We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Je suis Islamiste? The Jews are behind materialism, animal sexuality, the destruction of the family and the dissolution of society. Principal among them are Marx, Freud, Durkheim and the Jew Jean-Paul Sartre.
Sayid Qutb, former leader Muslim Brotherhood, quoted by Barbara Amiel.
Well I disagree with the conclusion, but I must admit that the pantheon of evil is pretty exhaustive.
Marx: the inspiration for all the best serial killers
Freud: the apologist for all the best serial killers
Durkheim: serial killer of brain cells
Sartre: creep
Hmm…
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Marx, Freud, Sartre … OK — the world would have been better off them if they had been ripped from their mothers’ wombs.
But Durkheim? A ‘serial killer of brain cells’? No – the great author of ‘The Elementary Forms of Religious Life’ did truly contribute to knowledge. In particular, it was Durkheim who coined the term ‘social facts’ — in other words, people behave in accordance with how they perceive reality, not necessarily with how reality ‘really’ is. That insight is hardly something that can damage your brain.
Now go and eat humble pie and apologise to the Durkheim fan club.
The thing is, Sartre wasn’t even a Jew.
I thought the homosexuals were responsible for all the evil in the world, and would eventually lead to its destruction.
*sigh*
Now I don’t feel so powerful.
Well, Durkheim was a key player in the development of the state education system in France, which has at least the redeeming feature that it does not promote theocracy [in fact there is a prohibition of religious proselytism in publicly funded schools that I agree with]. So maybe I was stretching it a bit.
As for Sartre: he ‘was not’ a Jew, when the Vichy government wanted to know if he wanted a nice job as a teacher, but he ‘was’ a Jew when marching around Paris in 1944 after the liberation, claiming to have spearheaded the resistance.
He also slept with one of his best friend’s wife. Like I said: “creep”.
“Like I said: “creep”
I’m certainly not going to disagree with you on that point. Sartre was a really nasty piece of work.
Emile Durkheim uncovered the roots of social instability. He was a great defender of family life. On a par with Murray N., I think, in the pantheon of very, very good jews. I have a bit of a liking for Alfred Adler, too.
Now, Walter Benjamin, Theodor W.Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Derrida, Lyotard … all bad guys. And what about Franz Boas. Was he jewish or merely raised in a jewish family?
Was he jewish or merely raised in a jewish family?
Who cares?
“Who cares?”
Bravo Perry !
That’s a silly thread.
I could name a million Jews which evrybody would adore, but that would be as silly as naming the other ones. I mean, you hate them or adore them not because of their Jewishness but for other, unrelated resons.
Thanks Perry.
My point in this posting was to point out that if the only reason for hating the West were Marx, Freud, Durkheim and Sartre, then I’m with the Islamistes.
Assuredly, I would rather that the Muslim Brotherhood should condemn Hitler, but they did not on this occasion.
I tend strongly towards the Existentialist myself… given the time period of his life and his writings he is certainly not as bad as many of his period. From a bio on Sartre:
“Sartre is one of those writers for whom a determined philosophical position is the centre of their artistic being. Although drawn from many sources, for example, Husserl’s idea of a free, fully intentional consciousness and Heidegger’s existentialism, the existentialism Sartre formulated and popularized is profoundly original. Its popularity and that of its author reached a climax in the forties, and Sartre’s theoretical writings as well as his novels and plays constitute one of the main inspirational sources of modern literature. In his philosophical view atheism is taken for granted; the “loss of God” is not mourned. Man is condemned to freedom, a freedom from all authority, which he may seek to evade, distort, and deny but which he will have to face if he is to become a moral being. The meaning of man’s life is not established before his existence. Once the terrible freedom is acknowledged, man has to make this meaning himself, has to commit himself to a role in this world, has to commit his freedom. And this attempt to make oneself is futile without the “solidarity” of others.”
You can jump either way from this as it says little more than that we are free and we must exist within a society. People of his time may have used that to defend that State; but we could just as well use it as a defense of non-State civil society.
Sartre was not a Jew, but he did defend the Jews, even wrote a book analyzing the phenomenon of anti-semitism. So I could see how that would make him a Jew in the eyes of a demented, ignorant anti-semite.
What was the point of this thread again?
kid,
The point of this thread is that Marx, Freud and others are a pretty good list to attack Western values with.
Whether any or all of them happen to have had one or more Jewish parents has nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.
Well, he forgot Ayn Rand (and her Collective) , most of the Chicago School, 40% of the Nobel price winners in economics (see list at http://www.jinfo.org/Nobels_Economics.html)…
What do Sayid Qutb and Karl Marx have in common? Both anti-Semites, Marx the author of ‘On the Jewish Question’ also known as ‘A World Without Jews’;
“What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”
“The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.”
“The Jew is perpetually created by civil society from its own entrails.”
“it is only in the Christian world that civil society attains perfection”
“Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism — huckstering and its preconditions — the Jew will have become impossible”
The hallmark of the Ashkenazic Jew is intelligence. The hallmark of jewishness is ethnocentricity, without which the race could not have survived for so very long, particularly as a diaspora.
The question naturally arises how these two qualities interact with one another and how any such interaction may manifest itself in gentile society.
It is a good and interesting question that is not answered by kneejerk negativity, either from those who want no answer or those who think they already have it.
As regards Boas, he was a fraud who manipulated the results of his seminal 1910 study to obtain support for environmentalism over scientific racism. But I don’t know whether he was a Jew or not, so I do not know whether he falls within the remit of that interesting question or not.
Guessedworker writes:
“As regards Boas, he was a fraud who manipulated the results of his seminal 1910 study to obtain support for environmentalism over scientific racism. But I don’t know whether he was a Jew or not, so I do not know whether he falls within the remit of that interesting question or not.”
Boas was not only Jewish but also had a very strong Jewish identity which is clearly reflected in his works. For details on his ‘ethnopolitical agenda’, see Chapter 2 ‘The Boasian School of Anthropology and the Decline of Darwinism in the Social Sciences’ in Kevin MacDonald’s ‘The Culture of Critique’. Fortunately, MacDonald’s brilliant evolutionary analysis of Judaism is now available free of charge on line at:
(Link)
Have a good read!
Like anyone with a utopian ideology to sell, Qutb was just sizing up the competition.
The hallmark of an Ashkenazi Jew – intelligence, really? Where on earth did you observe this attribute which I am supposed to possess.
Simon, believe me you are a genius. Or maybe your uncle is a genius.
Here are a few stats from Arthur Hu to convince you, in addition to the economics laureates mentioned by Franck Sidon:-
The Percentages are termed for jewish origins as a whole. But specifically Ashkenazic origin can be inferred from the fact that these are nearly all American stats.
% Jewish
100% CA Senators 1996
17% Nobel Physiology and Medicine
85% College age Jews in college
16% Time Most Important 25
76% Most influential intellectuals (Alan Dershowitz) 15% MacArthur “Genius” Awards 1981-97
60% Yale Grad students 15%
Time 20 20th Century Inventors
60% Top Hollywood positions (60 min)
15% USA Today College Academic Team
40% Lawyers at best NY and DC law firms
14% Clinton Cabinet 1997
20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
11% Nobel Physics Prize
30% Faculty at elite colleges
10% Pulitzer 1997
30% Supreme Court Law Clerks
10% US Senate
27% Ivy League Survey
10% US college faculty
26% US Law Professors (Volokh UCLA)
7.7% Corporate Boards
25% ACM Turing Award
7% Forbes HiTech 100 1997
23% Wealthiest Americans
3.0% US Voters 1996
23% Top 100 wealthy Canadians
2.0% US Population
17% Boston Symphony Strings
0.25% World Population
A footnote to Guessedworker’s comment:
Ashkenasi Jews have been practicing eugenics avant la lettre for the past three thousand years.
If a human breeding population selects for brain, it gets brain.
If it selects for brawn, it gets brawn — Haiti, Liberia, rap musicians, etcetera
“100% CA Senators 1996”
This ain’t no credible example. We’ve only got TWO of them.
What would happen if one of ’em lost their seat? Then you’d post that “50 percent” of CA Senators are Jewish?
And one day soon, no doubt, both CA Senators will be recent immigrants from the south. But they will never be a time when 40% of economics laureates are Mexican, which is my point.
Guessedworker,
I can picture the scene: Alexandria in 50BC, a group of Hellenistic scholars discussing IQ.
You’re the guy who says: “Those Italians are spreading across the Mediterranean, but there will never be an Italian culture! They’re just barbarians!”
Take your genetic determinism elsewhere!
As for your specific claim, if migration patterns continue, you can bet that in California there will be more than 40 per cent of “Latinos” getting degrees in every subject.
As for Californian US senators: I can imagine an organised crime link, but I do not see a link between being a Senator and being intelligent.
Criticizing Guessedworker, Gustave La Joie writes:
“As for your specific claim, if migration patterns continue, you can bet that in California there will be more than 40 per cent of “Latinos” getting degrees in every subject.”
Yeah — in every subject from Voodoo to Media Studies, at the Amerindian University of Aztecistan.
Guessedworker is simply making the obvious point that certain human breeding populations have, on average, a higher IQ than others, and that this is partly or mainly for genetic reasons. Jews have selected for intelligence, so on average they’re smarter than (say) White gentiles. Blacks and Hispanics have selected for something other than intelligence — physical strength, criminality, etc. — and so fewer of them ‘make it’ to university, since to go to university you need brain, not brawn.
Unless of course you introduce affirmative action, like the Nazis did when they wanted to raise the percentage of ‘disadvantaged’ White gentiles in tertiary education and reduce the percentage of ‘privileged’ Jews….
Gustave,
Your trigger finger requires immediate detachment without the aid of anaesthetic. The laureates to whom I refered were Nobelists, as my previous comment (to which Susan was responding) made clear.
My apologies for not re-using the Nobel clarification for those who had not followed the thread beforehand. You may now reciprocate with an apology of your own, if you wish.
Regarding Arthur Hu’s list, he is merely gathering statistics of Jewish achievement. These are startling, are they not? But it is, perhaps, to be expected from a people well known for an average SAT score of 116 (at least 10 points ahead of the next highest scoring group, Hong Kong Chinese).
As for genetic determinism, I’ll make a prediction. Hu’s list says that 85% – not 40 – of college-age Jews are in college. I betcha the Mexies never equal that unless entry standards are crashed a la Witwaterstrand in Joburg (where students average a SAT score of 85) – or unless Sir Charles’ affirmation action scenario intervenes.
Charles – thanks for riding shotgun. But Gustave doesn’t mean any harm.
Guessedworker, you mean IQ, not SAT.
Btw, a recommendation for others interested in questions of intelligence and group differences: http://www.isteve.com/
Ouille! Sorry!
I noticed (about Nobel laureates) after my comment was posted. I allowed my frustration of what has become a discussion about genetics and Judaism to overtake me.
However, I can see little evidence that Nobel prizes are awarded for intelligence, genetically determined or otherwise. I could go into the bad economics and bad science that gets rewarded year after year. If the prize for winning were immediate exceution and the destruction of one’s life-work, on balance I fear the human race would be better off.
My original point was that I merely wanted to point out that I agreed with demonising Marx, Freud and Sartre. If they were Bhuddists, Quebecois or the children of jazz musicians, it would have made no difference to me.
From my personal relations with Jewish people, I find the notion that Jews are anti-family very amusing.
Gustave,
The point, surely, is that Ashkenazics are such an extraordinary people extraordinary consequences must and do flow. Marx, Freud, Boas (still not sure about his adoption circumstances, though) and the Frankfurt philosophers are at the regrettable end of the scale. Attempts to explain them and their disastrous impact on gentile society can be of the somewhat florid variety employed by the Arab gentleman you quote or they can be of the evolutionary-psychological variety in which Kevin McDonald has specialised. But one way or another the fertility of the Ashkenazic mind in matters of the “perfection” of gentile society does call out for explanation.
KC,
Yep, don’t know why I typed that – twice, too. Freudian slip, maybe.
The evolutionary-pschy angle is interesting. But when we start using links from a white-supremacist website, viz. Charles Copeland above, I wonder if we are heading in the right direction?