The Israeli left is experiencing an orgasm of self hate: They have found a suitable object of hate, a Zionist-Religious IDF officer, and they are focusing on him. The man (pic.) was filmed reacting violently to a tall Danish anarchist who excitedly invaded his personal space, facing him from a few centimeters, which signals a challenge all over the animal kingdom. The officer, who was leading his soldiers in the confrontation, reacted instinctively pushing him away. The Dane was unhurt and the Jew broke his finger. The clip became a worldwide sensation, showing Zionist brutality. The journalist Yemini, from Maariv, expects the soldier to be declared a war criminal by the Hague International Court of Justice. Denounced by Israeli leftists, that is. We have adopted our enemy's propaganda and we are fighting its war against us. We've gone mad, he writes.
31 comments:
But this is impossible. The commenters over at Mangans and Sailer assure me that Jewish liberalism is merely a ploy to undermine the naive but noble hearted goyim - who in their good hearted nobility, lacking aggression towards others, as history clearly shows, are easy prey for the Jews - and never applied by Jews to Jews or Israel. Surely you have got your facts wrong, sir!
Israel has no leftists, and American Jews do not criticize Israel. It is all easily proven by the commenters at Mangan and Sailer.
Yes, if only Whites defended White Interests as strongly as Jews defended Jewish Interests, all would be right in the world (of Sailer and Mangan).
Having self hating leftist crazies is in a way a sign of a healthy democracy- in places like Gaza , Iran, N. Korea, etc. self-hatred is considered treason or blasphemy and not tolerated.
Most self-haters in the end have deep down mommy/daddy issues and striking out at the state is a way of acting out against their father figures. It is amazing that whenever the NYT prints a story, a certain % of the comments will automatically assume that whatever has happened was somehow the result of US evil (esp. when a Repub. is President) or a CIA plot. Bo Xilai - a CIA setup. The Taliban attacks - a CIA false flag operation. 9/11 - the gov't planted explosives in the towers. Etc.
K
In a way, self-hating leftists that adopt the enemy's program ARE a sign of strength. I assume that if things were really bad, they would realize that their behaviour endangers their own safety and would quiet down. They want attention, not the destruction of the State. They are a pest.
The video does not show the raised arms that you refer to. Actually it is pretty vague why he hit the protester at all. Maybe the protester said something and Eisner lost his temper. Pretty good footage of it here. It doesn't look good, that's for sure: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-officer-says-regrets-beating-activist-in-front-of-cameras-1.424919
I'm beginning to think that it may be for the best if Eisner is discharged from the army.
I read the man's conversation with a supporter, and he sounds kind of dumb. The fact that he spoke so much and allowed it to be leaked to the media is extremely dumb.
He has many supporters and I'm sure his life after the IDF will be just fine.
OT- American foreign policy is being run by idiots - it is worse than I feared.
During his years as one of Mr. Bo’s top aides, he [Wang] had a reputation in Chongqing for ruthless and arbitrary enforcement of the law.
That made a decision on asylum all but impossible, the diplomats felt.... The decision to proceed that way [not to grant asylum] was made by the State Department [not the White House]...
So, a top aide to a top Chinese government official falls into our hands, but he is "treyf" and so we must spit him out even though he possesses invaluable intelligence. If he had been some holy fool dissident with no relevant information, we could have moved heaven and earth on his behalf, but since he is someone with intimate knowledge of the inner workings of our chief rival, then pthui. The decision is not made at the proper political levels but is left to bureaucrats. Oy gevalt.
K
There are indeed endless numbers of useful idiots in European countries, who engage in sanctimonious self-hatred, and it is, in a curious kind of a way, a relief to see that Israel is not immune from them either.
I used to think that these people were just wicked, and not stupid, but now I realize that they are both wicked and stupid, to varying degrees; and that in a formal biological sense, they are, all of them, insane, since they are risking their own survival and acting in a profoundly maladaptive way.
What is of interest is what kind of mental illness this is; analagous, perhaps, to the Stockholm Syndrome. We need a good psychiatrist to write a book, for empirical research to be conducted, hypotheses proposed, funding agencies to give grants, etc.
Stephen Pinker might give it a go.
Anon.
Jewish liberalism is merely a ploy to undermine the naive but noble hearted goyim
How do Sailer/Mangan explain goyische liberalism?
http://www.friatider.se/shocking-photos-shows-swedish-minister-of-culture-celebrating-with-niger-cake#.T413VM2wzf1.facebook
The Dane came to close for his comfort. Instinctively, he reacted pushing him away. That's all.
The multicultural project will become derailed over the issues of Jews and Israel.
Anon.
Yeah, for sure. It really is remarkable that Eisner broke his finger and that the Dane was unurt.
That Wang story is pretty incredible - the guy must have been absolutely incredulous when the Americans forfeited all the top level secret info he had, apparently for some idiotic moral qualms of his being an *unsavory character*. Sorry, an *extremely unsavory character* - whew, that makes sense then!
This is what happens when people dont grasp the idiocy of the West is quite sincere and think it is just some kind of elaborate dupe by the *ruling elites* to line their pockets or consolidate their power - no, it is really moral idiocy that is deeply felt.
On the other hand, maybe they decided Wang did not really have valuable intel after all....let us hope!
Jewish liberalism is merely a ploy to undermine the naive but noble hearted goyim
How do Sailer/Mangan explain goyische liberalism?
They say that goyim have evolved a uniquely noble and generous attitude towards the *other* - as attested to by centuries of Western non-aggression towards other peoples, as to this day no on really knows how Europeans ended up having colonies all over the world - and that it was precisely this noble hearted naivete which made them susceptible to the machinations of the Jews, who are fully conscious and cynical operators who care not a fig for liberalism in their hearts, but use it as a weapon.
Its quite a surreal world view - god, I almost wish it were true!
I might not have been clear above -
The Manganites say that the goyim have been brainwashed by the Jews who exploit the noble hearted generosity and naive trusting faith of the gentle, non-aggressive goyim.
I kid you not.
According to them, remove the Jewish element from the West and it would instantaneously return to a culture of self-pride.
I might not have been clear above -
The Manganites say that the goyim have been brainwashed by the Jews who exploit the noble hearted generosity and naive trusting faith of the gentle, non-aggressive goyim.
I kid you not.
According to them, remove the Jewish element from the West and it would instantaneously return to a culture of self-pride.
... return to a culture of self-pride.
"Post-colonial ethical over-correction" is the phenomenon.
I mean, who can shift course without initially over-correcting?
ram
Our comfort zone is about 2 feet. Anyone who invades that space with unfriendly intent is just asking for it. A normal human being would react as he did.
Ivan
Coming too close and staring in his eyes was a direct challenge. Eisner is a military commander and he was leading a group of soldiers. I understand what happened, but no doubt, in tha media battle Eisner and we lost, the Dane won.
"The commenters over at Mangans and Sailer assure me that Jewish liberalism is merely a ploy to undermine the naive but noble hearted goyim - who in their good hearted nobility, lacking aggression towards others, as history clearly shows, are easy prey for the Jews - and never applied by Jews to Jews or Israel."
"They say that goyim have evolved a uniquely noble and generous attitude towards the *other* - as attested to by centuries of Western non-aggression towards other peoples, as to this day no on really knows how Europeans ended up having colonies all over the world - and that it was precisely this noble hearted naivete which made them susceptible to the machinations of the Jews, who are fully conscious and cynical operators who care not a fig for liberalism in their hearts, but use it as a weapon."
Great stuff. I think I will have to start reading this blog as an antidote to some of the toxic stuff I imbibe reading Sailer's and Mangan's comment threads.
Somewhat tangentially, but in the same vein, I might add that, having grown up in a neighborhood that was about half-Jewish, half-Gentile, the kids in school who were the aggressive, bullying, dumb jock types were almost always Jewish while the quiet, nerdy, brainy types who wouldn't hurt a fly were almost always Gentile (for Manganites I have to specify that this is sarcasm).
I think some of you are simplifying the worldview of most people who post at Mangan's. Jews didn't invent liberalism, but liberalism does help minorities, as it weakens racial feeling amongst the majority. Thus all minorities support liberalism, but Jews have amplified it to a greater degree than others due to their high IQ. There is no Black equivalent to the Frankfurt School for example.
In Israel, Jews are the majority, and feeling secure in this, a goodly number of Jews can afford to adopt ethnically suicidal ambitions, as they can no longer imagine a world without Jews or Israel, the way their grandparents certainly could.
Finally, I agree with the posters at Mangan's that Whites are more susceptible to ideas like fairness and universalism, which I would be happy to debate anyone here about, I just don't want this one post to run on too long.
I agree with the posters at Mangan's that Whites are more susceptible to ideas like fairness and universalism....
This reminds me of the old pat answer to a standard interview question. When asked, "What is your worst attribute?", you are supposed to answer that you tend to work too hard, or something else that an employer would eat up. Did Southern American whites always possess this love of universalism or is this a recent phenomena? When hotels, resorts, etc. in the US were designated as "restricted" (no Jews allowed) until the 1960s and there were quotas to keep Jews out of top colleges, was this impelled by white's desire for fairness or universalism or both? And what has changed in the last 50 years or so that made whites suddenly more interested in these concepts? Did Hollywood Jews undermine their proper race consciousness? Personally I blame Hitler because he made it clear that "harmless" racism was not really harmless but was a slippery slope that ended at the gates of Auschwitz. Now the Trayvon case has made clear that government sanctioned racism is not dead in America, it has just changed sides.
K
Jews have amplified it
You are misdirecting blame for gentile liberals.
There are hardly any Jews to "amplify" leftism in Scandinavia.
If there are so few Jews, why are Scandinavians liberal?
I agree with the posters at Mangan's that Whites are more susceptible to ideas like fairness and universalism
So you agree whites are to blame for their problems?
And Jews are white.
Jews are not an adequate explanation for the bottomless wells of self-hatred and auto-extinctionism now racking Europe.
Look carefully at the reign of terror across the continent; it is is being imposed by faux-sophisticate gentiles, PC zealots, maladapted self-haters, prostitute-journalists/ media barons, enslavement businessmen and politicians on the 'make and take'.
Note to the Jews: these people are not your friends.
For the countries successfully invaded by the Nazis, this is what the Quisling dictatorships looked like.
Anon.
My response to your comments:
Liberalism is an auto-immune disease created by European elites in the 18th century. Its distinctive feature is the idea that one should work for the other, an idea that is a result of Europe's Christian heritage and genetic predisposition to a lack of ethnocentrism. Sure Europeans transgressed against other races. What distinguishes them is that they have worked so hard to "make up for it".
Where do Jews fit into this? Because liberalism weakens ethnic/racial feeling amongst the host population, ethnic/racial minorities are going to support it. In this way the Jews are no different from the Irish in America. However, Jews were different from the Irish because they had an average IQ higher than Europeans. As a result, Jews achieved disproportionate status in academia, media, politics and the economy. They formed a vanguard of liberalism, actually creating schools of thought, films and legislation in a quantity and quality no other minority group could.
In short, liberalism was created by Europeans. Jews tend to be liberal. Jews are more intelligent than Europeans and after emancipation used that intelligence to gain influence disproportionate to their numbers in the West. Jews tend to use this influence to promote liberalism. I'm not blaming them for seeking the safety of their own ethnic group, I'm just pointing it out.
Re: Scandinavia. Numbers do not translate directly to influence, see: market dominant minorities, and more to your point, the Bonnier family.
Because liberalism weakens ethnic/racial feeling amongst the host population, ethnic/racial minorities are going to support it.
Jews are geentically white.
They formed a vanguard of liberalism, actually creating schools of thought, films and legislation in a quantity and quality no other minority group could.
European quantity and quality of liberalism surpasses Jews.
Jews are more intelligent than Europeans
There are not many Jews left in Europe.
Numbers do not translate directly to influence, see: market dominant minorities, and more to your point, the Bonnier family.
Liar.
Bonniers are ethnic Swedes.
Its distinctive feature is the idea that one should work for the other, an idea that is a result of Europe's Christian heritage and genetic predisposition to a lack of ethnocentrism. Sure Europeans transgressed against other races. What distinguishes them is that they have worked so hard to "make up for it".
This is really a massive whitewash. European racial animosity was historically incredibly intense, more intense then almost any other civilized group. Compare European racial animosity to the relative tolerance of the Chinese or the Arabs to other races to get a sense of how completely absurd the idea is that Europeans are genetically less disposed to be intolerant of the *other*.
There is quite simply nothing like the racial virulence that was common for Europe until the 19th century amongst either the Chinese or the Muslims.
Europeans only *made up for it* post 1950, after having existed in the other extreme for multiple millenia.
A further point I must stress that multiculturalism and oppenness to the foreign was hardly a creation of Europeans in the 18th century - it was already a clearly formulated ideal in Ancient Rome, and a major part of the Stoic philosophy.
Modern Europe is merely a re-creation and extension of ways of thought originally invented by the Greeks or Romans. The Enlightenment specifically was a project to re-introduce (and further develop) the ideas of ancient Greece and Rome.
So while you deserve kudos for the honesty and perceptiveness to realize that liberalism is hardly a creation of the Jews, you are still on the wrong track if you think that multiculturalism can be explained by anything that is peculiar to the genetics of Northern European populations. Anti-tribalism was something that overcame native Germanic ways of thinking, after enormous effort.
So the theory is that Jews are liberal because it helps them, and whites are liberal because of a genetic predisposition to be open to the foreign. As we saw, historically this does not add up, but there is a graver theoretical problem with this. Definitely a more coherent theory than the one advanced by the less intelligent of the Manganites, but still bearing traces of the same jaundiced world view, as well as being theoretically problematical.
If one wished to be charitable to the Jews, one might replace your phrasing of Jewish motivation with this - Jews, having tasted injustice and majority cruelty first hand, have developed a more sensitive appreciation for a just society, for themselves, yes, but for everyone else, as well. Jewishness might motivate liberalism, but in ways that are a far cry from Mcdonalds supposition of insidious intent, or even your attribution of purely self-serving intent. If Jewish liberalism must be Jewishly motivated, I choose noble sensitivity to justice over self-serving intent a la your theory or nefarious intent a la Mr Mcdnald - although I note with satisfaction that you avoid the malice of Macdonald.
However, is Jewish liberalism Jewishly motivated? Do we have any grounds for saying this?
As we all know, we must first look at the most parsimonious explanation for any phenomena before we introduce complexity or multiple factors.
If we wish to say that Jewish liberalism is a different beast - requiring different factors to explain it - we must first make sure that we CANNOT explain Jewish liberalism the very same way we can explain white liberalism.
Now has anyone looked to see if Jews are more liberal according to their IQ and educational levels than comparable whites? With a mean IQ of 115 and even higher average college education rate, we would have to compare Jews against that cohort of whites with a mean IQ of 115 and comparable college education rates.
Has this been done? And has it shown that Jews are more liberal? If not, than we can certainly speculate that Jews are motivated by Jewishness, but we have no way of knowing. We have no reason, even, to suspect that there is anything different about Jewish liberalism than white liberalism, if Jews are not disproportionately liberal.
High Jewish IQ seems quite sufficient and the principle of parsimony provides no grounds for us to go looking under bushes for special Jewish reasons. I note also that Jews are dominant in conservative and libertarian academic thinking as well (Ayn Rand, the Austrian school, etc, etc)
I disagree with your characterization of Europeans as being any more brutal in their treatment of "aliens" than other societies. The Arabs may have been more racially tolerant, but that is because their in-group was religious; they could be quite cruel to non-Muslims. East Asia as well has a storied history of peoples being treated like crap. What needs to be explained then, is why Europeans feel so guilty about what they have done, when no one else seems to. Genetic predisposition I think is part of it, but I could be wrong.
Thank you for recognizing there is no malice intended by my comments. And I agree, too many at Mangan's hold a cartoonish worldview regarding Jews that is both laughable and scary. But I'm pretty sure my analysis, which we agree is definitely not anti-Semitic, would be described as such in the media, which makes me not want to spend much energy condemning those particular Manganites, if at the end of the day I'm just gonna be lumped in with them anyway by most people.
Your take on why Jews are liberal is valid, but I still prefer mine as it doesn't ascribe a particularly noble nor ignoble property to Jews, but a human one.
Anonymous at 4:43 AM: Really interesting theory, I had never thought of that possibility! Although I think it's a stretch to describe Rand or the Austrians as of the Right, you do have Paul Gottfried, who is one of the luminaries of the "real Right" in America.
Anonymous guy @ 1120 PM: Read for comprehension. You will have to earn any further responses.
Y'know, Lindbergh had the same shtick in his late '30s isolationist phase - I don't blame the Jews for looking out for their own interest. They're just not the same as the interests of white Christian Americans, so leave us out of your dispute with those Nazis - us white people have nothing against them. That didn't really work out.
Ultimately , "what's good for the Jews" turns out to be what's good for anyone - in societies where everyone (including the Jews) are allowed to unleash their talents, prosperity results. In societies where people spend their time worrying about who is better than who, whether some sky monster would or would not approve of this or that activity, etc. everyone is poor.
K
K,
Ethnic groups have interests. Sometimes those interests intersect with the interests of another given ethnic group and sometimes they don't. Whether Lindbergh interpreted the interests of any particular ethnic group correctly in his time has no bearing on that central fact.
Do you really think the modern world is good for Jews? I don't. Sure, treating everyone as individuals has minimized the risk of persecution and discrimination for Jews and other minorities, but at what cost? From everything I've seen Israel and the Jewish diaspora are not far behind Europeans in their shaking off of racial feeling, spirituality and traditional gender roles, all of which seem the logical conclusions of liberalism. Your reference to "sky monsters" leads me to think you are not a traditionalist, so you may consider this a good thing. If so we are at an impasse.
People don't exist as "ethnic groups" - they exist as individuals. Once you start treating them as group members, then the whole idea of individual responsibility and guilt and innocence goes by the wayside. I oppose collectivism in all its forms. I do not lay claim to the theories of Einstein nor to the crimes of Madoff. I am responsible for my own actions only.
As J has expressed, it would be wonderful if we could return to a world of innocence where we could all devoutly worship and live in the traditional ways. Our numerous grandchildren would thank us. But having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge, it is impossible to return to the Garden of Eden.
K
Post a Comment