There’s an interesting article I read today, that takes a serious look at Kevin McDonald’s ideas of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Kevin McDonald is known for proposing the idea that Jews have effectively evolved to damage the fabric of the societies they inhabit, in an effort to promote their own internal social cohesion and survival as a group.
Nathan Cofnas responds to this idea with some arguments I’ve made myself over the years. To start with, a lot of the predominance of Jews in destructive social movements can be traced back to the fact that Jews are simply a relatively smart and economically successful group of people living in urban European environments. Half of the world’s chess grandmasters are Jewish too, but nobody ever gets upset about this and comes up with a conspiracy theory to explain it. In countries without a lot of Jews, ideas and philosophies emerge that are propagated in other countries by Jews. As an example, French existentialism has close similarities to the Jewish Frankfurt school, despite being a product of secular ethnic French.
Two other valuable points he makes is that Jews are also over-represented in political movements that are in fact culturally conservative and opposed to mass-immigration and cosmopolitanism, while the Jews who promote cosmopolitanism and immigration tend to do so for their own community too. As an example, George Soros has no real affinity to the Jewish community and attempts to impose his open society ideas on Israel too, while Chomsky and Noel Ignatiev, despite being far-left pro-multicultural Jews, have a deep aversion against Israel.
The problem with the theories of the “Jew-namers” is that they’re effectively unfalsifiable for those of us who wish to treat their theories seriously, rather than simply dismissing them out of hand as most people do. If you were to claim for example, that the American government is occupied by Zionists or that Jews caused multiculturalism, you’d have to come up with standards by which the assertion could be considered refuted. A theory that’s unfalsifiable can’t be treated in a serious manner, at least not by those who don’t already believe in it.
For this reason, I suspect that the anti-semites might actually be
working for the Jews fooled into discrediting themselves all along. If you make reasonable arguments that most people might agree with, but then come up with an unfalsifiable theory that makes you an unemployable social pariah if you were to publicly adhere to it, you have successfully discredited the reasonable arguments through guilt by association.
If I’m an asbestos salesman who can’t make a reasonable argument against your assertion that asbestos causes cancer, I’d try to convince you to mention after every presentation you make about my product that cancer itself is ultimately simply a fungus that can be cured through prayer. If someone mentions asbestos causes cancer, I’d ask why he’s not mentioning the fungus. If you don’t name the fungus, it must mean you’re working for the asbestos industry.
My response to this issue is to promote a mature and progressive interpretation of nationalism. This is another issue that tends to go unmentioned in my experience. For some reason, nationalism today per definition needs to be intertwined with the long list of stupidities peddled on the conservative side of the political spectrum, as if people are utterly blind to the reality that nationalism emerged as a leftist movement in the 19th century.
Imagine if Donald Trump came out today, proposing that immigration to the United States should be restricted to “those countries whose inhabitants have the inherent talents and national characteristics desirable, eliminating entirely those countries whose subjects have already been difficult to assimilate”. The usual suspects would be outraged. His supporters would be ecstatic. Now blink your eyes and realize that these are the words of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. A socialist woman, who promoted birth control during the early 20th century with her anarchist friends under the slogan “no Gods no Masters”.
If you’re wondering what went wrong, a more plausible explanation than hook-nosed Jews in universities plotting against angry white males is that within the Western world, the entirety of public life and government policy has become subservient to the economy. The economy needs to grow every year, as we live in a debt-based system, where negative growth leads to an inability to pay back loans and subsequent economic chaos. If you wonder why governments don’t seem to take climate change seriously either, then this is the reason you’re looking for.
Ironically, the traditional left gets the blame for mass immigration in Europe, whereas the main waves of labor immigration can be traced back to what I would refer to as the growth cucks, the type of Christian democrats and market liberals who apparently can’t screw their nation without first watching the economy stick its 6% growth in her. After watching as the economy screws their nation, finishing on her face with a big load of shopping malls, parking lots and office complexes, these politicians eagerly jump in for the sloppy seconds.
The simple reality is that I’m not going to run into the arms of the people who caused this crisis in the first place now that they claim to take it seriously. Similarly, I have very little patience for the vast majority of right-wing movements I am aware of. You want to get rid of our tiny foreign aid budgets, whereas the expenses mostly consist of handing out contraception to third world women who would otherwise give birth to more children than they can provide for.
You wish to outlaw abortion, ensuring that every teenage girl who gets knocked up in high school can give birth to tomorrow’s mediocre generation of young men who grow up without their fathers. You also seem to insist that we can burn fossil fuels with impunity. The reason why this is not a problem seems to change on daily basis, so I stopped keeping track. From what I heard, CO2 is plant food and we’ll soon have a new ice age anyway.
What I hope to see reemerge, is something that existed before the second world war: A mature and rational progressive movement that would like people to be born with equal opportunities in life but realizes you can’t bring such a thing about by waving your magic wand. Your donation to the United Negro College Fund isn’t going to make a real difference. Preventing a drug-addicted woman from having another child might.
Why am I such an asshole about this? Because it matters. There are people who are born to artists, doctors, biologists or lawyers and those people born into such circumstances tend to die having accomplished something noteworthy in life. Then on the other side of the spectrum, there are people born without any real chance. There are children who have to be removed from their households, because the mothers choose to side with the step-fathers when the step-fathers are caught sexually abusing them. It’s the difference between dying with your name on Wikipedia and dying with your name censored on court documents. Or as William Blake put it:
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.