Monday, June 15, 2009

Redefinition of citizenship

The discussions, over at GoV, about first the Jews in Bolshevism and then about Kevin MacDonald, triggered the following comment from Armance:

The major flaw that I can see in Kevin MacDonald's work is that it lacks a comparative study of the Jews with the behavior of other ethnic or religious minority groups in the West: because doing a comparative study of minorities, I think one will notice obvious similarities. Particularly in our times, when minorities are encouraged to feel "oppressed" and "discriminated", you will notice that almost all minorities, and particularly their representative organizations, develop an obvious bitterness and hostility towards the majority of the population and their host nations.

So, I would like to see a study of the Jewish organizations in Europe and the USA compared to the Muslims in the West (CAIR, etc.), Hispanics in America (La Raza), Blacks in the US and Gypsies in Eastern Europe, etc. I think all of them tend to have the same behaviour, particularly when encouraged by PCism (and George Soros's institutes and foundations).
This inspired my to write a longer answer, where I line out many of my ideas regarding a future need for a redefinition of citizenship:

- - - - - - - - -
Armance,

Good point. I still, however, think that the main flaw of Kevin MacDonald and his kind, is the sheer obsession with the Jews, and their utter detachment from reality. As I have already written:

Jews never succeeded well in looking after their best interests. Jews act according to their nature, not according to what's in their interest. All conspiracy theories about Jews fantasize about how the Jews are extremely clever in controlling things at a global level to turn it into their advantage. This is nonsense of course.

However, next to this I agree with you that the lack of comparative study is the major flaw of Kevin MacDonald. But of course we shouldn't expect that from him since his purpose is not an honest investigation in the first place. Omission and skewed perspective is one of the prime tools of propaganda deception (cf. the MSM).

When we find such similar traits as you mention (at a group level) from such disparate groups as Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Gypsies, etc., it clearly depends on us and not on them (see Russia for a point of reference were things are very different regarding such matters). So instead of dubbing each of them special interest groups, with special protection -- and encouraging them to feel "oppressed" and "discriminated", resulting in bitterness and hostility towards the majority of the population and their host nations -- we should reverse this PC regime all across the line, i.e. including for the Jews. Trying to keep the Jews as an exception for PC protection will only fail.

Once having gotten that out of the way, it would be easier to speak soberly about the actual differences between these disparate groups. Where Jews have a much higher ability for assimilation into a nationalistic Europe. But none should be admitted in as a group! We have to end this "social contract" multiculturalism entirely. People should individually be admitted organically into the ethnic nation. A nation is a higher order family. And a family is first of all based on an ethnic core. But a family also allows for organically including outsiders (e.g. through marriage or adoption), as long as the ethnic core is not threatened. This is in the nature of the concept of a family, and also of higher order families.

This does not only apply to the many good Jews, that are among our most trustworthy allies, but also to e.g. people of Muslim background (better known as ex-Muslims) who stand of for our culture better than the Westerners themselves.

I'm assuming in my reasoning above that due to the utter recklessness of our "Enlightened" elites, in handing out passports for free en masse, that our concept of citizenship will have to be reconstructed. There is bound to come a discontinuity on that point, our elites have invested deeply into that with their recklessness. I assume further that we will look farther back in history to find a stable base for a new concept of citizenship, that is before the French Revolution.

Apart from those of other ethnicity that are individually included as citizens, there will be those who remain in the West as residents, i.e. with substantially less political rights, i.e. they will have no power over political affairs. At this level however, we have to judge at group level. Jews are fine, while Muslims are not. Blacks have a long history in America, and will no doubt remain as residents.

I'm very fond of this old fashioned concept of citizenship, where less than half of the people in a country are citizens with access to political affairs. Best in test through millenia of history! So much more humane and balanced than all these utopian ideologies with roots in the French Revolution, which never can take a moderate position but only flip between extremes, and which always ends up in mass murder (or mass suicide) one way or the other.

8 comments:

latté island said...

I like the idea of limiting political rights to real citizens, not everyone, but I'd like to fine-tune this. Stateless peoples like Jews and Gypsies don't have enough choice in this scheme, because they don't have the option of going home, so whatever choice they make will be partly coerced and therefore unstable.

Some Jews will be genuinely satisfied with moving to Israel, some will be genuinely satisfied with becoming part of whatever nation they live in, and then there's the majority who will assimilate but know there's something subtly wrong. I belong to this group. And conscious people like me are rare. The majority who sense there's something wrong can't live comfortably in that space, so they become toxic, compulsive multiculturalists, or act out in other ways, just to reassure themselves they still exist and haven't turned into goyim.

Why not solve the problem for real, by creating an alternative to Israel for Jews who don't belong there? That sounds like a ridiculous privilege, but it's really the only way to make everyone happy and end the cycle of partial assimilation, resentment, anti-semitism, attempts at genocide, guilt, partial assimilation, etc. Ditto for the gypsies, who aren't as much trouble, but if they had a homeland, they'd probably develop into better neighbors.

Non-Jews who think Israel should fit the needs of all Jewish nationalists are either underinformed or malicious. When I discuss this issue with some people, it reminds me of conversations I've had with authoritarian doctors who prescribe medicine we both already know doesn't work, but they want me out of the office because I've already taken up enough time.

diariest said...

Dear Conservative Swede,

thanks for making me aware of the debate on antisemitism and Kevin MacDonald over at the Gates of Vienna. It shows once again that the only interesting intellectual debates are on the right, well, perhaps even the "far-right".

It inspired me to try to put words on my thoughts.

Here's what I wrote on my blog, "Anteckningar från ett källarhål":

I really don't want to join in or even comment, because isn't discussing Jews unimportant compared to rallying the masses and the establishment behind the flag of immigration restrictionism?

To most people, discussing Israel and anti-Semitism is esoteric and, well, boring.

Still I'm concerned about the attempts to legalize kosher and halal slaughter and since I want equality before the law with no exemptions, I want to see a ban on
male circumcision of small baby boys for religious reasons as well.

And since Jews and non-Jews will call me an anti-Semite for that, I change my mind
and like to make a couple of things perfectly clear.

One thing is that I think we have to distinguish between Jews who don't identify as Jews and Jews who do. The terrible thing with Hitler was that he didn't make such a distinction (well, there were other terrible things with him as well, but never mind that now), but built his Jew-hatred entirely on genetics.

(Please don't fall for the temptation to ask if the Holocaust had been alright had it focused only on people identifying as Jews. Of course it hadn't.)

Jewish organizations, though, (notice how I refrain from using the term "Organized Jewry"), can be a pain in the ass. They will always. . . well, often exaggerate and demonize anyone who goes against their agenda. Take kosher slaughter and "male" circumcision/mutilation.

When Sweden outlawed circumcising (male) babies without pain relief and without authorization, the Jewish World Congress made comparisons to Nazi Germany.

As would be expected.

And the Jewish Central Council of Sweden has made comparisons to Nazi Germany and the Swedish ban on unanesthetized kosher and halal slaughter. As for unanesthetized
"male" circumsions the head of the Council has said, that Jews will perform the rite in Denmark, if necessary.

But as if that wasn't bad enough.

Stephen Steinlight, former chairman of the American Jewish Committee, has, as one of few exceptions (the others being Don Feder, Paul Gottfried, Lawrence Auster, among the more famous), repeatedly spoken out against the immigration liberalism of Jewish organizations in America, and ADL's support for the Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill (that is, amnesty for illegal aliens) proves that it's still very much alive.

There is even a Jewish double standard here, since what organized Jewry (ooops) won't allow European countries to do, that is restricting immigration in order to preserve their ethnic core, it will allow Israel to do.

That and Israel giving American traitor Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship, reinforces the old stereotype of the pushy, arrogant Jew.

There also is the eternal Jewish consideration: "Is it good for the Jews?" Well, the examples I cite here aren't. They are "bad for the Jews".

I would welcome a change in the mentality of "organized Jewry". I don't think the present one is good for the Jews.

If you go to
my blog
you can also read part 2 on the same subject.

diariest said...

1) "White guilt--the need to win enough moral authority around race to prove that one is not a racist--is the price whites today pay for this history. Political correctness is a language that enables whites to show by wildly exaggerated courtesy that they are not racist; diversity does this for institutions. But white guilt's greatest taboo is the one that Howard Dean violated--assigning whites a racial identity out of which they can pursue power as whites."
Shelby Steel in WSJ

A political candidate can cater to any ethnic vote but the white one. More and more whites sense that and are increasingly concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren. Will they be discriminated? Well, they already are, in a number of ways. Affirmative action is just one example.

This creates a double standard. It runs contrary to all rethoric that all humans are of equal worth, regardless of race, gender, religion, what have you.

The official excuse is that the whites are a majority. But it's a dwindling majority. 40 years ago 90 percent of the population of the USA was white, now it's only 60 percent.

In "Who are we?" Samuel Huntington warns of a white nationalism as a reaction to this and the fact that whites are discriminated against. Seems as if "our leaders" haven't read it. Pity, it's one of the best books in my vast collection.

Left-liberal The Nation reported in 2006 on growing white discontent in an article titled White Heat.

What's true for America in this respect is also true for Europe.


2) You can't have a discussion about Jews and Kevin MacDonald without dragging John Derbyshire into it.

He's a charming man with a knack for being a frank goy who gets away with breaking taboos without being deemed an anti-Semite. Probably because he isn't one and Jews sense that.

Wrestling with Derbyshire's law

Is Kevin MacDonald right?

link

Well, read all the articles attached to the links above!

Conservative Swede said...

"White guilt--the need to win enough moral authority around race to prove that one is not a racist--is the price whites today pay for this history. Political correctness is a language that enables whites to show by wildly exaggerated courtesy that they are not racist; diversity does this for institutions."

Yes, this is spot on! Thanks for the link.

diariest said...

Same source:

"No group in recent history has more aggressively seized power in the name of its racial superiority than Western whites. This race illustrated for all time--through colonialism, slavery, white racism, Nazism--the extraordinary human evil that follows when great power is joined to an atavistic sense of superiority and destiny. This is why today's whites, the world over, cannot openly have a racial identity."

Whites/white nationalists have to face up to this. That doesn't mean that whites have a monopoly on racism, or xenophobia, or ethnic chauvinism, et cetera.

The paradoxical truth is that because of White Guilt, whites in general are less racist, xenophobic and ethnically chauvinist than others races or people.

One interesting example is what I read in the Speccie some years ago, before it became neocon and boring (pre-neocon, paleocon Paul Gottfried wrote a piece on Ariel Sharon there), an Indian journalist told us white readers to feel less guilty, because his native country, India, was far more racist.

And another article in the same mag. revealed that immigrants to the UK with both white and African ancestry thought themselves superior to immigrants with only African ancestry.

(NB, I don't say this just to look good, but I really, honestly don't dislike blacks or people only because of their skin color. I judge people, as far as I'm able to, on their personal merits or vices.)

As we all know, in Africa and the Arab world slavery is still alive and well, and it's revolting how little this is talked about. Why shouldn't blacks and Arabs feel equally guilty about slave trade?

Because you can't expect the same standards of conduct from these people?

Years ago, there was a funny little Menken worshiping net mag. called "Texas Review", where they joked about this. In the vein of "boy will be boys", they wrote "niggers, what can you expect?",
just to show how absurd that kind of double standard is.

That's the level white guilt and political correctness has (have? I'm no grammar whiz) descended to.

The only nice thing about George Bush is the expression "the bigotry of low expectations".

That's what all lefties and liberals are guilty of.

diariest said...

Post scriptum:

What a sloppy writer I am!

a) "others races". Of course I know it's "other races".

b) "I think the most of you".
Well, that's an an erroneous idiom, isn't it? But I was in a hurry, as always.

diariest said...

I like to add something I forgot yesterday.

1) Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment which shows that
almost all contributors to "arts and sciences from ancient times to the mid-twentieth century" have been white males.

Furthermore that Christianity is considered a very important, yes, crucial factor in this development.

2) That it's has been whites who have been the foremost fighters for human rights and against slavery, and women's lib., etc.

rebelliousvanilla said...

latte, do you realize how irrational your request is? Jews aren't a stateless people, Israel is your state, regardless if you like it there or not. I mean, I'm Romanian and I would like the US to give me New Hampshire to make a capitalist, meritocracy for Romanian people there too, but I do see that my request is outrageous. And gypsies are much of a problem, I guess you don't live with them. I dislike checking my pockets all the time or seeing beggers everywhere and so on. Also, their culture says that stealing from others is ok and working is for idiots. And that won't change.

diariest, it's funny but I watched a youtube video of this black man who said that if a white nationalist movement is formed, he will join it because what is happening to white people and how they are treated and portrayed is unfair or something like that.

And the Muslim slave trade was a lot more extensive than the one done by Europeans and for African-Americans today it was actually a net gain so it's funny in a way that they cry about it. Also, putting people from your racial group first isn't racism, even if it is discriminatory. Racism implies prejudice and hate and you're not prejudiced when you care for your ethnic group more than others. I'd like to see a father who saves his own child from drowning prejudiced because he chose his child and not the child of someone else. Colonialism is also something that wasn't that bad - people find it so evil because they are clueless about history. I guess they don't know that there were tribes who didn't have the wheel at the end of the 20th century, that slavery, polygamy, mutilations and cannibalism were fairly common. I guess the colonial powers should have destroyed all the infrastructure that they built when they left because that is oppressive and destructive. Hell, look at South Africa - it's becoming worse and worse, even for blacks since the end of the apartheid. Each year the living standards dropped, compared to how they were raising when the apartheid was in power. I wonder if they have in that quote of that African tribe leader that said that reducing his enemies to slave is the pride and rulling principle of his people. Or the one that said that eating his enemies and then defecating their remains is the biggest humiliation you can give to someone. The British also did away with the slave trade, do they mind that too? I mean, they don't complain about these dysfunctional behaviours re-emerging as whites disappear or are removed from power in Africa.

I agree with you thought, I judge people based on their individual merits and vices, but that doesn't mean I can't make a characterization of a group. Lots of people don't get this.