Posted under Immigration & Political Correctness & Survival of the West & Western Civilization
FOX News covers them here. Check out this bit of Cultural Marxism.
Those opposed to YWC say its message teeters on hate speech and has no place at institutions of higher learning.
“‘Western’ is a veiled term that means ‘white,’” University of North Carolina graduate student Tyler Oakley wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. “I believe that our democracy is strong enough to allow extreme forms of speech, but YWC’s message is essentially a negative one, an assault on not being white or non-Western, and is therefore hateful, if not blatant hate speech.”
So is it safe to assume that Mr. Oakley condemned all the black people who were celebrating the election of Obama simply because he is black? Somehow, I think not.
And catch this not so veiled threat.
“We’re definitely monitoring them,” said SPLC spokewoman Heidi Beirich. “We will look at them for hate group status.”
Oh no! Not the dreaded “hate group” status. Does Heidi have any idea what a clown she is?
Keep up the good work YWC. You are making the right enemies.
fellist on 30 Apr 2009 at 3:09 pm #
Tyler Oakley wrote… “but YWC’s message is essentially a negative one, an assault on not being white or non-Western, and is therefore hateful, if not blatant hate speech.”
Oh, the irony. The test for YWC is how aggressively it counters this kind of attack. Its figurehead Tancredo tends to go to pieces, can the YWC find some balls?
Captainchaos on 30 Apr 2009 at 6:24 pm #
The preservation of cultural artifacts is not more important than the preservation of our European blood; no more so than the figure painting of your child is more important to you than the child itself.
Tancredo says it isn’t about race, Marcus Epstein (in fact he is a hybrid of two peoples whose interests it is decidedly not in for Whites to strive for a life that is exclusively for their own people) is not even White. What a sad little charade.
Weaver on 30 Apr 2009 at 9:24 pm #
Captain,
you’ve founded a better organisation?
Captainchaos on 30 Apr 2009 at 9:36 pm #
Nope, how ’bout you, Weaver? Don’t tell me your betting the farm on this nag, lol!
Filmer on 30 Apr 2009 at 10:04 pm #
What do you suggest brainiac, the American Nazi Party? Linder has an organization for you doesn’t he?
I agree with fellist. Such blatant Cultural Marxism, that invoking the West is in and of itself hateful, needs to be met with a forceful response.
Captainchaos on 30 Apr 2009 at 11:37 pm #
Filmer, I have a 132 IQ, do you? Okay then. Now, just precisely what is “Cultural Marxism”? It is the marriage of Classical Marxism and psychoanalysis which seeks to first deconstruct the cultural superstructure upon which is alleged stands upon, and is the product of, the current economic structure. Why the marriage, why the shift in emphasis? Because, the White working-class let down Classical Marxists in their stubborn adherents to the superstructure; which amounted to blindly obstinate allegiance to their exploitative co-ethnics. So, depth of psychological understanding was need to figure out just why this was, and how it was, so it could be dismantled, so the revolution could be brought to fruition; so the wealth and means of production could be pryed from the hands of White elites and redistributed. So it is alleged.
In actuality is was nothing more than a tribal war of ethically conscious Jews, consciously pursuing Jewish interests, to enhance their people’s power by weakening the group cohesion of their main competitor. How were they able to accomplish it? By, aside from Whites’ evolved low level of ethnocentricism, high indoctrinability, high levels of individualism, the high level of an ability to experience guilt for transgressing social norms, Jews vigorously suppressed a materialistic, scientific understanding of groups and group competition for a cultural one, and proceeded to do battle on the field of their choice; which was culture.
You see, so long as that remains the case we will always lose, because Jews are more talented at swimming around in the miasma of verbiage in which terms culture is expressed. The culture is what they say it is, their attacks can reference whatever has the patina of plausibility as a cultural description.
But Cultural Marxism has now significantly been wedded to neo-liberalism. Given that, what will they say?
‘We want to preserve Western culture. It is not about race, which is a social construct, it is about culture. Any person from around the world can come to the West, adopt our culture, inter-marry and we will be strengthened. Only racists talk about discriminating against other people based on the color of their skin. What does it matter if light skin is preserved? What’s that? You say you have irrefutable scientific evidence which refutes the idea of the equal potential of all peoples? We will hear none of it! That is racist! Racism leads to Auschwitz!’
And bah, bah, bah the sheep will go.
Do you see my point?
Weaver on 01 May 2009 at 1:20 am #
CC,
120 is only the average for grad school. Not to say 132 isn’t respectable if tested at your school or by some reliable group when young, but I would expect Filmer to fall at about the same IQ lvl. Regardless, the score itself doesn’t measure whether a person has achieved his potential (e.g. he might have an ego that holds him back).
Weaver on 01 May 2009 at 1:54 am #
MacDonald said it’s not usually conscious, and to obsess over only Jews is to miss the whole picture.
More likely their recent success has been due to their cultural strength and belief that they’re constantly threatened. This is not seen among European Christians.
I’ve quoted Solzhenitsyn several times here in the past:
—
You write:
This is merely a theory based on very recent data. Considering how ethnocentric Germans and Celts are thought to have been, I’m very doubtful. You talk of culture but seem to believe genetics direct all rather than only part.
This seems to be true in your case. You’re not even Christian, though of course you reject the last 2000 years of European civilisation and the culture shaped by Europeans because you believe Jews, who were viewed as outsiders during most of this time, somehow designed Christianity to corrupt Euro pagans whose various beliefs we’ve only retained bits and pieces where at all. Christianity does not promote Babel.
Captainchaos on 01 May 2009 at 1:57 am #
If I believed I was dealing with drooling morons I would not bother. It is just that I have to so consistently hammer home the same points when the evidence which supports my contentions is GLARING. High intelligence, which is necessary to comprehend the evidence, and flesh out its implications, is meaningless without the courage to accept it; much less do something about it.
Yet Andrew T. is still stuck on 4 million, officially reduced to 1.1 million, which supposedly still leaves him with 6 million, of which the alleged 4 million (now reduced) was a part. So: 6 – 2.9 = 6
LOL!
Incorrect change.
Weaver on 01 May 2009 at 2:05 am #
Or if blinded by a vast ego that shelters it from contrary information.
A real strength of Christianity is it encourages humility. Even if you don’t believe in the religion of your ancestors, you might benefit from their ethos.
Weaver on 01 May 2009 at 2:15 am #
Regardless, you’re missing the overall issue with YWC.
It’s not that I think you’re not intelligent, but you’ve likely misclassified what YWC is. I say “likely” because I can only judge YWC from second and third hand comments.
From your view, you’re right to be concerned. But you’re standing upon an assumption that you fear only you’ve realised (no one else sees it). It could be that your assumption is correct (though I assure you is seen by others), but you’re really dealing with a probability that is less than 100%.
Harold Crews on 01 May 2009 at 11:43 am #
Captain it really isn’t necessary to repeat yourself around here. I’m fairly sure that we understood your arguments the first time you made them. Probably most of the folks are reasonably intelligent and have the ability to grasp your arguments. The simple fact of the matter is that we are not ignorant of your arguments. We just don’t accept them as valid. And it is pointless to attempt to refute an obsessive. Apply some of that brain power and grasp the fact that you are simply making a nusiance of yourself and are just wasting your time.
Good job you have spoken what you believe to be true and of utmost importance. Just depart and shake the dust from your jackboots as you leave. Content yourself that in a few years time when the Great Race War has started you can be consoled that you tried to tell us.
fellist on 01 May 2009 at 2:21 pm #
CC, is Marcus Epstein involved with YWC?
If he is, Weaver, what kind of ‘Western identity’ can such an organisation have? Surely, only one absolutely alien from the historic ‘Western identity’?
Weaver, what about the National Policy Institure and the Charles Martel Society? And there was once a ‘National European American Students Union’ which dared to get to the real issue:
http://web.archive.org/web/19970606162242/http://www.sure.net/~esu/
****Welcome to the E.S.U.
Here you will find a site anti nothing, but totally PRO: Promoting an awareness and preservation of the exclusively European roots of our Country, and to assist all Euro-Americans in learning more about their cultural legacy, on all levels. We strive to inform students about relevant issues. We foster instilling pride in who we are and our descent. The European peoples of the World–whatever their origins, wherever their domiciles–constitute ONE Cultural Nation: an existential UNITY. There is great variety within this UNITY, and we intend to make these variations better known, be they from Northern, Southern, Western or Eastern Europe. We stand ready to help each Euro-American student in finding and understanding his personal roots, and achieving greater awareness for that of his fellows. We believe every race, every ethnic group should be proud of its unique history and heritage; but no American, whatever his origins, should ever forget that he resides in a country which was formed by men of wisdom and vision, who were all transplanted Europeans, with no intention of compromising their European identity one iota.
Statement of Purpose!
1. We will strive to create a better understanding of equal rights for all ethnic groups. We believe compensatory discrimination is reflective of the lack of objective thought applied to social issues.
2. We will provide an open forum for Euro-American students to discuss relevant issues. We believe in freedom of speech, freedom of expression. The best way to arrive at the Truth is through the unfettered exchange of diverse views.
3. We will promote an expanded awareness of European and Euro-American ethnic traditions and cultures, including often overlooked pre-Christian ideals, as we still believe strongly in them! The pernicious effects of Multi-Culturalism, which we totally reject, has driven the myths, legends, and culturally formative studies from the classroom. We intend to restore this Pan-European legacy.
4. We will foster hosting personalities, to supplement our activities, at universities and colleges. These invitees will enrich our studies, adding their unique presentations and performances for the consideration of all, and add to the Diversity and Learning Environment of each school.
5. We will act to promote dignity and pride among all students. The best way to do this is to foster a strong sense of self-identity: “Know Thyself!” was inscribed above the portals of the Temple of Apollo. This ancient wisdom applies to every ethic group. All mankind must have ample opportunity to learn about and be proud of its unique identity, history and cultural legacy. ***
Harold Crews, your talk of jackboots and obsessiveness rather lends credence to CC’s claims. Your refusal to refute him doesn’t help.
Captainchaos on 01 May 2009 at 6:12 pm #
Harold,
If you don’t see the absolute necessity of preserving our race it is not that you merely disagree, it is that you truly don’t get it. So I guess in your opinion Weaver’s head is not exposed to the breeze, but elsewhere placed. Swell.
Fellist,
Keep up the good work.
Weaver,
Have that much needed chat with Harold.
Captainchaos on 01 May 2009 at 6:18 pm #
Fellist,
Marcus Epstein is one of the founders of YWC, and no doubt its driving personality. Why is it that the Jews feel the need to manipulate every little twitch of the goyim? Even ‘Korean Jews’, this is indeed discouraging.
Filmer on 01 May 2009 at 7:23 pm #
You two are true boneheads. A person can not be a PC, Cultural Marxist, racial denialist without thinking that someone’s ethnic heritage is the be all and end all. Even from your racial preservationist standpoint what the heck does Marcus Epstein’s race have to do with the mission of YWC? Marcus Epstein is a friend of mine and this site. He has done more for fighting PC (VDARE, Lew Rockwell, The American Cause, the John Taft Club, etc.) than you two boneheads can ever dream of doing writing racial reductionist screeds on websites you manage not to get booted off of. And Marcus’s ethnic background makes him all the more courageous for doing so. Only whites can promote sanity?
For the record, Kevin DeAnna is behind YWC. I don’t think Marcus has anything to do with it.
Harold Crews on 01 May 2009 at 10:07 pm #
If the Captain can’t be characterized as an obsessive I don’t think anyone can. Not being obsessive myself I don’t much care what people think. I’m not going to waste my time to refute him. He claims he has never been beaten in a debate or argument. Such hubris won’t allow an admission of being bested. Further the simple fact of the matter is that he and I disagree fundamentally on ultimates. For the Captain the purpose of his life is the survival or even dominance of the white race. As a Christian for me the purpose of life is to know, love and serve God in this life and to be happy with Him forever in the next. How on earth could we possibly debate. He and I speak different languages.
The man openly admires Hitler, if that doesn’t make him a jackboot what on earth would?
My comments on his obsessiveness and “wearing” jackboots (if only metaphorically) lend credence to his claims?! What sort of non sequitur is that. Now if you’re saying he claims that people don’t agree with him to his satisfaction, I concede that. But I do not accept that because people don’t share his obsession that he must try all the harder to convince us to adopt it.
Weaver on 02 May 2009 at 3:19 am #
Fellist,
that’s the first I’ve heard of that group. I very much like the approach of emphasising roots and heritage without animosity.
Epstein is fairly classically liberal, but he doesn’t at all come across as deceptive but rather honest and tolerant of the far right. He’d probably allow folks to decide for themselves such issues.
-
Were the ESU competing with YWC, that would be one thing. But it seems like YWC is a better alternative to Republican groups, liberal Christian groups, and left wing groups. When I was in school: there was nothing even approaching ESU. I’d debate politics in the dorm halls (often me against the entire hall until they got to know me), but there was nothing like YWC. I would have loved to join something like that as a student, especially since I wouldn’t have to fear punishment.
However… at the same time, the fear of the “group’s reputation” can lead people to alter their true stances. Perhaps I’d have dropped my stubborn pro-South and “homo is a mental disorder” views which frequently did get me in light trouble no matter how nicely I politely I answered (There are a lot of homos at some schools…).
CC is thinking YWC and the various paleo groups are competitors to his view, but that’s only true to a limited point. In reality there are a lot of common goals, so he shouldn’t seek to undermine these related groups even if he chooses to found separate ones and continues to view the rest of us as ultimately (in the long term) his enemies.
There are front groups similar to how Searchlight operates in Britain and similar to how the UKIP and English Democrats were founded as a controllable safety value alternative to the BNP.
But YWC is not such a case. These are not closet communists.
It’s good to be wary, but be sure not to be offensive. As I told CC before: you don’t want to make enemies. That’s akin to Bush occupying Iraq to “prevent terrorists” while actually creating blow back.
fellist on 02 May 2009 at 10:52 am #
Harold Crews, it seems to me that CC’s position accomodates yours. If your Christianity can accomodate ethnic nationalism what’s the problem? To paraphrase Wise Weaver, were White Nationalism (which after all is basically pre-1965 America) competing with Christianity, that would be one thing. But it seems like White Nationalism (or pre-1965 America) is a better alternative to the present and future America where Whites alone forego racial politics and consequently are systematically victimised and disposessed*.
Admiring Hitler for his good qualities seems rather Christian to me. To deny his good qualities, or suggest anyone who admits Hitler wasn’t all bad is therefore a jackbooted Nazi seems not very Christian. I mean no offense.
Filmer, * it is that crucial racial battle which YWC ought to take up. Can Epstein do it on our behalf? Perhaps he can – and perfectly sincerely too. But why shouldn’t Whites *as Whites* defend themselves? That’s all I’m proposing, and to me it seems eminently reasonable and much more just. The only racial determinists in this debate are those who say Whites *should not* defend themselves as such. Are you on the right side of the argument, Filmer?
Also, if you’re right – and I certainly agree we need some courageous leadership, doesn’t it follow that we should positively discriminate in favour of Jews and Koreans to defend the West? Won’t they be our most courageous leaders? Perhaps we could outsource the defence of ‘Western Identity’ to Korea and Israel if they do it so much better?
Weaver, I agree about emphasising roots and heritage without animosity. But Epstein’s classical liberalism (I’ll take your word on that – I can’t remember a single article of his read, and I’ve read quite a few)is only marginally less corrosive of roots and heritage than modern liberalism. The first led inevitably to the second. Certain tenets of classical liberalism provide a useful strategic advantage to traditionalists in the current struggles: freedoms of speech and association particularly, but they also provide for the ‘controllable safety valve’ and re-routing of more stubborn cattle. Yes, good to be wary.
You and I seem to be more on the Francis/ Buchanan wing than is Filmer, say, and it’s to his great credit that Epstein is associated with Buchanan. But wouldn’t it make more sense, especially if Epstein is influential at YWC, to have Buchanan spearhead the thing? Tancredo is a rather confused and inarticulate man, especially when it comes to the issues YWC focuses on. Buchanan in contrast is not only clear and convincing, he’s also a fighter.
Weaver on 02 May 2009 at 2:32 pm #
Epstein leans towards classical liberalism more than you or I do. I dunno his exact stances. He’s not a fool liberal, and like most intelligent thinkers he doesn’t easily fall into a category – as far as I can tell…
He writes here at VDARE:
I’d love to see Buchanan at the helm, but he’s probably busy with other things.
Here Epstein all but defends racial differences in IQ
-
Here he writes:
Epstein seems to have supported Tancredo.
Here:
-
And here he’s made the case I’ve been struggling to make that Jews ought to be restricting immigration too:
A recent related article on Steinlight, albeit not by Epstein.
Weaver on 02 May 2009 at 2:38 pm #
You won’t find any mainstream conservatives taking such stances, and you won’t find many young activists anywhere who are so talented and motivated either.
fellist on 05 May 2009 at 10:33 am #
Thank you for the research on ME, Weaver.
I’m sure Epstein is correct that Jewish power could influence the immigration debate for the better, just as it transformed the debate for the worse during the 20th century. But Steinlight’s own testimony suggests Jews probably won’t play ball, and for exactly the reasons CC has claimed: they don’t like us and so support mass-immigration in order to reduce our political power. That Steinlight is better than most Jews on the subject of patriotic immigration reform says much. He’s a quite ghastly man with an unconcealed hatred of historic America (and Europe) and its majority population.
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol2no1/jf-steinlight.html
Nor do I doubt that support for Kirkean/ early Buckleyite conservatism came principally from racially conscious Whites responding to the betrayal of country’s racial-nationalist history. But I’m not sure this betrayal and other cultural changes were a result of the old establishment abandoning its values. More likely it was a result of all the important sites of cultural influence having already passed into the hands of an emerging new establishment openly hostile to the old elite and its values.
You probably own a copy of Gottfried’s ‘Conservatism in America’ and on pages 31/ 32 you can find his description of the neoconservatives’ capture of the conservative movement. Pretty much the same thing happened to every influential American movement and institution as happened to conservatism, regardless of whether it was a mainly Protestant or Catholic interest. The conservative invasion of body snatchers is unusual only for occurring at such a late date:
****
quote: The neoconservatives who took over the American establishment Right resisted the “conservative” label before eventually having it thrust on them. Throughout the seventies and into the eighties, they made distinctions between themselves as Harry Truman and Scoop Jackson Democrats and Zionists and the older American Right. Although by the present century they had come to consider themselves the only proper conservatives and to treat anyone to their right as an “extremist,” this was not always their attitude. The older generation of neoconservatives had winced at the term “conservative” for its alleged association with the nativist or anti–New Deal Right; only when they were able to impose their dominant values and policies did this initial distaste turn into an eager acceptance of their conferred identity.
This development owed little or nothing to the intellectual maturation of the newly minted conservatives. In truth, personnel no less than value orientation changed as urban, Jewish, erstwhile Democratic proponents of the welfare state took over a conservative movement that had been largely in the hands of Catholic, pro-McCarthy and (more or less) anti–New Deal Republicans. /quote
*****
The transformation of ‘values’ such as happened anywhere in American life was generally preceded by just this change of management ‘personnel’.
RonL on 06 May 2009 at 7:25 am #
Fellist,
Kevin MacDonald, or as I like to call him Captain Ahab PHD, once again makes a fool of himself conflating “Jewish” and “neoconservative” in a conspiracy.
While neoconservatives who moved to the right certainly reshaped (and not all for the better) the institutions they joined and many did try to weed out antisemitism, the idea that National Review and the fusionist conservative movement was Koshered is laughable. Frank Chodorov, Frank Straus Meyer, and Bill Buckley created Fusion Conservatism. Only one of these was born Catholic. 5 of the original writers for National Review were Jewish or born Jewish.
Also, MacDonald just cannot concieve of gentles supporting Israel on their own. He is emotionally incapable of comprehending the reasons why many conservatives began to support Israel (or rather joined with those who did from the beginning. The simple fact is that many of the founders of the US were proto-Zionists.)
1. Israel had become a a Cold War ally. The USSR instigated the Arab attacks in 1967, which led to Israel’s overwhelming response. The October War of 1973 simply cannot be divorced from the Cold War.
2. Israel had become pariah to the left, starting with their refusal to become communist leading to a resumption of official Soviet anti-Jewish policies, as well as the Third Worldist and New Left responses to the 1967 war and later the Intefadah.
3. There are millions of Christian Theological Zionists, most of whom are conservative.
4. Israel moved to the right. For its first 30 years, Israel was dominated by Labour coalitions. Since 1977, the Likud coalition of nationalists, free marketers, religious nationalists, religious traditionalists, and anti-elitist populists have led many coalition governments. Today, the three largest parties in Israel (Kadima, Likud, and Israel Our Home) are all heirs of the original Likud. In fact if you add the former Likud or otherwise REvisionist Zionist members from National Union and Jewish Home, there are 73 Members of the Knesset, an absolute majority. Today there are another 7 religious traditionalists on the right, leading to a 2/3 majority (80 of 120) on the “right” as defined in 1977.
5. The Global international Jihads.
CaptainChaos,
It is so quaint to see someone with an IQ a full standard deviation below me flaunt his “intelligence”. It must infuriate you that over 10% of those with an IQ higher than yours are Jewish, and even more if you go back 3 generations.
Resentment and grievence are sad things. They make people think and act irrationaly, against individual and group interest. And it is grievence not some evolutionary conspiracy that drives the modern left, as well as Jewish suicide. Social liberalism and all its derivatives are literally destroying Jews. American Jews are literally not reproducing. Despite immigration from Eastern Europe, there are fewer Jews in America today than in 1970.
Weaver on 06 May 2009 at 4:28 pm #
Yea, that’s most likely. But it’s possible that won’t happen.
I only had time to skim the article for now, but it sounds like he’s only interested in ensuring Jews remain as an elite.
That doesn’t mean interests won’t overlap though. It’s truly in Jewish interests to reduce immigration right now. Even if those same people fear a Gentile elite might capture their power, a reduction is the lesser of the threats, though rational behavior shouldn’t be expected from man.
I read enough of the article to see Steinlight is a shocking hypocrite, haha. That’s just how politics is I guess.
I’ll be sure to finish it shortly.
Weaver on 06 May 2009 at 4:42 pm #
I should say what’s most likely is some Jews will shift to support immigration reduction and most will not, with the majority continuing to favour mass immigration until the threat becomes more obvious.
-
Your concern is that Jews will capture and misdirect a movement, and it’s justified. I’m doubtful Epstein is personally a threat though.
There’s more to that than Jews and other out-groups. I probably don’t need to add this, but just in case: Sam Francis’s comments are a good intro to the managerial state in this book review by Francis: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt.
Weaver on 06 May 2009 at 7:43 pm #
Very interesting:
Yea, this is something I’ve noticed too. It’s frequently said the greatest threat to Judaism is amalgamation.
Salter’s universal nationalism would reduce this threat. However this would also undermine Jewish power, though that’s inevitable whatever the future course of the US.
-
This is likely strategic maneuvering. He fears white Christians will capture Jewish elite power:
This is likely maneuvering as well:
This has no chance of continuing. It’s an historical fluke, nothing more:
The concern should be what the best future is, not how to maintain that which cannot be maintained.
-
This is a real shame:
Hopefully this will change.
LA is a Christian Jew/Hebrew at least, and the VDARE article (linked to earlier) suggests Steinlight has enjoyed some success since the TOQ article was written.
-
Does Steinlight carry enough weight for this? He’s only one man.:
Weaver on 07 May 2009 at 11:08 am #
I’d like to see a structure built where Ashkenazi Jews see themselves as part of Europe. That could allow for a similar society RonL seems to wish for too.
Steinlight is interested in the reverse structure applying to Gentiles where we all identify with Jews and give them special status, but this structure is not durable due to mass immigration and the fading of the Holocaust as well as the rise of the Internet.
-
Interesting that he uses mysticism similar to Anglo-Saxon mysticism used during the British Empire. Quote:
The high intelligence though only applies to Ashkenazim (European), and the high morals he refers to would be with regard to the Civil Rights movement and stuff like that which the structure I’d prefer would view as immoral…
His extreme “us v. them” without any distinguishing among the “them” is very similar to Captain Chaos, really. The two are one and the same in spirit.
I’m not nearly as dual moral, though obviously I prefer loved ones and have attachments. My lack of dual morality would be seen as a weakness by both CC and Steinlight…
fellist on 08 May 2009 at 2:34 pm #
Ron Lewenberg, I quoted Paul Gottfried not Kevin Macdonald. You may pretend to believe that conservatism wasn’t ‘koshered’ but men with a ringside seat have disagreed. One paleo at the centre of the battle wrote, in terminologically perfect opposition to you:
—- The situation changed somewhat when many Jewish intellectuals, upset by liberal criticism of Israel, became what were called “neoconservatives.” This term implied no deep adherence to conservative principles, but only the adoption of a few ad hoc principles useful to Zionism, with no basic departure from New Deal liberalism insofar as it was useful to Zionism. “Neoconservatism” was really a sort of “kosher” conservatism. —-
Another wrote:
— I wish they would have stayed at their former level of dangerous stupidity and disfiguring mishegas and would not have continued to slide downward. The goyim are so much their moral as well as professional captives that no matter what John and Norman [Podhoretz] do, they will find a multitude of fellow travellers. —
Moral and professional captives. Sums it up nicely. But this conservative writer must know that the ‘capture’ of the conservative power-centres came long after the capture of financial, media, elite university, and liberal power-centres.
Out of interest, what are ‘mishegas,’ Ron? Oh, the first quotation is Sobran and the second is Gottfried again.
The days when neoconservatism’s Jewish character was admitted publicly only by the brave few like Macdonald, Sobran, and Gottfried are gone. More and more people are prepared to state this obvious truth post-Mearsheimer and Walt.
Two Jewish writers to have acknowledged neoconservativism’s explicitly Jewish origins and motivations are Jacob Heilbrunn, a by no means unfriendly biographer of the neocons, and Philip Weiss of the mondoweiss blog. Here is Weiss reviewing Heilbrunn’s book:
— Heilbrunn achieves one important chore: a forthright social narrative of the neocons as a Jewish movement. Tracing ideological currents in the Jewish community from the 1940s to the 1970s, Heilbrunn, a journalist who himself flirted with neoconservatism, describes how the neocons were propelled by resentments against WASP elites—the men who had ignored the Holocaust, they felt, and “frozen out” Jews from the establishment. It would be hard to overemphasize Heilbrunn’s accomplishment. There has been endless prevarication about the fact that neoconservatism is an element of the Jewish experience, even from liberal Jews. Yet Heilbrunn will have none of it. He says that neoconservatism is “intimately linked with the memory of the Holocaust and the allies’ failure to save the Jews during the war” and notes that a “peculiar amalgam of intellectual rigor and ethnic resentment … lies at the heart of the neoconservative outlook.”
And here’s the topper: a “lifelong antipathy toward the patrician class among the neocons … prompted them to create their own parallel establishment.”
The neocons didn’t like Kissinger because he was hofjude, “a court jew of the WASP foreign policy establishment.” They didn’t like Zbig Brzezinski because he was Polish and the neocons suspected him of Pale-era anti-semitism.
Boiling resentment meant very little without a political program. The neocons got that in the late 1960s. And not surprisingly, the issues had a Jewish character. “With the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem, the 1967 war, and the rise of black anti-Semitism in the United States, neoconservatism was born,” Heilbrunn writes. So now Brzezinski was resented because he was against the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and McGeorge Bundy because he wanted to push Israel to make a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Neoconservative ideas might have been confined to small magazines, but the neocons stunned themselves in the 1970s by gaining traction in American political life—through the offices of Washington Sen. Henry Jackson (whom a Saudi ambassador called “more Jewish than the Jews”). With Jackson’s support, the neocons staged their first great victory, pressuring the Soviet Union to free Jews. After Daniel Patrick Moynihan won his New York Senate seat with “strong Jewish support” in 1976, the neocons had a second home.
At that time, of course, they were Democrats. Martin Peretz, the once leftwing editor of The New Republic, was so shaken by the Left’s friendliness to the Palestinians, that he provided access in his pages to hawks, and became “a major force in the mainstreaming of neoconservative ideas.” Douglas Feith, an architect of the Iraq disaster, tells Heilbrunn, “I grew up in a liberal Democratic Jewish household.” Again Israel was key. At the age of 15, two years into the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Feith wrote a precocious letter to the New York Times attacking the State Department policy in the Middle East. “It is appalling the State Department can be so blind to historical precedent as to call for a withdrawal from the captured area.” Captured, not occupied.
Israel-centrism made the neocons lousy wardheelers. They turned against Jimmy Carter on foreign policy, and so helped to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. Not one to slight the power of his subjects, Heilbrunn says that had they not spurned Carter, he might have been re-elected. Neocons came back to the Dems in 1992, again over Israel. George H.W. Bush—“a scion of the WASP establishment”—was “acting like Jimmy Carter when it came to Israel.” Knocking off the Soviet Union gave the neocons a sense of hubris that would doom their ideas about Iraq. — endquote
I would also recommend Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s latest book, the fittingly titled ‘The Transparent Cabal’ (foreword by that busy bee Dr. Gottfried) which devotes a chapter to proving the obvious – Neoconservatism is a Jew thing. And, since you brought him up, Kevin Macdonald’s essay on the issue, linked here:
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol4no2/km-understandIII.html
If your rebuttal of his analysis convinces anybody I worry for them. I don’t even see the relevance of your comments.
Alternatively, we could go straight to the horse’s mouth. The principal interest of the movement’s principal philosophical influence is quite open: “I believe I can say, without any exaggeration, that since a very very early time the main theme of my reflections has been what is called the ‘Jewish Question.’” ~ Leo Strauss, “Why We Remain Jews: Can Jewish Faith and History Still Speak to Us?”
fellistfellist on 08 May 2009 at 2:45 pm #
Weaver, if you would like to see a to see ‘a structure built where Ashkenazi Jews see themselves as part of Europe’ – and assuming you are not prepared to permit a structure which discriminates against your own people – aren’t you arguing for the dismantling of Israel (not to mention the rather more important matter of Europe’s and the West’s historic identity)?
One of Chesterton’s periodic Jew-related scandals arose because he defended an Orthodox Jewish banker’s decision to stipulate in his will that his heirs could only draw the moolah as long as they remained loyal to Orthodox Judaism. It’s this rigourous demand for authenticity – for us, for them, for every glorious variety of human life – that makes Chesterton so good, AND what makes Jews and other moderns ‘morally and financially captured’ by them despise him (hat-tip to Prof. Gottfried).
CaptainChaos is consistent: ethnic-homelands for all. Steinlight and Lewenberg are inconsistent: they demand a Jewish state to which we have no claim, but also demand free and equal access to our countries. It ain’t CC who’s the racist.
***
I am viewing this page in internet explorer and the left-most few digits of the thread text does not appear. This just me?