antisemitic, was ideal for the conservation and prosperity of the Jewish community. Richard Nixon, a Quaker, used antisemitic language but he was fair, promoted Kissinger to Secretary of State, and sent weapons to Israel in a time of great need. He was very good for America and the Jews. On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was a disaster. I hope Obama will be different.
J, you are correct. The Jews are best off in a relatively benign Protestant milieu. The problem is they resent this, and being naturally competitive, can't help trying to 'bite the hand that feeds them'; and being smart, they often succeed, even at their own expense. This sort of thing amounts to an emotional failure despite any claim to being an intellectual success.
Obama will be much worse than Nixon, who where the Jews were concerned was all bark and no bite; and Obama will also probably be worse than anybody else including Carter. Right now, he is only being held back by Rahm, Axelrod and Summers.
I hope, with Iran looming, that this is all interesting enough to keep everybody amused.
Anon.
No, the NWO has its sights on Eastern Europe. MTV now has a site for Poland:
http://mtv.pl/
It's worth noting that Johnson ran on an anti-war platform in the elections of 1964. He then proceeded to escalate as soon as he won.
Anon,
We Jews, like most peoples, thrive under a firm regime. Our golden era in Europe was under the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Frantz Jozef, a mild and benign dictator. I was much impressed by his palace in Vienna, it is so neat, ordered an "German". He used to start his work day at 0500 in a small office next to his small bedroom. I mean, we are like a class of unruly children, if the teacher is weak, the Russians get drunk, the Hungarians fight, he Blacks vandalize the furniture, the Jews organize revolutions.
Actually, I agree. As a student, I was intensively propagandized that anything that expanded unconditional freedom was a good thing, but now I realize that most people cannot cope successfully with too much. Only high IQ people with a lot of self discipline can deal with it and a lot of the "sixties radicalism" was simply the selfishness of a highly privileged subsection of the population living in a bubble.
Anon.
J,
You say that what's best for the Jews is a firm, mildly anti-semitic, Protestant milieu.
Well, from a firm, mildly anti-semitic (or fully anti-semitic or even non anti-semitic) Protestant's perspective, the best milieu is one with no Jews at all.
And if you were objective and fair, you would acknowledge this.
Unfortunately for both, we are talking about the past. America of the fifties is no more and gone for ever. It cannot be re-created. We have to face the change, and adapt.
Unfortunately for both, we are talking about the past. America of the fifties is no more and gone for ever. It cannot be re-created. We have to face the change, and adapt.
"Well, from a firm, mildly anti-semitic (or fully anti-semitic or even non anti-semitic) Protestant's perspective, the best milieu is one with no Jews at all."
1. Go screw yourself, whoever wrote this. And learn to spell.
2. I'd say that is open to question - if you look at "milieus" with no Jews at all - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Poland, etc. they are not the most attractive place to live. England, a nice Protestant place, tried expelling the Jews for several hundred years and eventually thought better of it - it was hurting their economy.
Anonyjew said...
England, a nice Protestant place, tried expelling the Jews for several hundred years and eventually thought better of it - it was hurting their economy.
England let the Jews back in because of the Reformation. Prior to that there would have been no chance that the Jews would have been let in since the Jews were expelled from all of western Europe at the behest of the Vatican. After the Reformation, Cromwell let the Jews in partly for religious reasons. I have also read accounts stating that Cromwell originally needed money to finance his previous wars, and letting the Jews may have also been a condition of the loan.
Unfortunately for both, we are talking about the past. America of the fifties is no more and gone for ever. It cannot be re-created. We have to face the change, and adapt.
Don't use "we" as if there is some kind of solidarity between us.
1. Go screw yourself, whoever wrote this. And learn to spell.
Good argument. I didn't misspell anything.
2. I'd say that is open to question - if you look at "milieus" with no Jews at all - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Poland, etc. they are not the most attractive place to live. England, a nice Protestant place, tried expelling the Jews for several hundred years and eventually thought better of it - it was hurting their economy.
First of all, economics and material wealth aren't everything. This is probably difficult for you to understand, but it's true.
To suggest that Jews are somehow "necessary" for economic development and prosperity is a typical canard and indicative of Jewish arrogance. There are plenty of countries that have done and continue to do well without Jews. And it's not one sided. If you're going to trumpet Jewish contributions to a particular host's economy, you have to acknowledge, count, and assess their negative contributions as well. You simply can't ignore any negative contributions, blame others for them, cry "discrimination" or "anti-Semitism" at every mention of them, etc.
If you're going to play the correlations game, there are plenty of really nasty, really bad correlations with Jews that can be pointed to.
Also England expelled the Jews in 1290, and Jews didn’t really return to Britain in non-trivial numbers until the 19th century. Some came over during Cromwell's reign, but it was pretty negligible; certainly nothing like the numbers in many Continental countries. In that span of roughly 6 centuries, a native gentile English middle and professional class developed and flourished. This class was the source of much of the West’s advancement and achievement. The Puritans that settled America, the great scientists, and the merchants and industrialists that developed and expanded the Empire and made the Industrial Revolution possible all sprung from this class.
However, in many parts of Central and Eastern Europe, Jews dominated the middle and professional classes and often comprised them entirely. Gentiles comprised the farming peasant majority, and the noble aristocratic minority. This no doubt stunted the development of a native gentile middle and professional class in parts of Central/Eastern Europe, and the concomitant selection pressures on intelligence, ability, and so on.
The Medieval/early modern European civilization that was created and sustained by native gentile Europeans was at least as responsible for it by providing the environment and pressure for Ashkenazi ability to evolve and develop. The much less able and accomplished Jews we find in other parts of the world readily serve to support this. Admixture must be taken into account as well. And a major cost of Ashkenazi ability and achievement seems to be that native gentile ability and achievement was hindered in Central/Eastern Europe, a fate that England appears to have avoided by prudent measures taken in 1290.
Don't use "we" as if there is some kind of solidarity between us.
We are able to communicate, which in my mind means that we are no total strangers. And I dont take offense when you say that you desire a milieau without Jews, because as a Zionist, I think that all Jews should be living in Israel and building this country and not another nation's country. For example, I am of the opinion that American Jews are wasting their time building an international media export industry like Hollywood. They should move to Israel. Wall Street Jews should also move to Israel and turn Israel a worldwide financial center. And just as German Jewish scientists before the war developed German universities and research centers only to leave with a kick in their collective asses, American Jewish scientists may have to leave their positions to African, Hispanic or other Americans who are feeling hindered by their brilliance. Seen from my perspective, their positions are fragile, they are marked and resented, people are making lists with their names and the names of their relatives, people like you are waiting for the opportunity to harm them. American Jews should be building up their own country, Israel.
J,
I never said that I wish to harm Jews.
I respect your desire to see Jews around the world return to Israel and build it into a great nation. And I respect the right of you and other Jews/Israelis to keep Israel as a Jewish state, exclude Arabs, Muslims, non-Jews, etc.
I don't doubt that Ashkenazi Jews are highly intelligent and talented, possibly the single most intelligent group in the world as far as verbal intelligence is concerned. Though I also believe that at least a part of their overwhelming success is due to a large comparative advantage in certain fields over their gentile hosts around the world. It's possible that there would be decreasing returns to scale if they all were in one country.
And while your desire is a noble one, I'm afraid that it's not a common one among Jews. Many Jews, including prominent ones, are opposed to it:
"Getting all Jews into the same shape and country, even if it is Israel, as recently advocated by an Israeli [writer, A.B. Yehoshua - S.R.] is not the best survival strategy."
Given the Iranian "project", I am inclined to agree that all Jews should NOT be in one single place, Israel or anywhere else.
Anon.
I dont know what "survival strategy" is best. There are today about 12 million Jews, less than 2000 years ago. If they were following a survival strategy, they failed miserably and at a very large human cost of suffering. What would have been the best strategy for a Spanish Jew in the 15th Century? To accept expulsion and move to Holland? They are most extint. To accept Christianity and move to Argentina? Each Spaniard that settled in Latin America has today hundreds of thousands descendants.
For an America Jew today, the best genetical survival strategy is to melt into American elite class. Hanging into Judaism makes little sense from the genetical survival point of view, Jews have the lowest number of children in America.
For an America Jew today, the best genetical survival strategy is to melt into American elite class. Hanging onto Judaism makes little sense from the genetical survival point of view, Jews have the lowest number of children in America.
I wouldn't be surprised if a good section of America's upper class, especially the ones that hold liberal opinions, have Jewish level fertility. The root cause of low American Jewish fertility is liberalism. If America's Jews weren't liberals they would probably average at least one extra child per family.
Besides, even if American Jewry disappears, there is still Israel.
And vice versa.
Which is why having few kids is a huge mistake.
Liberalism is nothing other than the triumph of immediacy over deferred gratification.
Anon.
Israel is very different from American Jewry. We are a Middle Eastern country.
Not exactly.
Read George Gilder (The "Israel Test").
Anon.
Post a Comment