I'd been seeing the name of national security expert Edward Luttwak for decades, but until I read David Samuels' interview with him in Tablet I had no idea what a fun interview he is. Luttwak conceives of himself as a cross between Henry Kissinger and Jack Bauer of 24: Talleyrand and Rambo, combined. He interrupts the interview for phone calls in fluent Italian and Korean. (How many people in the world speak Italian and Korean?) He would make a good supervillain in a big budget movie. The only thing that would make this interview better is if at the end, Luttwak shot somebody in the knee to make him talk.
David Samuels, by the way, is one of the most consistently interesting feature magazine journalists in the country. I hope he achieves a breakout into name recognition like Michael Lewis has.
Here's a segment on Israel that's very Peter Turchinish:
But without Israel, there would be no Palestinian nation for Palestinian leaders to lead. So, it's all part of the Great Cycle of Life and everybody is happy (or at least the politicians have jobs).
Here's a segment on Israel that's very Peter Turchinish:
Q. Do you think the cost of the violence and other social ills that come out of the [Arab-Israeli] stalemate you are describing is something Israeli society can easily afford, or do you think there is any alternative to it?
A. I’m not sure it’s a cost.
Q. Because the strategic depth that it affords and the control over those borders is more important?
A. Listen, ... Israel’s success as a state has been made possible by Arab threats of different kinds. Arab violence or threats of violence are part of the Israeli soup. There are certain levels of violence that are so high that they’re damaging, and there are also levels that are so low they are damaging. There is an optimum level of the Arab threat. I would say for about nine days of the 1973 war, the level of violence was much too high. Even when Israelis were successful, the level of violence was destroying the tissue of the state. Most of the time, the violence is positive.
Q. When you say that the effects of Arab violence are positive, you mean that they generate social cohesion inside Israel?
A. Lenin taught, “Power is mass multiplied by cohesion.” Arab violence generates Jewish cohesion. Cohesion turns mass into power. Israel has had very small mass, very high cohesion. If only the Palestinians understood that, they would have attacked the Jews with flowers.
But without Israel, there would be no Palestinian nation for Palestinian leaders to lead. So, it's all part of the Great Cycle of Life and everybody is happy (or at least the politicians have jobs).
Posts
113 comments:
That was fascinating and insightful, and an entertaining read to boot. Thanks for sharing it.
wow... great find!
"it will take centuries before they catch up with the instinctive political understanding that any ordinary Englishman has" hahaha
There are several interviews of Luttwak by Harry Kreisler available on Youtube. I'd recommend them, too.
"But without Israeli oppression, there would be no Palestinian nation for Palestinian leaders to lead. So, it's all part of the Great Cycle of Life and everybody is happy."
For almost 20 years -- from 1967 until the mid-1980s -- there was no Israeli oppression (or repression) of Palestinians. You could drive from inside Israel's pre-1967 borders to historical sites like Jericho in the West Bank with few if any security barriers. You could stop in a Palestinian shop, and the people wouldn't be hostile. The Palestinians were obviously poorer than Israelis, but had a higher quality of life than Arabs in nearby states.
In short, there was peace between Israel and the average Palestinian. The outlets for Palestinian nationalism weren't in West Bank protests but in airplane hijackings, etc., so that's where Israel's security focus was. But that sort of terrorism started to become a political loser for the PLO and other groups in the mid-1980s, particularly when Americans were among the casualties.
The first Intifada was a brilliant paradigm shift by the PLO: instead of terrorists in ski masks brutalizing unarmed airline passengers, the face of Palestinian nationalism became unarmed teens throwing rocks at heavily armed Israeli police and soldiers.
Then came the checkpoints and security barriers that clamped down on freedom of movement in the West Bank, and the rest is history. But that was all a response to the intifada. There wasn't any oppression to speak of prior to then.
Thanks for the pointer Steve.
Luttwak is one of the very few people who has enough respect for history to actually listen to it instead of just wishing it away. Here he is on counterinsurgency:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081384
Just imagine a country governed by grown-ups, that in 2007 had either done what's necessary or had accepted it's not willing to do this and stayed home.
I am Lugash.
He sounds like a proponent of strategia della tensione used in Italy. And he speaks Italian. Operation Gladio?
I am Lugash.
Interesting analysis by Luttwak. I do remember seeing him on CNN during the first Gulf War saying that under no circumstances should the US do a ground invasion to free Kuwait, because it would result in tens of thousands of American deaths. He was wrong on that. So, he is intriguing but I'm not sure his analysis is always right.
Plenty o Luttwak links right here.
Perhaps my TV viewing habits changed but I recall Luttwak getting a lot of air time in the pre-Clinton era. He was all over the place, making pronouncements on a variety of subjects and with that accent he sounded very persuasive and so certain.
Then he disappeared for ten years, a non person.
Now I see it was his untoward and refractory honesty that caused his exile.
"I do remember seeing him on CNN during the first Gulf War saying that under no circumstances should the US do a ground invasion to free Kuwait, because it would result in tens of thousands of American deaths. He was wrong on that."
He wasn't the only one. Colin Powell, for example, was making those sorts of predictions before the war. And in fact, those predictions weren't stupid.
They were based on the assumption that we would need to resort to trench warfare to defeat the entrenched Iraqi troops who hadn't been dislodged by months of bombing. And if we fought them the usual way -- breaching trench lines, sending our troops into the trench systems -- we would have suffered those sorts of casualties.
But there was one American general, whose name I forget, who had a brilliant idea that probably saved thousands of American troops' lives: instead of fighting the Iraqis in their trenches, use armored bulldozers to bury any Iraqis that didn't retreat, by driving their own sandbags into their trenches.
Luttwak is one of the smarter guys around but he made a mistake in that interview. He told us the truth, that only 15 percent of Egyptians can impose an Islamic tyranny on the other 85 percent but he contradicts himself when it comes to Jewish influence over American foreign policy by invoking the Christian Zionuts who are pretty clearly not powerful at all (notice that on all the other issues they care about they get nothing at all done).
In my opinion, Luttwak gets this wrong in part as well. No, not the part about Jews being stupid politically, but about why they are (or at least act) politically stupid. First, Luttwak's comment, then my analysis:
QUESTION: Why are so many Jews so stupid about politics?
LUTTWAK ANSWERS: They have not had a state for 2,000 years, they have had no power or responsibility and it will take centuries before they catch up with the instinctive political understanding that any ordinary Englishman has. They don’t understand politics, and of course they confuse their friends and their enemies, and that is the ultimate political proof of imbecility.
Funny I follow the news here with my analysis:
Jews are stupid about politics because they are hostile to the nations that tolerate them or in the case of America love them. Jews have had plenty of power and responsibility within the last two thousand years, although I can see why Luttwak would want to avoid that reality.
Fred is correct. Israelis born in in the 1950's went on school field trips to the West Bank and Gaza after the Six Day War. The Palestinians were quite docile back then.
I can see why Palestinians would find this situation unacceptable and demeaning, but in any case it's not obvious that RESISTANCE TO THE JEW has been the wisest move for them.
The man is obviously persuasive and connected. How else would is wife's "sculpture" be on display?
He's right. What would Israel be without the Arab threat? Another developed country co-opted by multiculturalists.
"The first Intifada was a brilliant paradigm shift by the PLO"
Intifada was the biggest calamity for Pallies since the massive migration of Jews into Palestine.
Pallies should have opted for the MLK Trojan Horse schtick. Instead of trying to drive Jews out of West Bank and Gaza--and Israel proper!!--, Palestinians should have spoke of peace and rapprochement(like Mandela)and won the heart of world community. That way, there would have been no barriers between Israel and the occupied territories. Palestinians would have gone back and forth to work and eventually settle. Majority of Jews would have been peacenik Laborites, and the Israeli Right would have been a marginal power.
Eventually, through birthrates and demographic trends, Pallies could see them taking over all of Israel and the Occupied territories.
But Intifada gave Pallies false sense of power and all the excuse Israel needed to erect barriers and crack down hard on Pallies.
Fred is wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about. First, the 1967-mid 1980s period was marked by intense conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in Lebanon. In fact, the single worst Israeli massacre of unarmed Palestinian civilians (Sabra and Shatila) occurred smack in the middle of the period he's talking about. Second, the period of relative calm on the West Bank was marked be settlers moving into and settling on Palestinian land, which was always eventually going to lead to conflict.
Well, that neocon has got chutzpah, that's for sure.
Jews are stupid about politics because they are hostile to the nations that tolerate them or in the case of America love them.
Also, this is a straight-up anti-semitic slander. Jews assimilate within a few generations in any country where there isn't pronounced anti-semitism or formal religious separatism built into the governance structure. The wave of intermarriage among secular Jews in the U.S. is well-known. German Jews were extremely assimilated. The issue is the tendency in Western countries to use Jews as scapegoats for problems in the wider society, which leads to periodic explosions of violence. Well known examples are Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany losing WWI, but one can also see it today in certain internet types who blame The Jooz every time somebody they worry about getting mugged by a black person or get stuck behind some undocumented Hispanic in a traffic jam.
"... saying that under no circumstances should the US do a ground invasion to free Kuwait, because it would result in tens of thousands of American deaths. He was wrong on that. So, he is intriguing but I'm not sure his analysis is always right.
He was right in the long run, as we now see. Just all the deaths haven't occur within the borders of Kuwait. He seems to have a more panoramic perspective.
"Jews have had plenty of power and responsibility within the last two thousand years, although I can see why Luttwak would want to avoid that reality."
Not as open governors of their own state. Jewish political power resided in a few (numerically, few) bankers and advisors, some of whom converted to Christianity (Disraeli). Others (like the Rothschilds of course) had to hide behind fortresses of family and secrecy so that we're still arguing centuries after they hung their first shingle, about what they really do. There was power in a few Jewish hands, but not open, honest governance of their own state. That's what Luttwak means and he is correct.
Luttwak is slutwalk as intellectualism.
well this makes him worth the price of admission should he ever demand such:
Luttwak on Kissinger, "I know him personally very well, but he is such a deceptive person; he’s a habitual liar and dissembler. Although I’ve spent a lot of time talking to him, I have no insight on him at all. His book ends with a paean to U.S.-Chinese friendship and how every other country has to fit in. I have to review it for the TLS, but I’ve been delaying it by weeks because I don’t know whether it is a case of senility or utter corruption."
He's with the better angels of our nature.
They have not had a state for 2,000 years, they have had no power or responsibility and it will take centuries before
Yep, just powerless shetle farmers for 2000 years. why does everyone hate them?
"Fred is wrong and doesn't know what he's talking about. First, the 1967-mid 1980s period was marked by intense conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in Lebanon."
Sure, there were conflicts in Lebanon as that became the PLO's base of operations after they were kicked out of Jordan. That doesn't contradict my point about the peaceful situation on the West Bank.
"In fact, the single worst Israeli massacre of unarmed Palestinian civilians (Sabra and Shatila) occurred smack in the middle of the period he's talking about."
The massacre wasn't perpetrated by the Israelis, but by Lebanese Christian militiamen.
"Second, the period of relative calm on the West Bank..."
First, I don't know what I'm talking about. Then you concede that there was peace during that time on the West Bank.
That external threat engenders internal cohesion doesn't just apply to israel. It would also apply to Iran. The unceasing stream of bellicose rhetoric, threats, designation as being in an "axil of evil", combined with the very real maneuvers taking place around that country has probably had the effect of strengthening the government beyond what it was capable of doing on it's own. They've also had ten years to prepare for being attacked so listening to the soothsayers claiming it would be another easy adventure could be a disaster.
The corollary is that the threat from indians increased the social cohesion of the early American settlers. It helped provide military experience to use against the British. The Boers seemed to derive some of their cohesion from fighting the natives. The Canadians and the Australians didn't have the same level of threats because the military prowess of their aboriginals were less.
Luttwak's analysis of the difference between political systems that produce a Putin on the one side and a Hilary Clinton on the other were spot on. A lot of Russians would do well to read it. Russians do see themselves as smart, slick operators and Americans as naive fools. Luttwak has one of the best explanations of why superior intelligence and cunning among individuals consistently fails to produce real results for Russia. Sort of the same reason Russians in business can make a lot of money quickly but seem unable to build lasting corporations or institutions that provide real value over the long run.
Clearly a brilliant man. No, he's not 100% correct on all points, but nuggets of absolute unvarnished profundity shine through, giving one pause. I liked his Kissinger observation --devastating-- and I'm someone who likes Kissinger more than dislikes him.
The same can be said of Mormons. While most early 19th century utopian movements fell apart, a siege mentality (half justified, half self-inflicted) kept them together. The actual conditions on the ground were good enough to attract tens of thousands of immigrants from the British Isles and Denmark (like my ancestors). Just when the Mormons were about to run out of useful enemies, the Evangelicals came to the rescue!
Israel is nothing but trouble for America.
The article describes Edward's wife as a lovely artist. That is a sign of a man's success.
The massacre wasn't perpetrated by the Israelis, but by Lebanese Christian militiamen.
who enabled them, buttercup?
It seems... the best chance for real change is through the vice president becoming president. VP is the wild card without much power. He is chosen to balance the main candidate or to win votes. It is also a way to keep the 'extreme' under control.
Kennedy had to appeal to the West, so he chose Johnson.
McCain had to win over the base, so he chose Palin.
Whoozits chose Teddy Roosevelt as VP candidate but died in office. I wonder how American history had played out had whoozits hadn't died. I'll bet rich folks who supported him figured he would easily serve two terms and be good for big business. But to win over the progressive elements, whoozits was prolly told to go with Teddy(who was just supposed to be like Mr. Smith in Capra's movie). Teddy was thus supposed to be a symbol whose personal progressive agenda would not really gain traction. But Whoozits died, and suddenly Teddy was president. The rich and powerful would never have supported him and indeed his VP status was meant to be just window dressing but upon the president whoozit's death, he became president and began to do stuff that the powerful didn't like.
VP can be more progressive or more conservative than the presidential candidate. IF the main candidate is conservative, VP is likely to be more moderate-liberal to balance it out. If the main candidate is liberalish, the VP is likely to be more moderate-conservative.
Of course, some VPs are just hack politicians.
But VP taking over P seat can be momentous.
Have you not read Coup d'etat a Practical Handbook? I found it amusing when I read it in the 1980s.
"Think about what it means to work for a Putin...": his analysis of working for a ruthless, conscienceless creep must ring bells for people who work for some large corporations.
"And in fact, those predictions weren't stupid. "
Yes they were. Those who made them revealed that they didn't know a damn thing about modern warfare. That was and is the case for essentially everyone in our governing class.
The most comparable case of modern armored warfare was the 73 Arab-Israeli war: numbers engaged were similar. In that war the Israelis lost about 2000 KIA.
But the US was in a little better shape than they were. The Israelis were surprised: we had about six months to get ready - talk about luxury.
We had absolute air control, including useful stuff like A-10s, the best tank-buster ever made. We flew 100,000 sorties before the land attack.
We had perfect intelligence, what with satellite recon and J-STARS.
The Iraqis were poorly trained, poorly motivated, and dumb as a brick, just as they always had been. The worst of the Arabs: they make Italians look like unkillable demons of battle.
Our tanks were vastly superior: they outranged the Iraqi tanks by a factor of three, had superior armor, infrared capability, laser ranging, computerized fire-control, yadaa yadda... In the Iraqis _best_ tank battle, Medina Ridge, they approached in defilade, behind a ridge, which allowed them to close. At close range, they actually managed to damage 4 US tanks , while losing 186 tanks of their own. One American was killed in that battle - by friendly fire. Every tank battle in the Gulf War was more one-sided than any previous tank battle in history. We made Michael Wittman look like a piker.
We also had enormous artillery superiority, both quantitative and qualitative. Our radar-controlled MLRS system had a kill radius greater than its error radius: when we shot, they died. When three MLRS batteries fired, 140,000 bomblets fell on the targeted Iraqi artillery position.
If an Iraqi artillery piece fired, it took only a few second for our radar to find the target and smother it with another 70,000 bomblets. We called it the 'grid square removal system'. How the hell can trenches stop that?
I would guess that we had a dozen different advantages, each in itself enough to win a war.
Luttwak didn't understand this. He thought that the Israelis had won their wars because of their greatness, rather than Arab incompetence. Although better weapons matter more than troop quality in any event. This hurt his career. Before the Gulf War, he got grants for studies from the DOD. Afterwards, they quit funding him - not because he was wrong, although he was, but because his evaluation of the competence of US troops was insulting.
But his time would come again, when know-nothings floated to the top under Bush II.
As for Colin Powell, I don't think he understood it either. As far as I can tell, from everything he's ever said or done in public life, he's nothing much.
I never thought Jews were stupid politically but if they are it fits the theory that Jews have aspergers syndrome (high verbal ability, poor social cognition)
Pat Buchanan expected a lot of American casualties initially the first time around, and he was wrong. OTOH I prefer pundits who overestimate the costs of invading people to those who deliberately underestimate.
If the Palestinians had handed the Jews flowers, the Jews would have already taken the land.
Seriously, he's lying.
Sure Arab hostility Helps.
But when the Jews see something they want, they try to get it. You have two choices....stop them or let them have it.
Stopping them may increase Jewish cohesiveness, but that's not the issue is it.
Jews in the US lack cohesion, the intermarriage rate with other peoples is proof of that. As is the loss of faith (defined as regular temple attendance) and any other factor. In fact, Jews seem along with Blacks to be the most vulnerable to loss of social cohesion (the Japanese in Japan and diaspora Chinese, Koreans the least). Interestingly the Japanese in the US are like Jews -- very prone to intermarriage and loss of cultural and racial identity.
As for Muslims being our enemy, of course they are. They wish to impose Sharia, Polygamy, outlaw dogs, booze, and a hundred other controls over daily life. As a man who wishes to be free, I find them my enemy. As an American, I find Chinese domination of our commercial life odious. Romney is entirely correct there.
"Luttwak conceives of himself as a cross between Henry Kissinger and Jack Bauer of 24: Talleyrand and Rambo, combined."
How more ridiculous can it get? Niall Ferguson also whores himself out as a 'rock star'. Obama's supposed to be a 'rock star' president. Cornel West is a rapper intellectual. Palin is beauty pageant politician.
24 gives us a black president, and people think it's cool to have a black president. It then had a woman president, and so will Hillary be next? And since gays are the new hip people according to Jewish controlled pop culture, will we soon have a gay president?
Popular culture is now a form of popular control.
People are such sheep. No one gave a damn about gays, but ever since gayness has been hyped by pop culture, people who would never given a damn about gay issues embrace gay issues as the peak of virtue and morality.
Loose hiphop pants are ugly, but pop culture tells kids it's cool, and so kids wear that ugly sack-ass mess.
Monkey see, monkey do, and humans too.
I seem to recall Luttwak writing an article in the early 1990s in which he argued that American civilization was collapsing because our chauffeurs did not wear white gloves like European chauffeurs. Hey, I thought white-gloveless chauffeurs were an American feature, not a bug.
"Jews assimilate within a few generations in any country where there isn't pronounced anti-semitism or formal religious separatism built into the governance structure. The wave of intermarriage among secular Jews in the U.S. is well-known. German Jews were extremely assimilated."
Yes and no. Jews do assimilate but not so much into the larger community as in gaining control of the larger community and pushing/changing policies that alter the political/cultural trajectory of the larger community.
And Jews are more insistent on clinging to their sense of Jewishness even after assimilation. Jews don't really 'convert'. Even Jews who really converted to Christianity did it more for show than out of sincerity.
True assimilation means melding and disappearing into the larger community. Jews join and intermingle with the larger community, but Jew don't meld or disappear into it. They maintain their identity, tradition, agenda, and separateness. Penny Pritzker and Barney Frank are very Jewish. So is NY Times.
Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when a small minority takes elite control of a community that is non-Jewish and dictate terms of what is and isn't proper, there's gonna be resentment. Antisemitism is the product of Jewish goy-contemptism.
Abe Foxman is an assimilated Jew in America, but notice how he frames everything in terms of 'is it good for Jewish power?' Also, though Jews love to dish out criticism to other people, they bitch and whine about antisemitism the minute someone brings up Jewish power. If you can't stand 'antisemitic slander', stop with the antigoyite slander. Most people critical of Jewish power are NOT Nazis or even 'antisemites'. They are counter-Jewites who believe great power should be countered and critiqued.
How come there's so much Jewish cohesion in the US though Jews are not threatened by violence?
Because Jews in the US perceive themselves to be one step away from genocidal violence.
Which is why Jews really are imbeciles - not political imbeciles as Luttwak claims, but psychotic imbeciles, the sort of people who are unable to accurately perceive reality.
A lot of "Jewish leadership" is devoted to scaring the crap out of ordinary Jews in order maintain that high level of social cohesion which is so neccessary to Jewish influence.
The thing about Jews... they have the 'little more and more' fever.
It's like a poor person thinks he would be happy to have a job and place to live in. Initially, he just wants a little more. But once he has it, he wants something better. He wants more and more. He wants a home and then a bigger home. He wants a woman but with more riches, he wants more women. He wants more of everything, on and on. Why do so many rich celebs divorce their former wives and go humping other women?
At one point, I think Jews would have been happy to succeed in America. And Jews used to be awed by wasp power and wealth. Many Jews did indeed wanna be accepted into wasp community and truly assimilate, even changing their names and putting on wasp manners.
But as 20th century progressed, Jews began to realize wasps aint that great or smart, at least compared to themselves--just like Negroes in sports realized 'punkass white boy so slow'. So, instead of wanting to be part of wasp community, Jews began to feel, WE SHOULD OWN AMERICA. Even so, Jews thought it would be a long uphill climb. But within a few decades, by golly, Jews found themselves having totally kicked butt. Wasps, who used to say 'you can't marry my daughter, Jew' now get on their knees before rich Jews and say, 'please boff my daughter and accept her into your magnificent tribe'.
So, Jewish anxiety is no longer about survival or equality. It is about preserving their supremacy. Jews are addicted to power, privilege, special status, influence, etc in the richest and most powerful country in the world. They can't believe they went from ashes of WWII to the mightiest overlords of the world--as those who control US and EU control the world.
So, the great irony is Holocaust is now invoked to preserve Jewish racial supremacism over the rest of us.
"Jews have had plenty of power and responsibility within the last two thousand years, although I can see why Luttwak would want to avoid that reality."
Not as open governors of their own state
By that definition nobody has had power and responsibility within the last two thousand years. Representative government and the nation state are very recent developments.
I hope Agnostic comments.
Dave:
"They were based on the assumption that we would need to resort to trench warfare to defeat the entrenched Iraqi troops who hadn't been dislodged by months of bombing. And if we fought them the usual way -- breaching trench lines, sending our troops into the trench systems -- we would have suffered those sorts of casualties."
Hmm, I've seen accounts by British troops who did engage in hand to hand trench fighting, using shovels because our crappy guns broke or ran out of ammo. They were 'fighting' regular Iraqi army, noy Republican guard, and frankly it sounded more like a massacre than 'warfare' as us Anglos understand it, the poor Iraqi conscripts died like frightened rabbits. The difference between them and the Argentine conscripts in the Falklands War was that the Argies have an elite class of actual warriors comparable to Brit & American soldiers in esprit de corps, if not in training. These made up the Argie officer class and special forces units, and made them fairly effective in conventional warfare. The Iraqis don't have that - they're effective as insurgents, but as conventional forces they're crap.
The Argie pilots performed very well in the Falklands War. The Exocet missile got all the publicity, but they managed to sink several British ships with old-fashioned iron bombs that didn't even have guidance systems on them, Battle of Midway-style. And that's against 1980s anti-aircraft fire. They would have sunk even more British ships but some of the bombs that hit the British ships didn't go off, suggesting as Simon says, an elite of first rate pilots backed by an indolent mass of conscripts and political generals.
Lots of Palestinians are Christians, so I don't know why they never played that card to appeal to Christians around the world. Well, at least diplomatically.
Then why aren't they assimilated into America? Arguably Jews reached their peak of assimilation in the 1940's, and they've been de-assimilating ever since.
How well do you know Jewish culture? I would say that American Jews are clearly more assimilated than they have ever been. Intermarriage rates are way higher than in the 40s, yiddish has basically disappeared (it was a going lanaguage in the 40s), and there is no more residential segregation. (An exception to most of all of this would be the Orthodox community, who are indeed de-assimilating but in a hardcore conservative direction -- private religious schools only, straightforwardly racist, anti-feminist, hard right). Are you sure you don't just read "assimilated" as "not voting for Barack Obama?".
But of course, Jews, the masters of psychology, know all of this. And Jews have created a system whereby neocons play on Christian Right passions all the while making deals with their liberal brethren. Though neocons and liberal Zionists make a lot of angry noise at one another in public, it's really a tag-team match. Neocons give false promise to the Christian Right that if it gives more support to ISrael, Jews may change their ways and be more conservative. Then, neocons meet up with liberal Zionists at the same cocktail parties and pat eachother in the backs for fooling dumb goyim. Watching Jews and goyim is like watching Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd, or watching Harlem Globetrotters run circles around slow white boys. Or DUCK SOUP.
PS. Jews have been far more successful playing the Ideal Christian card than the Christian Right has been playing the Ideal Jew card. Most white Christians have indeed been shamed by Jews(and blacks)accusing them of not having lived up to the true ideals/values of Christianity. Christianity is supposed to be universal/egalitarian, but whites held privilege and power for themselves. To be sure, it's permissible to OPENLY AND DIRECTLY CRITICIZE the Christian community whereas such is not permitted with Jews. Even so, because Christian ideals are higher and purer than Jewish ideals--Judaism never preached universalism and equality--, it's easier to expose Christian hypocrisy. Christianity is the religion of sainthood, but whites have not been saints. Judaism according to the Torah is the religion of tribalist prophets and fierce warriors. Whatever Jews may have done wrong, it's not really wrong by the standards of the Torah and its Angry God. And indeed even secular Jews are acting tribally and deviously like Old Testament Jews. The Old Testament God told Jews to use the stupid goyim for their own good.
The notion that Israel would not have succeeded without Arab threats of violence is absurd.
But the notion that Ashkenazis use external threats (more often ginned up than not) to induce cohesion is not. Pretty obvious, actually.
Whiskey:"In fact, Jews seem along with Blacks to be the most vulnerable to loss of social cohesion"
Actually, Blacks are one of the most socially cohesive groups in American society. They vote as a racial bloc (cf the Obama campaign against HRC), express tremendous unanimity on key political issues (affirmative action, etc), place tremendous faith in the power of the blood quanta (Blacks are the group most committed to the one drop rule), etc.
Since slutwalks are the new civil rights, has anyone made a speech 'I have a cream'?
And at gay parades, maybe 'I have a ream'.
What am I missing here? Luttwak seems doddering and unfocused. An old man who should probably out to pasteur.
And the average Englishman more politically astute than the average Jew? I take Vegas odds that's not true.
How well do you know Jewish culture?
Very well indeed. I live n NYC and have a lot of Jewish friends and acquaintances. I've sat shiva when they needed an extra male participant.
I would say that American Jews are clearly more assimilated than they have ever been.
Then I would disagree.
Intermarriage rates are way higher than in the 40s
Low pure Jewish birth rates seem to be the main reason for that. Increasingly, making new Jews seems to involve mating with non-Jews. But I suspect that this has not been that infrequent an activity in Jewish history.
Are you sure you don't just read "assimilated" as "not voting for Barack Obama?".
No. When I say "assimilated" I mean "losing their irrational dislike of white Christians". That's where they seem to be de-assimilating. That's where they have chose to set themselves against the European core of America and that's where they have chosen to side with Muslims, blacks - basically anybody who is non-white and non-Christian is good in their eyes.
And I know why they feel this way - because they have an irrational fear that somewhere out there in flyover country some white Nazi militia is poised to take over the country and throw them all into gas chambers.
Which is, as I said before, almost psychotic in it's detachment from reality.
And to be that detached from American reality is be the opposite of assimilated. An assimilated American, by definition, knows and understands America.
Jews have been enjoying a golden age in America, but there are very few areas in which there is inappropriate power exercised by Jews *as Jews*, as opposed to individuals who (like all individuals) have been shaped by a particular cultural background.
I'm not sure what difference exists between "Jews as Jews" and Jews as people "who have been shaped by a particular cultural background".
This interview reminds me of the classic Saturday Night Live sketch where Phil Hartman plays Reagan as a brilliant, energetic mastermind behind the scenes, barking orders over the phone in multiple languages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skQuhoG7fFM
Actually, Blacks are one of the most socially cohesive groups in American society. They vote as a racial bloc (cf the Obama campaign against HRC), express tremendous unanimity on key political issues (affirmative action, etc), place tremendous faith in the power of the blood quanta (Blacks are the group most committed to the one drop rule), etc.
Blacks and Ashkenazis are quite similar in many ways (you mentioned voting patterns, Ashkenazis rival Blacks in that regard), but group cohesion, or at least, a strong inherent tendency in that direction, is not one of them.
Blacks aren't inherently cohesive, quite the opposite. E.g., in the wake of hurricane Katrina, who looked more cohesive; Blacks or Whites?
Hacienda:"And the average Englishman more politically astute than the average Jew? I take Vegas odds that's not true."
How about the average English Jew?
GCochran,
"The most comparable case of modern armored warfare was the 73 Arab-Israeli war"
The 1973 Arab-Israeli war was one of armor and mobility. Prior to to the Gulf War, many (not just Powell or Luttwak) predicted trench warfare, mainly because the Iraqis were entrenched, and had remained entrenched despite months of aerial bombardment (by A-10s and everything else). They had also recently fought a 8-year long trench war with a numerically superior foe (Iran).
The enormous US advantages in mobile armored warfare you describe explain the lopsided victory in the flanking phase of the action. But there still could have been high casualties in the frontal assault of the Iraqi trench lines if that was done in the traditional manner. The inspired idea of bulldozing the sandbags into those trenches, instead of trying to clear them with infantry, prevented that.
Simon,
The Republican Guard was, at the time, an effective fighting force. Not against technologically superior Western forces in the open, of course, but consider how quickly they put down the Shiite and Kurdish revolts after the Gulf War, despite having the crap bombed out of them by us and having a third of their divisions completely destroyed by the U.S. Army by then.
The problem is when you scratch a "counter-Jewite" you usually find someone who thinks that Hitler had a point but was maybe a little too extreme in how he implemented it.-mq
Like, for example, Churchill ?
Or Moldbug:
http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2010/09/bacevich-part-i.html?page=1#comment-55273
(...)
It's simply a fact that urbanized Eastern European Jews around the world were widely tuned into this radio channel, and were famous for participation in radical republican movements. Many of my own ancestors fit this profile. Thus it was not at all difficult for a Hitler (or his many Teutonic predecessors in anti-Semitism, eg, Karl Lueger) to associate Judaism with Bolshevism - or to interpret the aggressive diplomacy of Britain and America with subversive control by fantastic and secretive Jewish interests.
Hadn't Disraeli suggested as much, in his Coningsby? What was Disraeli, an Armenian? Moreover, it also wasn't difficult for a Hitler to adapt the rhetoric of Continental nationalism, originally developed so that Lord Byron could have a supporting cast of little Greek boys, to a national tribe far too strong to make a practical client state. Students of 19C and 20C history, if following the orthodox line, have considerable trouble in distinguishing between "good" nationalism (Mazzini, Schurz) and "bad" nationalism (Mussolini, Hitler). Again, the deciding factor is the friendship of the Foreign Office, and more broadly Anglo-American high society.
Thus the indubitable decline of Central Europe from pre-1914 conditions (eg, as described in the introduction Stefan Zweig's World of Yesterday) could be plausibly and unambiguously blamed on the Jews as a nation. While this didn't happen to be an accurate assessment of historical causality, it was close enough to reality to convince all but the most sophisticated citizens of the world, and even many of those. WW2 was an ideological war, and all the ideas in the conflict are traceable, directly or through reaction, to the export of Anglo-American democracy.
(...)
Then came the checkpoints and security barriers that clamped down on freedom of movement in the West Bank, and the rest is history. But that was all a response to the intifada. There wasn't any oppression to speak of prior to then.
Another way of looking at it is that the Israelis had 20 years to sort out the obviously non-viable status quo on the West Bank, and did nothing but dig themselves in deeper by building settlements. Now they've gone past the point of no return several times over. Well, that's really rough.
Cennbeorc
Steve Sailer,
I dare you to write about the esteemed Griffe Du Lion's find that Republicans give birth to more retarded children. You won't because youre a siss, but let it be known that conservatives lack IQ and you stupid hicks know it.
http://www.theneweffort.com/front/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=14286&p=269281
Anonymous said:
"Also, though Jews love to dish out criticism to other people, they bitch and whine about antisemitism the minute someone brings up Jewish power."
I don't spend a lot of time thinking about Jews and Jewishness, but I do live in NYC, and the subject does come up from time to time. At a dinner party a couple of years ago, I blurted what has turned out to be my Grand Unified Theory of Jews and the Rest of the World: "The problem is that Jews are allowed to behave tribally, and nobody else is allowed to notice."
I remember Luttwak in 70s as hard-case Cold Warrior publishing in journals like Problems of Communism. I was surprised to see him re-emerge as some kind of NWO guru in 90s. Good read, but never first-rate.
Cennbeorc
Svigor: "Blacks and Ashkenazis are quite similar in many ways (you mentioned voting patterns, Ashkenazis rival Blacks in that regard), but group cohesion, or at least, a strong inherent tendency in that direction, is not one of them.
Blacks aren't inherently cohesive, quite the opposite. E.g., in the wake of hurricane Katrina, who looked more cohesive; Blacks or Whites?"
By social cohesion, I meant in-group solidarity against out groups. Blacks are, as a group, quite lacking in organizational ability, as is demonstrated by the ruinous state of most Black-run polities. However, Blacks are quite good, in a liberal democracy, at mobilizing politically against Whites.
Who knew that the famous James Q Wilson was a straight up anti-Semite? According to MQ he must be cause he claims that Jews “dislike” (are hostile to) white Christians who like them, or at least support Israel, while Jews like blacks who hate them and Israel.
In fact, Professor Wilson goes to note that a large percentage of Jews “express hostility” toward evangelical Christians whereas the overall population of Americas is much much less hostile to white gentile Christians than are Jews. Case closed. Only a pathologically ethnocentric anti-white gentile bigot would disagree.
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_evangelicals.html
James Q. Wilson
Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?
In the United States, the two groups that most ardently support Israel are Jews and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Jewish support is easy to explain, but why should certain Christians, most of them politically quite conservative, be so devoted to Israel? There is a second puzzle: despite their support for a Jewish state, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are disliked by many Jews. And a third: a large fraction of African-Americans are hostile to Israel and critical of Jews, yet Jewish voters regard blacks as their natural allies.
Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favor: in one Pew survey, 42 percent of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists. As two scholars from Baruch College have shown, a much smaller fraction—about 16 percent—of the American public has similarly antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists.
"But there still could have been high casualties in the frontal assault of the Iraqi trench lines if that was done in the traditional manner. "
Unlikely. The US Marines assaulted straight into the Iraqi trenchlines in Kuwait in what was intended to be a holding attack that would force the Iraqi army to remain in place, and ideally draw the Republican Guard reserves into the kill sack. As it turns out the Marines easily overran the defenses and were in Kuwait City in short order, after defeating numerous mobile counterattacks.
VII Corps (the left wing of the US forces) would have gone through even faster and utterly crushed everything it its path with even more firepower.
The drawback would have been that the Republican Guard might have been able to withdrawal intact to a greater degree--they were backing the front lines some distance back.
Who knew that the famous James Q Wilson was a straight up anti-Semite? According to MQ he must be cause he claims that Jews “dislike” (are hostile to) white Christians who like them, or at least support Israel, while Jews like blacks who hate them and Israel.
That's a misrepresentation of what Wilson said in your own quote of him. He said Jews disapproved of evangelical Christians (read: Christians who want to convert other religions) and fundamentalists (read: Christians who want to define America as a "Christian nation"). Maybe those interpretations of evangelical and fundamentalist do not represent everyone who identifies in that manner, but they do represent the stated beliefs of the most prominent leaders of those groups for quite some time. Naturally Jews would disagree with political-religious perspectives they perceive as representing a direct threat to their religious freedom. That has little if anything to do with "disliking" Christians as people -- since about half of all Jews are intermarried (including me), we must be liking us some Christians somewhere along the line. As for "liking" blacks, no evidence is given nor is it clear what this would mean beyond Wilson appearing traumatized that some Jewish radicals in the 60s romanticized the Black Panthers. (There's more than a little tinge of old-person loopiness in that article, actually...Wilson may have succumbed to the comforting but ennervating influence of the right-wing welfare circuit).
Obviously there are lots of successful individual Jews, and elements of distinctively Jewish culture have influenced American culture. Where the Jewish community is united it has exerted considerable influence as a group (policy on Israel). Both of these statements could be made about both Protestant and Catholic elites. (Catholic elites were notably more influential than Jewish elites in transforming American immigration policy). These are all realities to discuss. But when you see THE JOOZ as a sinister conspiratorial force pulling the strings to create everything you don't like about your country and your fellow citizens -- guess what, that's anti-semitism.
Anonymous wrote:
"Steve Sailer,
"I dare you to write about the esteemed Griffe Du Lion's find that Republicans give birth to more retarded children. You won't because youre a siss, but let it be known that conservatives lack IQ and you stupid hicks know it."
I don't detect a whole lot of stupid hickishness around here, so in that we differ I guess. Anyway, wouldn't the simple explanation for the phenomenon you indicate (if it indeed exists) be that many conservatives don't believe in abortion as a sensible answer to, say, the "problem" of a Down's-Syndrome fetus?
I used to live in Spain, and the parents of children of my generation were committedly Roman Catholic on the whole. The result was a ton of Down's-afflicted contemporaries of mine. One took them as part of the gorgeous mosaic, or whatever you might call it.
This is the real Griffe link, by the way:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm
when you see THE JOOZ as a sinister conspiratorial force pulling the strings to create everything you don't like about your country and your fellow citizens -- guess what, that's anti-semitism.
It would seem that "THE JOOZ" are anti-Semites themselves then, because they are not bashful about telling you about all the strings which they pull. It cannot be simultaneously true that Jews are over-represented in law, government, the arts, academia, the media etc AND that they share no more responsibility than e.g. the Poles when things go badly wrong.
With great power comes great responsibility. "The JOOZ" seek the power quite avidly. Fair enough. But they cannot shirk the responsibility which comes with it.
Jews could mimic the Amish, and live as a largely invisible if close-knit minority, if they wanted to avoid the unpopularity which comes with power.
In other words, you have nothing tangible to suggest "de-assimilation" except for your personal sense that Jews don't like Christians. May I suggest that this is projection -- you have an irrational dislike of Jews, hence you assume that they return the favor.
You are free to "suggest" any darn thing you like. I notice that you dismiss all tangible evidence of Jewish dislike for white Christians - such as Jewish support for the Democratic party, which rests entirely on religious and ethnic grounds.
After which you "assume" and "project" all sorts of nonsense abut other people based of nothing at all.
I do not "assume" that Jews have an irrational dislike of whites. Decades of living among them has made that point very clear to me.
You really are irrational. It's nuts to say that Jews like Muslims.
It is Jews who support Muslim immigration into America. That is what is called a "fact". One of us is "nuts" and "irrational", but it's not me.
I remember Luttwak arguing that Japan was going to take over the world in 1991 or 1992 or thereabouts, I guess that's why he disappeared for a while. He had to wait for everyone to forget about that, but on the other hand, lots of other people were saying likewise.
I put a couple appendices from Luttwak's "Coup D'Etat: A Practical Handbook" online here.
"Unlikely. The US Marines assaulted straight into the Iraqi trenchlines in Kuwait in what was intended to be a holding attack that would force the Iraqi army to remain in place, and ideally draw the Republican Guard reserves into the kill sack. As it turns out the Marines easily overran the defenses and were in Kuwait City in short order, after defeating numerous mobile counterattacks.
VII Corps (the left wing of the US forces) would have gone through even faster and utterly crushed everything it its path with even more firepower."
Maybe you're right and it didn't make that much difference. Still a clever idea though.
Rewritten for Komment Kontrol:
And the average Englishman more politically astute than the average Jew? I take Vegas odds that's not true.
Such an inane statement. I sometimes wonder if they get a kick out of it, like it's an expression of power and they know nobody will call them on it.
Jews are stupid about politics because they are hostile to the nations that tolerate them or in the case of America love them. Jews have had plenty of power and responsibility within the last two thousand years, although I can see why Luttwak would want to avoid that reality.
Calling Ashkenazi politics stupid is an easy out for cowards who don't want to call Ashkenazi politics malfeasant, but aren't quite dishonest enough to ignore the issue altogether.
but in any case it's not obvious that RESISTANCE TO THE JEW has been the wisest move for them.
I call this kind of thing the "external" argument against self-determination; "don't stand up for yourself or x will smash you."
Palestinians should have spoke of peace and rapprochement(like Mandela)and won the heart of world community.
The Indians fought tooth and nail. Really dirty fighters, too. If the Indians had acted all MLK, the whole thing would've gone down smoothly. But they ruined everything, especially their reputations, by acting like Palestinians. Right?
Btw, can we just drop the "intermarriage" act, already? Ashkenazis are intermarrying far slower than any other white group, especially given how long they've been here, how successful they are, etc.
What are the Ashkenazi-Black intermarriage stats like? Anyone? C'mon, anyone besides the crickets?
The issue is the tendency in Western countries to use Jews as scapegoats for problems in the wider society
No, the issue is the tendency for Ashkenazis to clash with everyone they ('ve ever) live(d) among. The exceptions being those who totally surrender to them, like Americans.
which leads to periodic explosions of violence.
This is the Ashkenazi version of history, in which only the "periodic explosions of violence" matter. I'm interested in the times in between, when Ashkenazi behavior was building up explosive pressure in the host populations.
Well known examples are Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany losing WWI
...and the Ashkenazis for leading the Russian revolution and running the NKVD and herding Russians into gulags...
But when the Jews see something they want, they try to get it. You have two choices....stop them or let them have it.
Stopping them may increase Jewish cohesiveness, but that's not the issue is it.
Concise and gets right to the point.
Jews in the US lack cohesion, the intermarriage rate with other peoples is proof of that.
Nonsense. Ashkenazis have substantially lower "intermarriage" rates than the other peoples you're comparing them to. Just their use of the word "intermarriage" is evidence of their cohesiveness; do Catholics call marrying Protestants "intermarriage," or vice-versa? Do Italians call marrying Irish "intermarriage," or vice-versa? And if they did, would it be an issue (i.e., protested) at all?
Man, the stuff you guys say here. And you keep saying it! Over and over, despite endless corrections. What, maybe we'll all sleep through it this time?
How well do you know Jewish culture? I would say that American Jews are clearly more assimilated than they have ever been.
See, that's how you con the rubes. You don't make comparisons, just say "they're more assimilated than ever!" This is much more clever, and doesn't so blatantly invite the obvious response. It ain't sayin' much, but it isn't absurd, either. Yeah, "Organized Jewry" screams "lack of cohesion.
By social cohesion, I meant in-group solidarity against out groups. Blacks are, as a group, quite lacking in organizational ability, as is demonstrated by the ruinous state of most Black-run polities. However, Blacks are quite good, in a liberal democracy, at mobilizing politically against Whites.
OK, maybe I used an errant example, but I did say "inherent." For one thing, it's only normal for an "under-performing" minority to behave the way it does with regard to the White majority.
But do Blacks really seem like they're collectivists, apart from the White American milieu? Blacks sold other Blacks to White buyers in rather large numbers, for instance. They seem strikingly individualistic when it serves their needs. How about Black politicians? First thing they want to do after the election is "get theirs," and they seem to get caught in the act a lot. I wonder what the FAIR or Numbers USA scores are like for Black pols, seeing how Blacks are getting screwed over by the open border with Mexico more than any other large group in America.
Blacks seem quite willing to sacrifice their group interests for their individual interests, is all I'm saying. They really don't show much evidence of being good at working together, either. Sure, they band together for the racial spoils but so what? I don't see how that makes them "cohesive," and I think a lot of people exaggerate that sort of characterization of Blacks when something about it doesn't seem to fit.
"I remember Luttwak arguing that Japan was going to take over the world in 1991 or 1992 or thereabouts, I guess that's why he disappeared for a while."
Funny how Jews, who not only took over the world but throw hissy fits when people notice that they did, keep bitching about how OTHER peoples are taking over the world.
"And the average Englishman more politically astute than the average Jew? I take Vegas odds that's not true."
I'll take that bet. Not "average" maybe, but elite Englishmen are far more politically astute than Jewish elites. The English ruled an Empire for hundreds of years, they are experts at manipulating public opinion, playing factions against one another and supporting "their" people without being obvious about it. I've spent plenty of time with Jewish elites and British elites - British are far more impressive to my mind in terms of general knowledge and ability to make cogent arguments to support whatever they feel like supporting. What the British lack is the Jewish work ethic. The Jewish ideal of a life well lived is the 85 year old attorney still putting in 50 hours of work and terrorizing the junior partners. The British ideal of a life well lived is the 85 year old Lord with a 35 year old wife taking a cruise in the Mediterranean and offering pithy advice to the media and Prime Ministers.
How many people in the world speak Italian and Korean?
I'm sure many could be found in the garlic trade.
Simon,
Dave:
"The Republican Guard was, at the time, an effective fighting force. Not against technologically superior Western forces in the open, of course, but consider how quickly they put down the Shiite and Kurdish revolts after the Gulf War, despite having the crap bombed out of them by us and having a third of their divisions completely destroyed by the U.S. Army by then."
The Republican Guard were willing to fight, and were effective against other Arabs, Kurdish rebels, and somewhat effective against Iranian human wave attacks. My impression of them is that while morale was decent, they still suffered from terrible command & control and were poorly trained; this seems true of all Arab conventional armies, with a partial exception for Egypt. Arab culture - with which I am unfortunately quite familiar - is highly inimical to the Western way of war, and the attempts by pan-Arab nationalists and others to Westernise them have been uniformly disastrous. They completely lack the necessary levels of mutual trust. Arab strength lies in deceit - they are for instance incredibly good liars, they have absolutely no shame. And this reflects in their strength at insurgency & irregular warfare.
Simon:
Thanks, most informative. Perhaps you could also comment on different perceptions between Britain and America on the politics of gays?
I'm frequently drawn to comparing George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh, who were similar enough in a lot of ways (born in the same year, upper middle class) that their differences are worth thinking about. It seems to me that Orwell's traditionalist leftism (pro-working class) versus Waugh's traditionalist rightism (pro-aristocracy) is somehow tied into Orwell being more masculine. Orwell was overtly anti-homosexual, as was standard for the Left at that time, while Waugh wrote very well about gays. Ambrose Silk, the gay Jewish aesthete in Put Out More Flags who is trying but failing to be pro-proletarian, might be Waugh's best-crafted character.
Steve Sailer:
"Thanks, most informative. Perhaps you could also comment on different perceptions between Britain and America on the politics of gays?"
Traditional American attitudes to male gays resemble those of Northern Ireland, where I grew up - there is no place for homosexuality, they better keep damn quiet if they don't want beaten up. Lesbians don't exist.
England - the English are different, as you note. In English culture, homosexuality is traditionally regarded as a form of eccentricity, and the English cherish eccentricity. This is true of both the working class and the upper class; it is possibly least true of the middle class, but I wouldn't draw a strong distinction. For the upper class & upper middle class, homosexuality seems to have been regarded as a natural phase for public school boys (and girls) that they would grow out of. Gays in working class society had a kind of 'sacred eunuch' status as entertainers, comedians - both professional and amateur - sort of 'holy fools'. Across all strata of English society, the expectation was that homosexuals would be tolerated if they weren't too overt.
I'd say that was still basically the system until 10 years ago, and outside London & a few metropolitan areas I expect it's still the way things work. About 10-12 years ago New Labour launched a cultural revolution, supported by the BBC, to redraw British society along similar lines to those favoured by the American New Left. So now gays have a highly privileged, sacralised status, criticism is forbidden - illegal - they are not subject to the same restrictions/investigations when eg adopting children, which is convenient for homosexual paedophiles.
However this official culture has only limited effects in daily life. Such a cultural revolution in America or Northern Ireland causes a lot of resentment, 'hate crimes' et al. There is a bit of that here, but most people I think persist in seeing homosexuality as a more or less harmless eccentricity - even when that attitude is now dangerous. I recall the drunken Oxford student arrested for a 'hate crime'. He had approached a policeman and said:
"Do you know your horse is gay?"
I think that says it all.
"The English have relatively low in-group cohesion, and little fear - whereas fear is probably the dominant emotion in Jewish political thought, the English seem constitutionally incapable of being afraid, even when such fear might seem rational. In that they differ from the Germans, who have a strong fear-response."
It depends on how one defines 'fear'. There is a funny paradox here. English are very fearful on the issue of fearlessness, i.e. they fear being labeled 'racist' or fearful-of-other-races. They fear being labeled as fearful. So, Anglos wear the mask of fearlessness--to hide their real fears.
Jews, in contrast, are a fearful people but they are fearless and chutzpahistic in displaying and projecting their fears. Abe Foxman may be motivated by fear of antisemitism but he has the balls and gall to stick his nose into everything.
But, I wonder if today's Jews are more motivated by fear or anxiety. Most Jews must know there are no Nazis around. Instead, what they fear is people might start noticing that Jews are so rich and powerful, in which case Jews are the new bluebloods who must be critiqued. Jews have defined themselves for so long as the people-who-dissent-against-or-challenge-traditional-authority that they don't seem capable of admitting they are now that authority.
I think Anglo fearlessness is a legacy of Anglo-American triumphalism through most of 18th, 19th, and 20th century. It got to the point where many Anglo/Americans thought their mastery of the world was invincible and permanent. Addicted to a SENSE of such pride and power, Anglo/Americans still carry on as though the fate of the world depends on them. Though Anglo/American politicians take cues and orders from Jews, they are under the vanity of 'protecting helpless Jews'. Though blacks have long whupped whitey's ass and spit in the honkey's face, Anglo/Americans stil carry on as if they must be paternalistic and kind to the lowly Negro. (This is of course truer among more affluent Anglo/Americans, like Bushes and Blairs in UK).
Having far less power than in the past, Anglo/Americans hold onto the semblance of power via political correctness.
Here's the wacky paradox. Political Correctness, though anti-white, fills white liberal(and even conservative)elites with sense of power. PC says whites are all-powerful and all-rich, and non-whites need special help and recognition from whites who have controlled everything for too long and will do maybe forever. PC is a twist on the concept of the white man's burden; white liberals feel a sense of moral power through their Holy Guilt; it also means they are deserving of power cuz they're committed to acting in accordance of such Holy Guilt. White man must be anti-'racist' and support affirmative action because he has TOO MUCH. So, PC is founded on the notion of white power even as it preaches against it. Just look at Lawrence O'Donnell and Keith Olbermann beam proudly as they speak of helping the poor Negro or helpless illegals hounded by 'racist' sheriffs.
It's like superrich people are drawn to socialistic ideas cuz even as such ideas are anti-rich, they acknowledge superrich people as very rich and obligated to do good for mankind. So, Bill Gates makes a lot of dough through capitalism but feels morally and politically important through socialism. His do-goodery may cost him money, but it also shows that he's so rich and powerful that he can and must do a lot of stuff. It makes him feel important.
What comes naturally to man? Tribalism or moralism? If tribalism, why do so many white people prefer moralism(even when it's racially suicidal) over tribalism? Cuz of media brainwashing? Partly.
But, I think tribalism is the natural mode among the have-nots or have-lesses while moralism is the default mode of the haves and have-mores.
If most white people were poor, they would be more tribal. Christianity for most of Western history was tribal than moral. Moralism is expensive, and poor people cannot afford it. They think in terms of primary survivalism, and that means sticking to people like oneself. Moralism gains in value only when people have enough and can afford to be generous. Why did US turn very liberal after WWII? Prosperity and the rise of vast white middle class.
Jews are something of an exception. Though they speak the language of liberalism, they are by far the most tribal people in America despite their vast riches. But then, they're 2% of the population--and have a history of persecution--and so they don't put their guard down.
There is also a difference between men and women. Here's another paradox. Women are politically more 'liberal' because they are naturally more 'conservative'. Conservatism favors authority, conformism, unity, obedience, and etc. Liberalism favors individualism, independence, open-mindedness, etc. Traditionally liberals were free thinkers, conservatives were dogmatic thinkers. But once liberals gained and then became addicted to power for power's sake, capital 'L' Liberalism developed its own dogmas and orthodoxes. It has become conservative in its operative mode. Women, being naturally more conservative, are more likely to fall for all the dogmas of predominant liberalism cuz women prefer to belong to the larger group, obey authority(Big Sister or Oprah or Obama or college professors, etc).
The world is upside down when today's free thinkers now exist on the sector of the Right. Even so, most conservatives today are sheeple too. 'Rush, dittos, Rush'.
"The English ruled an Empire for hundreds of years, they are experts at manipulating public opinion, playing factions against one another and supporting "their" people without being obvious about it."
English have mastered the art of ruling over a rabble.
Jews have mastered the art of ruling over the elites that rule over the rabble.
English elites do the dirty work lording over the unwashed, and Jews do the clean work of lording over the English elites. It seems the Jewish way is neater.
Would you rather be the prison guard ruling over prisoners or the prison warden ruling over the guards?
"I dare you to write about the esteemed Griffe Du Lion's find that Republicans give birth to more retarded children. You won't because youre a siss, but let it be known that conservatives lack IQ and you stupid hicks know it."
Will libs ever make up their minds about intelligence? Libs take pride in their superior intelligence, but they also take pride in their egalitarianism. What is more hierarchical, exclusionary, and divisive in our society than intelligence? Smart people go to top schools, get best jobs, make most money, and gain most influence. Smart get richer, dumb get poorer. (There is affirmative action, but that favors smart blacks over dumb blacks.)
Since intelligence has this effect on society, shouldn't liberals be opposed to it?
In some ways, liberals are indeed opposed to the concept of intelligence or at least IQ tests. They say there are 1000 kinds of intelligence, that 'intelligence' is Euro-centric, that's it's the product of social conditions, etc.
On the other hand, liberals love to show off how smarter they are over conservatives.
Though libs oppose biological basis of IQ differences among races, they almost seem to embrace biological basis for IQ differences along ideological lines. Furthermore, some liberal psychologist even did a study which said some kids are BORN liberal and some kids are BORN conservative. So, race is just a social construct.. but ideology is biologically based, with good smart kids being born liberal and with bad dumb kids being born conservative. (Homosexuality is another area where the left is biologicalist. Though 'male' and 'female' are merely socially defined 'genders', homoSEXUALITY is actually rooted in biology. And it is even justified in relation to nature, e.g. since there's homo activity among animals, it must be natural for humans too. Even so, I aint never seen no gay pride march among animals.)
Jews are especially funny on this issue. Jews clearly take great pride in their superior intelligence--at least privately. Jews know their unequal power and wealth over us is based on their IQ. But no people bitch and whine more against IQ tests and denounce inequality. When the richest and most powerful group admonishes people in the middle(mostly whites)about the evil of inequality, it's hysterical.
Of course, liberal elites have fashioned a way out of this dilemma. People at Harvard and Yale may admit they are smarter(and gonna grow richer and more powerful), but they flatter and justify themselves with the idea that 'with great power and wealth comes great responsibility, and since they so liberal and do-goody, they are deserving of more wealth and power since they're gonna work for the good of mankind than just for themselves--like greedy conservatives). So, Penny-pinching Pritker rakes in billions and donates a few millions to Obama, and flatters herself that her family is deserving of al that fortune cuz it's working for the good of mankind. I'll bet tycoons on Wall Street feel the same way. Oy vey.
"And I know why they feel this way - because they have an irrational fear that somewhere out there in flyover country some white Nazi militia is poised to take over the country and throw them all into gas chambers."
No. While some Jews may actually think like this, I think it's really a schtick with most of them. Jews don't think Nazis are gonna take over. Jews use the 'Nazi' card to quell criticism of Jewish power that they privately know is legitimate and could be effective.
It is a tool of control.
Exaggeration is useful in politics. Conservatives like to compare Obama with communists not because they really believe Obama is gonna be Stalin but because they don't wanna pay more taxes.
And Founding Fathers hysterically exaggerated what the British were gonna do to colonialists--enslave them and blah blah blah--to break free from the mother country.
Politics of hysteria, like political cartoons, works. Of course, Jews don't call it hysteria when they themselves do it. It's only 'hysteria' when the Right opposes the Left.. just like only the Right is 'paranoid', 'hateful', and 'hypocritical'.
I think some people do actually believe in the hysterial narrative, but I think they are partly suspending their disbelief--as when watching a movie--because hysteria simplifies things and makes them feel good.
In the early 90s, I tagged along with my friend who went to buy guns from a small town white guy who served in Vietnam. Outwardly, he was just a normal guy. But once he got to talking, it was all about 'nig---s', 'gooks', and how Muslims were planning to invade the country and he's ready with his guns(and he had lots of them). Now, I wonder how much he really really believed that Muzzies were planning to invade the US, but it seemed to give him a sense of mission in life.
Also, the pessimistic personality wants to believe in the worst as a kind of emotional defense mechanism. That way, if the worst does indeed happen, they won't be shocked since they anticipated and prophecized it.
Luttwakjob.
DREAMS FROM MY FATHER is Obama's ROOTS(by Haley). Mythmaking.
You know, it's possible that a kind of Diva-mentality prevailed upon Jews after decades of adulation, praise, sympathy, admiration, support, and even worship.
When Diana Ross was just starting out, she could take criticism and tough-love advice from her handlers and collaborators. But once she became a superstar, she got addicted to adulation and etc. She became a spoiled diva enclosed in her own bubble. She could not handle ANY criticism.
I think Jews in the 50s and even early 60s could take criticism better. But since then, there's been nothing more than love-fest and worship for the Jew(though Jewish media played no small part in this). No matter where Jews go, they get nothing but love, praise, and support from Left, Right, Protestants, Catholics, men, women, and etc. After such experience for decades, Jews are like spoiled children diva princes and princesses. Admired for their smarts and power AND sympathized for their victimhood and etc.
Jews have become like Diana Ross or Maria Callas. Or Barbra Streisand. Though ugly as hell, she's been made into a sex symbol and since she's Jewish, people are supposed to say she was 'unconventionally' beautiful. So, real beauty is now 'conventional' and ugliness is 'unconventional beauty', just like 'gay marriage' is true marriage while real marriage is just the boring 'conventional' kind. (No wonder Jews feel such natural rapport with gays.)
Britain = island nation protected by powerful fleet
Germany = continental nation surrounded by powerful enemies
Thus British fearless, Germans fearful
QED
David Remnick is like the bridge between the Jews and us. Many Jews are pushy, abrasive, ethnic, and obnoxious. So, Remnick, like Obama, is useful as a kind of clean-cut, mild-mannered, waspish, and mellow Jew who never gets angry, riled up(at least in front of the camera), nor acts like Dershowitz or Barney Frank.
But I think it's all an act, and I think Remnick himself knows it. He didn't get to become an ace reporter for the Washington Post by being such a nice guy. Reporters have to get down n dirty, and Remnick surely is a cutthroat operator who loves power. But before the camera he's always acting so uh-goshy and I would never hurt a fly routine. In fact, me thinks he projected his own weasely schtick onto both Obama and Ali--on whom he wrote a book.
The Ali-Obama comparison is useful. Though Ali used to be an aggressive/abrasive figure, he supposedly learned to love America. He became an All-American Negro, and this happened cuz white people finally opened their hearts to him. Similarly, Obama is said to have a troubled youth, but once he realized white folks love him, he too became a Good Negro. So, we must be good--be pro-Negro--and blacks will become good Negroes.
Ali has been used as a measure of where black culture had been and where it ended up. Ali was of the civil rights era of 60s. Mike Tyson was of the materialistic and gangsta rap 80s. So, liberals have been dreaming of restoring Ali-ism and bring dignity back to black culture.
But this is really a mythic narrative. Ali was a lowlife punk, and there is no shortage of Ali-like punks in the black community. THAT is the problem. Ali was a great boxer, but the image of Ali as saint-hero is just a liberal white/Jewish projection. Ali is especially useful to Jews cuz he used to be with Nation of Islam, but Jews managed to convert him to a Jew-friendly version of Islam.
A couple of things to consider for those of you who didn't read the interview but have launched into the usual posts about Jews:
* Luttwak's claim about Jews being politically stupid was prompted by a comment about their spurning of evangelical Christians as allies (an interesting exception to this was Ariel Sharon, who was a gracious host to American evangelical groups who came to visit Israel). It's hard to dispute that: Jews generally care about Israel, and so do evangelicals; so the smart thing, politically, would be for Jews to cultivate them as allies, which few of them do.
* It's worth reading Luttwak's comments on Iran, which were more interesting (and more important) than his comments on Israel. The tl;dr version: Iran is in the process of developing the first post-Islamic society, as Iranians chafe against the strictures of the Islamic Republic; the declining black market price of scotch in Iran (which needs to be smuggled in from Dubai with the cooperation of the Revolutionary Guards) is a measure of the weakening of the theocracy's control in Iran.
Catholic elites were notably more influential than Jewish elites in transforming American immigration policy.
Back at it, I see. MQ, this is a preposterous lie. Catholic elites had no recognizable role in that change whatsoever. And if they had had a role, is there any reason to think that it would not have been the result of Jewish influence on their thinking?
Surely, you realize that the Jewish community was lobbying the Vatican intensely (and successfully) in the early 1960s to produce changes in Catholic doctrine. See Joseph Roddy's "How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking" in the 1/25/66 edition of "Look" magazine.
The difference between the wasp elite and Jewish elite is the former acted like elites--as insiders in the hall of power--whereas Jews, though insiders in the tower of power, still act like they're outsiders stepped on by the world. This is partly due to history. Jews have perfected the outsider/exile/minority narrative for 1000s of yrs. There was also the Holocaust. So, Jews, even as self-professed elites, put on the role of the TRAGIC ELITE. In contrast, Wasps adopted and accepted their role as the TRIUMPHANT ELITE, at least for the time when they did have in all--demography, economics, politics, culture, moral authority, etc.
Jews are now more powerful than wasps but due to their sense of history(more of defeat than victory)and their position(only 2% of the population despite all the wealth and power), Jews are unable to take on the responsibility of power that wasp elites once did. Wasp elites felt obligated to do good for the whole country. Jews feel that OTHERS should be obligated to help out Jews even though Jews are rich and powerful. Jews do reach out to blacks and browns, but notice Jews don't think in terms of 'what's good for the whole ocuntry' but 'what's good for oppressed minorities who are like us poor helpless Jews against the antisemitic white majority'. By siding with blacks and browns, Jews are not accepting the role of elites but the role of underdogs helping other underdogs against powerful and privileged white gentiles.
In a way, the sudden rise of Jews is like the sudden rise of liberal Boomers. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s, they still hadn't take elite power. They still still young and/or too inexperienced(and older generations still held the key to power). It's a generation that defined itself in terms of rebellion, counter-culture, nonconformity, freedom, etc. Indeed, so much so that by the time when they really did become the elite masters of the mainstream, they still acted like they were young and underprivileged--though they were the middle-aged and powerful. By early 90s, boomer Clinton had eclipsed Bush Sr. And culture and academia were also taken over entirely by boomers. With the so-called Greatest Generation all but defeated and with Boomers in seats of power, it became ever more ridiculous for Boomers to yammer about rebellion when they held the power. Just as the Jews mythologized the Holocaust to maintain their aura of victimhood, Boomers mythologized the 60s when they fought the uphill battle. (To be sure, the big battle in the 90s and 2000s was between liberal boomers and conservative boomers. As it turned out, at least half of boomers in the 60s were not hippies or druggies or anti-war folks but 'patriotic'. But conservatives lost the counter-culture war and the pop culture war, and so the 60s narrative is almost entirely liberal boomer. Tom Brokaw's BOOM was something of a corrective, narrating the stories of boomers who were on the other side, such as Karl Rove.)
As the 21st century marches on, white folks have two big challenges: Jews and Chinese. Jews have taken over US and EU. China is growing more powerful by the day, and if Chinese play it right, 21st century could indeed be the Pacific century favoring the East.
But the mentalities that instruct Jews and Chinese are different. Jews, as described earlier, have long developed the cultural mindset of breaking in. A small diaspora group for 1000s of yrs, Jews had to break into elite halls of power in gentile lands. Jews wanna enter the castle built by others.
Chinese, in contrast, have a fortress mentality. They are known for the Great Wall. Even as Chinese do business with the rest of the world and even though Chinese know their nation is not the Middle Kingdom, they still have that mindset. Jews have a similar feeling about Israel, but by its size, it can never be as secure and mighty as power center as China can be, a huge nation with over a billion people.
Chinese are Great Wall people while Jews are the Wailing Wall people and Wall Street people. Jewish historical sense is wailing about the loss of their ancient wall, forcing upon them the status of exile all over the world. Though the Great Wall didn't always protect China from barbarians, there is still the sense among Chinese that China has long protected and preserved their civilization from endless assaults by outsiders. Also, even in defeat--by Mongol and Manchus and British and Japanese--, Chinese were never exiled from their own land. Jews, in contrast, lost their own land when Rome sacked it good.
So, there it is. White folks caught between the Great Wall Dragon and Wailing Wall Octopus.
Dutch Boy:
"Britain = island nation protected by powerful fleet
Germany = continental nation surrounded by powerful enemies
Thus British fearless, Germans fearful
QED"
Certainly, I agree completely.
Did my post on gays in England get eaten, Steve? :)
anon:
"English are very fearful on the issue of fearlessness, i.e. they fear being labeled 'racist' or fearful-of-other-races."
Eh, not nearly as much as Americans do. And I'm trying to describe the typical English, not the metropolitan elites.
English are very fearful on the issue of fearlessness, i.e. they fear being labeled 'racist' or fearful-of-other-races.
Have you read the Daily Mail recently?? British are definitely less PC than Americans (while still being heavily committed to liberalism).
When a new elite takes over, it learns lessons from how the old one lost it and is careful not to make the same mistakes.
When Bolshies took power from the Provisional Government, the lesson was "don't be willy nilly and too nice; be ruthless with the power." Alas, the Tsar lost power cuz he's been too nice. And then the Provisional Government lost power cuz it tried to be relatively fair with the opposition.
When Nazis took power from the democratic government and traditional German elites, the lesson was 'be singleminded and use all means to silence and suppress all opposition'. Nazis took no chances, and had it not been for Hitler's mad gamble, they would have kept the power for a long time.
So, Jews, having taken power from wasps, certainly would be foolish to act like neo-wasps if they want to keep the power. If Jews act like wasps, they'll go the way of wasps.
Just watched the (brilliant) Hartman clip above. RIP Phil, but is it just me or was Nora Dunn the most Irish-looking woman in the history of that harp-heavy show... Coulda doubled for Enya. (though I don't remember Cusack, and Julia Sweeney resembles your typical chancellor of West Germany)
Blacks are collectivist in the sense of collecting, often by looting, stuff from other folks.
Sociologist: how collectivist are you?
Hood rat: man, I'm REAL collectiviss. Every time the power goes out, there I am colleckin.
I dare you to write about the esteemed Griffe Du Lion's find that Republicans give birth to more retarded children.
The study you site doesn't say that. It says that school districts in Republican-leaning areas classify more of their children as retarded, which given the results of Table 2, suggests that Republicans are more honest than Democrats.
wouldn't the simple explanation for the phenomenon you indicate (if it indeed exists) be that many conservatives don't believe in abortion as a sensible answer to, say, the "problem" of a Down's-Syndrome fetus?
Good second guess, but Blacks aren't going to be driven by right-leaning religious morals. Blacks have lots of low-birthweight babies which grow up to be retarded, and probably don't bother testing for Downs.
They were based on the assumption that we would need to resort to trench warfare to defeat the entrenched Iraqi troops who hadn't been dislodged by months of bombing. And if we fought them the usual way -- breaching trench lines, sending our troops into the trench systems -- we would have suffered those sorts of casualties.
But US forces never had the least little intention of fighting Iraq WWI-style.
...
The 1973 Arab-Israeli war was one of armor and mobility. Prior to to the Gulf War, many (not just Powell or Luttwak) predicted trench warfare, mainly because the Iraqis were entrenched, and had remained entrenched despite months of aerial bombardment (by A-10s and everything else). They had also recently fought a 8-year long trench war with a numerically superior foe (Iran). ... But there still could have been high casualties in the frontal assault of the Iraqi trench lines if that was done in the traditional manner.
Again, the US Army and USMC never had any plan or intention to fight the Iraqis In the Iranian style. Where did you get such an incorrect idea?
Jews assimilate within a few generations in any country where there isn't pronounced anti-semitism or formal religious separatism built into the governance structure. The wave of intermarriage among secular Jews in the U.S. is well-known. German Jews were extremely assimilated.
But did German Germans agree that that German Jews were assimilated?
Our tanks were vastly superior: they outranged the Iraqi tanks by a factor of three, had superior armor, infrared capability, laser ranging, computerized fire-control, yadaa yadda... In the Iraqis _best_ tank battle, Medina Ridge, they approached in defilade, behind a ridge, which allowed them to close. At close range, they actually managed to damage 4 US tanks , while losing 186 tanks of their own. One American was killed in that battle - by friendly fire. Every tank battle in the Gulf War was more one-sided than any previous tank battle in history. We made Michael Wittman look like a piker.
Both Gulf War I and II deflated the reputation of Roosky tanks, as well as the reputation of the IDF as super warriors defeating larger numbers of tank-equipped Arabs.
They would have sunk even more British ships but some of the bombs that hit the British ships didn't go off, suggesting as Simon says, an elite of first rate pilots
Most of them American-trained.
Post a Comment