Why I don’t believe that Jews are all powerful

Here’s OneSDTV:

Jews do show up quite a lot in media. This is apparent to anyone with functioning eyes who has taken in a glance at the NYT editorial page. Whether they "control" it is another matter, but Sanchez didn’t go so far as to claim a Jewish cabal exists just that Jews have many positions high up. But again, like with blacks and crime or gays and HIV, one can not trust his lying eyes and surely can never advertise the evident images projected into them.

But the question is on which point should we trust our lying eyes. If the Jews control the world, or whatever, we would indeed to expect to see a lot of them in prominent positions and high on the list of the country’s wealthiest people. We do in fact see this. This fact is well-worth noting.

However, we would also expect to see the Jews advancing some sort of Jewish agenda. It’s then fair to ask whether we see Jews as being particularly successful at advancing some sort of Jewish agenda.

We do not.

Israel is a good test case. Israel is more powerful than all her neighbors and has been since for several decades. Yet she continues to lose. She is condemned at the UN. Her borders shrink to the benefit of countries that she has beaten in wars and could beat in new war. The list goes on, but the important point is that she does not behave in any manner that would indicate that she has the blessing and backing of some world-controlling group. I believe Israel will eventually be forced to turn into the sort of open, multicultural society beloved by Progressives. Israel as we know it then, will be destroyed.

The fundamental question for those who wish to suggest the existence of a Jewish conspiracy is: if the Jews are organized and intelligent enough to create a world-dominating cabal, why are they so bad at running said cabal to further their own ends?

Until that question is answered, I think it’s wise to ignore suggestions of a Jewish conspiracy.

Advertisements

28 Responses to Why I don’t believe that Jews are all powerful

  1. You’re assuming the Jewish agenda is Israel. More likely it’s progressivism. Remember it’s a suicidal ideology. With Jewish ethnocentrism playing out in domination of certain enterprises like hollywood and media and whatever.

    • Foseti says:

      That is an interesting response.

      So, under that theory, wouldn’t Israel and the Jews be on opposite sides? Isn’t that a bit of a stretch?

      • The Jews aren’t monolithically progressive or suicidal.

        Remember that the most strong bastions of progressivism also have the strongest native resistances.

        I imagine a split in Jewish loyalties between progressivisim and its opposite much like the US split between optimates+vaisyas and brahmins.

        Plus even within the pro-Israeli branch progressivism runs deep.

        It’s no more of a stretch to say that Israel and progressive jews are on opposite sides, than to say that America and progressive Americans are on opposite sides. If anything, for Jews it’s more true since Progressivism finds Israel even less legitimate than America.

  2. JL says:

    There is no cabal, but many Jews are powerful and to the extent that powerful Jews share the values of Jews in general (who are a lot more “progressive” and certainly anti-Christian than American whites in general), they help advance a Jewish agenda.

    In recent decades, the US has vetoed dozens of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. Without American backing, Israel would be completely isolated on the international stage, unable to trade and cooperate with anyone except other countries regarded as rogue states. The resulting poverty would lead to a mass emigration of the Jewish population to the West and elsewhere.

  3. icr says:

    Joe Sobran back in 1995:
    http://www.sobran.com/establishment.shtml
    (…)
    The Jewish establishment, it hardly needs saying, is predominantly secularist and systematically anti-Christian. In fact, it is unified far more by its hostility to Christianity than by its support of Israel, on which it is somewhat divided. The more left-wing Jews are faintly critical of Israel, though never questioning its “right to exist” — that is, its right to exist on terms forbidden to any Christian country; that is, its right to deny rights to non-Jews.
    (…)
    Conspiracy? I think it’s more a matter of prevailing sentiments. Is there an anti-white conspiracy by American blacks? Is there an anti-white Anglo-American conspiracy by Mexicans?

    I also recall that much of LA was “ethnically cleansed” of blacks by Mexicans.But I don’t think it was a conspiracy-although it’s possible that criminal conspiracies by gangs played a more than minor role.

  4. Jehu says:

    Conspiracy isn’t required for a group to be actively and effectively working against your interests. Examining all of the Jewish Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court justices, I’m unable to name a single one that isn’t against me and mine maintaining our demographic hegemony over the piece of real estate we call the US. Conspiracy is honestly an optimistic theory in that it generally implies that a low-cost liquidationalist solution is feasible. I personally believe that what will happen when me and mine manage to summon the Leviathan of white racial consciousness from the depths will be a lot uglier than that.

    • The Jews are too small a group to account for all the wickedness that is Progressivism, despite the outsize Ashkenazim IQ.

      I think it will all be helter skelter run for shelter when the empire comes tumbling down, and not just for the bad guys. But periods of chaos don’t last long; nicely Jurassic forms of social order quickly develop as buffers.

      • Jehu says:

        Certainly not all of it (the edifice of Progressivism), probably around 20-25% of it though.
        My advice to the American Jewish community is to make a loud show and take actual actions towards divesting themselves of Progressivism. Otherwise when Leviathan rises from the depths, he might well decide to pick you as special contestants in his prime time pograms. That’s not a desireable outcome. Market dominant minorities tend to suffer very badly in such circumstances.

      • That estimate might be reasonable for all I know. Especially if one looks at thought leadership rather than rank and file, where overrepresentation is more extreme.

        I tend to view the Jewish intellectual influence as not disproportionately more poisonous than the intellectual average, just higher horsepower and therefore overrepresented. Perhaps there is some greater poison ratio due to the Talmudic tradition, but is it really worse than Christian heresy? After all they’re not even working with a New Testament, which seems to lend itself more readily to “Super Protestantism.” I don’t know, but I’m grateful for the existence of Moldbug and I’m sure various other intellectuals who I’m not aware are Jewish.

        As for the Jewish mainstream being pro immigration and un-assimilated, yeah, that’s indisputable. I don’t think a Christian nation should be making new citizens of people who aren’t loyal co-religionists, period.

        I guess the best way to measure this with something approaching impartiality would be to look at Jewish vs. Gentile thinkers in the relevant sections of Murray’s Human Achievement, and rate them on ideological poisonousness and influence, then see if the ratios are different. That would be quite interesting.

      • I mean, we can’t blame the Jews for Socrates and Plato, and they were in a sense the original @#$holes.

  5. Jehu says:

    Well, for the supreme court, you’ve got 2 of 9, or around 22%. I’m not certain of the representation precentage in the media, but I know it is quite high. In the Senate it is 13 of 100, and I beleive 30 in the house. Source is
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/senrec.html

    The big problem is I can’t name a single one of that above set that ISN’T my enemy. While I’m not terribly inclined to blame the 60% or so of ordinary Jews that aren’t in favor of race replacement (about 40% are in favor of it, as evidenced by their desire to increase immigration), I do loathe their elites, who are at least 95% my enemies. When the Leviathan rises, He is likely to be far less reasonable about such matters than I am. Once people decide that the existing system for resolving grievances has become irrevocably compromised and opt instead for resolution through a great effusion of blood, things necessarily get ugly—and sloppy. People then settle scores with a far broader brush than is perhaps desireable. This is why I encourage the American Jewish community to stop looking to the rational outside observer as being functionally monolithically their enemy. Get behind (i.e. donate substantial amounts of money and throw a significant fraction of your votes towards) at least a few Jewish Tacredos or Buchanans, or it won’t end well for you. You’ll be an awfully tempting scapegoat otherwise in any such conflict, because if the faction containing me and mine prevails, it might well decide to just blame everything on ‘the Jews’ so as to minimize the amount of liquidation needed on its defeated coethnics. Ugly isn’t it? Not without historical precedent though. Moral of the story is thwarting the will of the majority of the population through manipulation, shaming, and dirty tricks only works until it doesn’t, and then it’s like uncapping a volcano. There are lots of other candidates for a great scapegoat in such a circumstance, and such a conflict isn’t even inevitable—were it put to a referendum with a level media playing field, I suspect that we’d have operation wetback II in place yesterday and at least a 10 year time out on any further immigration, and that would likely reduce the pressure enough to avoid catastrophe. Or you can continue to attempt to ride the tiger.

    • I think this is pretty reasonable. Although, how many elites aren’t our enemies? Buchanan isn’t elected to anything. Basically it’s Ron Paul and one or two other guys, maybe. Even Ron is perhaps too moderate by Moldbuggian standards.

  6. I just wanted to point out that I DO believe in an all-powerful Jewish conspiracy that is intends to take over the world… it’s called the Second Coming. Lol.

    Also, since Judaism is just a heresy that failed to accept the Christ, perhaps it’s amusing to look at it as another Christian heresy, with Jewish Christians as the real Jews. But I suppose Peter started the nomenclature by referring to “the Jews” as the unconverted Jews.

  7. Jehu says:

    Well, in the media, I’d say around 90% are our enemies. In Congress, around half of them (a majority of Democrats and a sizeable minority of Republicans). It’s harder to say in the Supreme Court, although if the Arizona law case hits it, we’ll know in a clear litmus test (on existential issues, I’m very results-oriented, it doesn’t matter WHY you rule against my interests or in favor of them, only how you ruled).

    • Wow. If you can find 10% of journalists and 40% of Congress who don’t deserve the Old Yeller treatment, you’re a better man than I!

      I think you’re using the existential issue of immigration as your litmus. I view it more as a problem of decadence in general, the decline phase of empire. Even in a zero immigration society like Japan, I would be deeply unhappy.

  8. Jehu says:

    Believe it or not, I’m a surprisingly merciful person, primarily because I’m constrained by a reactionary Christian ethic. It is only my willingness to avoid sugar-coating my positions that makes me seem not so, and the lack of obfuscation is how I honor my requirement to ‘love my enemies’—which is to say, to treat them how I’d want to be treated if I were on the other side of the fence. Like the libertarian, I try to always acknowledge ‘the gun in the room’, because I recognize that any position in law or politics is ultimately going to have to be enforced with guns & cages or threat of same. Note that the injunction to ‘Love you Enemies’ presupposes that you WILL have enemies 🙂 If I don’t view an issue as existential, I’m unlikely to go ‘Old Yeller’ on it, unless I view it as a front where my enemies are strategically weak (e.g., if their coalition has a fracture line there). I do not view societies in general as being perfectable, and prefer to avoid the necessity of ‘guns & cages’ for matters not existential.
    If I were in Japan—or if my adversaries were to abjure the use of summoning new ‘allies’ from areas and cultures threatening the demographic hegemony of me and mine (and, frankly, in many cases, of them and theirs), I’d be perfectly happy to take a very long time horizon approach to dealing with general cultural decadence. Specifically, we’d use cultural battlespace strategies like homeschooling and a vastly higher total fertility rate. Strategies, mind you, that me and mine are already employing (my wife and I will hit TFR 2 in a month or so, and hopefully 3 or even 4 before we’re done). In a few generations, as long as you’ve control over your borders, you and yours will have total hegemony. Beats the hell out of the “Day of the Rope” solution, does it not? But again I’m bound by both biology and Christianity to ensure its not me and mine that wind up swinging from said ropes (The man who does not defend his life shows contempt for the gift of life that God has given him, and the man who does not defend his own is Worse than the heathen—two very orthodox and reactionary Christian beliefs).

    • Good answer. Of course, deserving is not the same as delivering, as any good Christian knows.

      I’m not as exclusively concerned about immigration. I don’t identify with a nation or a race or even my immediate descendants. What have my children got to do with me, if they burn in hell and I go to heaven? My allegiance is to the Kingdom, and all my policy directed towards its ends. Not that I’m without natural affection for family and country and race, but if you put the blowtorch to my soul long enough, that spiritual commitment is all that will remain.

      That said, I know the difference between peak European civilization and what passes for it elsewhere and elsewhen, and it looks more like the Kingdom than anything else Earth has produced.

  9. Jehu says:

    Joseph,
    Who you identify with is far less important in the scheme of things as who the bulk of humanity identifies you with. They’ll operate on the presumption that you’re neurotypical because, 95%+ of the time, it’s an accurate assumption. And nearly all existential considerations are team sports at the bottom. My reason for my often fierce criticism of the American Jewish community is not because I wish to see them all go to the gas chambers, or turned into smoke, but rather because I see the path they’re walking now could very easily lead to that end. Once Leviathan has risen from the depths, think about the incentives of the various groups and actors. There’s a strong incentive to spare your coethnic enemies, once you’ve broken their cultural, political, and economic power. After all, some of them are probably even literal members of your own family. And at least 95% of humanity is morally moot anyway, simply following whatever code is considered socially acceptable or high status at the time. Why kill the morally unconscious? Why not simply acclimate them to your new regime? But such things involve terrific amounts of blood, and blood has always atoned for blood. People will look for a scapegoat, and I’d prefer they not logically look to the high-status, wealthy ‘evil Jews’ to heap all the wrath generated by the edifice of Progressivism upon. To avoid that, divestment from that edifice is necessary. Of course that’ll just make another group the scapegoat, but honestly speaking, I have more fellow feeling with them than with most of the other scapegoat candidates. It’d be nice if no scapegoat were required, but these are humans, mostly neurotypical humans, that we’re discussing. Hey, I’m 4x as Jewish as Hillary Clinton, and my little boy is twice as much as her (she made a big deal of 1/64 Jewish ancestry back in her Senate run).

  10. Haha, I’m 8x as Jewish as Hillary, although I’ve learned it’s not kosher to admit this around WN circles. About the only difference it makes to me is, I have word of mouth evidence that the Holocaust happened. I find it very fascinating to learn how very rational the Holocaust was to many of its perpetrators.

  11. I agree with your scapegoat point.

    It’s ironic that the very stridency of the “never again” type rhetoric in silencing and shaming the WN’s and by extension anyone who opposes immigration simply strengthens and focuses the eventual backlash.

    Or, the subconscious mind does not process a negative. “Never again” means simply, “Again.”

  12. Jehu says:

    My stepfather was with some of the units liberating some of the various camps, so I don’t dispute the the Holocaust occured, although one could dispute how many millions of people were involved or the methodology used. I understand why the WN’s like to dispute it though—I mean, given that it’s used as a club against your existential interests by people that you don’t like, and given that society as a whole has largely given up on the notion of absolute objective truth—WHY wouldn’t you try to destroy that club? Certainly the amount of play that it gets is disproprotionate to its cosmic significance, and that playrate is not an accident.
    But I concur completely on the backlash point—using it as a club against people vocalizing their existential interests is a recipe for disaster. In general, I don’t want to persuade ANYONE politically to do anything that they don’t view as being in their individual or group’s best self-interest. Experience has shown that alliances based on bamboozling someone based on some abstract principle that you imperfectly adhere to (and lets face it, not even Peter Singer consistently adheres to utilitarian universalism, the great humbug of most such arguments) end in at best tears, and more normally, blood. If something I want isn’t in your best interests, I don’t want you to help me, or feel guilty because you don’t want to help me. My argument to various groups is basically this (in terribly blunt and nonobfuscatory language):
    blacks in the US: Do you seriously think that any other group with the demographic hegemony will treat you better than me and mine would/have?
    Jews in the US: Have you taken leave of your senses (examine the actual Jew hatred in many of the demographic hegemony threatening groups)? You live or die based on the demographic hegemony of me and mine. Get in the trenches with me or I’ll have nothing to point to to save you when scapegoats are required).
    Illegal immigrants, mostly Mexicans in the US: Guess what guys, I don’t want you to support me. There’s no particular hatred involved here, I just want you guys out. In your place, I’d damn well try the same thing. We’re not enemies, just opponents. Rule your own countries, you’ll be happier that way anyway than being the minions of the SWPL overlords.
    Whites of Euro extraction: Hey boneheads, it is perfectly acceptable to take your own side in an existential issue. Wake up and get in the trenches! Your enemies have no moral standing to criticize you for defending your demographic hegemony.
    Other groups in the US (non-NAMs): Are you with us or against us? If you’re with us, great. If you’re against us, expect to be treated as enemies. Your interests lie in the continued demographic hegemony of the white Euro in the US, since the notion that one of your groups might be the new hegemon is laughable at best.

  13. Hah, well nobody will confuse your approach with the seething fella over at Cambria Will Not Yield. I tend to look at the crime and voting record, plus the likelihood of any such message being heard, and take things with a less equananimus temper. About all I can say is that, those who are already citizens, should continue to enjoy the rights of citizens. But perhaps I run afoul of Foseti’s formalism there, and Moldbugs constitution burning. Ah well, it’s not a problem I have the power to solve, and therefore I needn’t arrive at a solution. Instinct is more important than specific programs, anyway. E.g., if we appointed Derbyshire dictator for life, things would quickly get set aright.

  14. Jehu says:

    Oh, make no mistake. I’m fully confident that my work in warning the elites will largely fall on deaf ears and that a major effusion of blood will be in the offing. Leviathan will not awaken until He must use outrageously brutal means to regain His hegemony. More’s the pity. By attempting to awaken him as early as possible, I hope to minimize his demanded blood sacrifice.

  15. Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future. Does resisting the decline lessen its pain, or prolong it? Perhaps a good push clean over the cliff is better than a scrabbling, tumbling slide.

  16. Jehu says:

    Indeed predictions are hard, and life always contains a lot of pain, no two ways about it. But I’ve gathered my thoughts into something that might be encouraging to my fellow reactionaries.
    http://chariotofreaction.blogspot.com/2010/10/reactionary-plan-for-victory.html
    Caution: it’s in the Moldbug weight class for length.

  17. JL says:

    My stepfather was with some of the units liberating some of the various camps, so I don’t dispute the the Holocaust occured,

    If your stepfather was an American, he did not participate in the liberation of any camp where systematic mass murder had occurred. Nevertheless, due to widespread starvation towards the end of the war, the conditions in those camps were murderous, too.

  18. Jehu says:

    JL,
    My stepfather passed away a few years ago, so I can’t question him in detail about his experiences. He did make fairly frequent reference to how emaciated the folks they liberated from various camps though—usually in hyperbolic comparison to my little half-brother (who was ridiculously thin at the time, primarily because he just wouldn’t eat)—i.e.—we freed a bunch of guys that look better than you.
    Curiously enough though, he ended the war with his greatest dislike not for Germans or Italians, but rather for Russians and Hungarians, who really disgusted him with their treatment of conquered civilians and prisoners respectively.

  19. icr says:

    Curiously enough though, he ended the war with his greatest dislike not for Germans or Italians, but rather for Russians and Hungarians, who really disgusted him with their treatment of conquered civilians and prisoners respectively.

    At the end of the war Hungary was under Soviet occupation, so the Hungarians of that time would of course been under de facto Soviet control.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: