Oh, what have we here?
Sailer: Greenwald on Israel’s Spying on Americans
Le Cynge Gris: Fuck the Jews (classy! BTW, it’s ‘Joos’, TFTFY)
Theden: NSA Routinely Shares Americans’ Data With Israel
People, you are getting played. The pwnage is strong with this one.
This is especially embarrassing for people who claim to be savvy in the ways of modern journalism, its agenda and aims, its techniques, etc. but who aren’t even asking basic questions about this non-story ‘story’. Everybody’s got their trigger mechanisms that, when pressed, turn off the usually-operative cognitive filters of healthy skepticism.
If your priors lead you to strongly want to believe in the corrupt Israeli capture of the USG IC – as opposed to the utterly routine and widespread practice of partner security cooperation – then you should understand that you’re being more than a little irrational. You should compare your theory to what you know about reality, about the number and kind of people who staff such organizations who would know about and have to execute the details of such capture, and try to realize how implausible such a hypothetical actually is. But the taste of this particular syrup is so sweet – so tempting to your particular susceptibility sweet-tooth – that you cannot resist swallowing it down whole without hesitation. Along with Greenwald’s hidden medicine, of course. You do know the medicine he’s slipped in there, right? This is the obsessive toxiphobic uncharacteristically gulping down a product without even a cursory glance at the bottle’s label.
Sol Robeson: Hold on. You have to slow down. You’re losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You’re connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.
For example, two obvious questions about this matter involve issues of 1) Reciprocity (do you imagine USG is not getting anything in return? If you do you are a fool.) and 2) Uniqueness (do you imagine Israel is somehow the only country with this kind of relationship – if you do, you are a damned fool.) And if the country at issue in the document were the UK, or Germany or France, I highly doubt I’d see blog posts titled ‘F* Those of Anglo-Saxon Heritage’ written in the same tone.
Let’s get right to the point. Plenty of people around these parts can’t think clearly when it comes to the Joos. It’s probably Sailer’s only major blind-spot. Or whatever the equal and opposite nemesis of a blind-spot is – a tempting moth flame that, whenever it appears, draws one in too deep into intellectual danger zones. Yes, I understand the many good reasons why this is so, and I’m familiar with the whole sordid history and the purges and so on. But people, that’s no excuse to lose your otherwise excellent minds.
If one steps away and watches the dynamic from afar, one appreciates it for the true classical tragedy that it is. The Joos are paranoid of and delusionally hypersensitive of imaginary indicators of antisemitism lurking behind the polite facades of the goys, ready to explode in genocidal violence the moment the suppressive boot lets off even an inch. They are far too vigorous in their censorship, public ostracizations and condemnations, and excommunications from polite society. This creates a lot of resentment among the purged, sympathizers, ‘fellow-travelers’, etc. who, upon seeing the purges, start to think, and sometimes write, about the Joos in exactly the way the Joos feared.
Folks, it’s a bad equilibrium. A coordination problem of a sort that we’d be better off solving than perpetuating. Given the track record I, for one, would prefer to have the Joos on our side.
Handle's Haus 
I think it’s a hate crime in England to refer to England as an Anglo-Saxon country. A German or a Frenchperson can be any random Third Worlder per govt policy.
Understood all too well, alas. The point was to illustrate Le Cynge Gris’ just-slightly-impolite conflation of the sets “Israelis” a nationality, and “Jews”, a theo-ethno group. The actual state of affairs is a classic Venn diagram.
“A coordination problem of a sort that we’d be better off solving than perpetuating.”
I don’t think it can be solved which in turn makes me believe this is your blind spot.
If I be blind, then I beseech thee – lead me towards enlightenment and explain the foundation of your pessimism to my useless retinas.
Thanks Handle. This post (last two paragraphs in particular) is among the very best things very best things ever written on the topic. It has admirable balance, and the ‘obvious in retrospect’ quality of true insight.
Apparently I’m the opposite of those who say, “Don’t make me repeat myself.”
This comment is part of a habit I codified at Land’s, about posting comments that amount to, “Hear hear, good show old boy.”
The British conquer the entire world, twice, and people are still scared of the Joos.
Being scared of ze Germans I kind of understand, since the British are for the most part a variety of German. If Germany wasn’t almost landlocked the British might have had to work for their empire.
Who made modern Israel? The British, motherfuckers.
The two one-line zingers are well-worth repeating. They deserve to become classics. (The first one would make it onto my T-shirt list, but it’s very slightly too long.)
My humble thanks.
Let’s see if I can edit.
Britain conquers the world. Twice. Still scared of the Joos?
Or:
Scared of the Joos? The British conquered the world. Twice.
Or:
The Joos conquered banking. The British, the world. Twice.
Or:
Jooish conspiracy fails to prevent British conquest of world. (News-at-11-style typeface or accompanied by photo of newsreader)
Or:
Fucking British colonialists, eh? What Jews!
This is kind of a fun game, might be worth trying yourself.
It’s possible I’ve edited out the punch. As author, I’m not in a position to tell the difference.
Alrenous needs edit button.
Seems to be some convergent evolution in the air, since I can also cite Land’s pre-emptive expansion of the Moldbug line: http://www.xenosystems.net/broken-pottery/
@The British conquer the entire world, twice
they didn’t even conquer the world once. at the height of their empire they only controlled 25% of the world land mass and perhaps 1/5 the population. that’s not “conquered the world” by any reasonable math.
Even were I to accept those numbers, they barely weaken my point.
Handle’s pro-semitic pro-Israel obsession is incredibly tiresome, and detracts from his enjoyable posts. Sadly, he seems to follow Rothbards law in writing more about the one topic in which he is worst on.
Wow, you’re right. It’s true, being anti-anti-semitic is the new ‘being objectively pro-semitic”. Just like the Marxists used to say. Got it.
“Handle’s pro-semitic pro-Israel obsession” — given that the post criticizes both poles of a ‘bad equilibrium’, and this logically necessitates that the criticism is evenly distributed, this deliberately one-sided meta-description is simple trolling. It would be no less accurate to describe the post as “an apology for antisemitism” (and no less ridiculous).
The two “poles” of this “bad equilibrium” are those who are pro-freedom of association and those who are anti-freedom of association. It’s those who are anti-freedom of association that make this a “bad” equilibrium. The anti-freedom of association side is comprised of both Jews and non-Jews. The pro-freedom of association side on this issue appears to be exclusively non-Jewish. I’ve yet to come across a Jew who is a serious supporter of the pro-freedom of association side on this issue.
“Given the track record I, for one, would prefer to have the Joos on our side.”
Good point, after all, that strategy worked out really well for conservatism.
But seriously, you shouldn’t be philo-Semitic or anti-Semitic, you should do your best to look at them skeptically, with fresh eyes, attempting to put aside any leftover propaganda (pro or anti) that might be lodged in your brain and taking into account the Dark Enlightenment’s sobering understanding of multiculturalism and relations between ethnic groups.
Imagine that there was a small ethnic group from Micronesia that was super smart and that had high cohesion relative to Westerners. Imagine that they immigrated to the West and gained a lot of high positions in Western societies.
Do you think that those societies would change? Do you think that the members of that ethnic group might leverage their high positions to benefit themselves and the members of their group, at the expense of the general population of outsiders?
Yeah, I’m familiar with the concepts. Ethnic or Identity-Group Solidarity, when prioritized over traditional western social values of fairness, meritocracy, disinterestedness, equality under the law, etc. – and when manifested in discriminatory nepotism / cronyism for important interpersonal decisions (especially those that unjustly perpetuate a group’s control over some domain) – is detrimental to general social capital, trust, and harmony.
For example, we know why O.J. was found not guilty. And we start to question the legitimacy and effectiveness of – in other words, to distrust – our democratic method of criminal justice. We recoil at extreme sentencing, but we compromise our sense of proportionality because we know that getting convictions is so hard that, when you get one, you had better throw away the key.
That being said, none of that tells us anything about the empirical question of how prevalent and severe the problem may be for any particular group for any particular set of human affairs. Do you have numbers? Do I? We do not. It’s important to distinguish a line of argument which explicates a human possibility from one which merely serves as an excuse to engage in group libel.
So the imagination runs wild without some discipline. Personally, I use my anecdotal experience and listen to what my lying eyes tell me to develop my expectations and presumptions about group behavior. From this, and from a societal strength perspective, I judge (though I’ll allow for persuasion otherwise), that Black solidarity is a ‘problem’, real and intense, whereas Jewish solidarity, at least in the 21st century, is not, neither prevalent nor particularly strong.
Well done. I was hoping someone would make this comment, and there is indeed some wisdom contained therein.
Of course, we have no idea what the non-neo-conservative counterfactual History would have been like. A party with a more preferable (to us) ideology but with what I’d guess would be less popularity, power and influence yields an ambiguous analysis.
They might, for example, be more mass immigration-skeptical, but they would be even more impotent to stop it.
B has it right, if Jews don’t like being the scapegoats of the evil deeds of the Cathedral, they must resign from Cathedral positions of power, and move to the Holy Land.
Either that or keep marrying Chinese women until all Jews dissolve in the Urban Chinese Fertility Trap.
So, their options are:
1. How they learned to stop worrying and love being the scapegoat
2. Get most of the members of their group to forsake positions of power and influence (it doesn’t help if you only do it yourself)
3. Dissolve into the Chinese – Robert Bakewell style.
Interesting.
You forgot the actual point:
—> 4. Go to the Holy Land and plant tomatoes. <—
But of course what will happen is a combination of your 3 points. And B will die a misunderstood man.
I will probably die after seeing my predictions vindicated.
Planting tomatoes is optional (although if you look at Gush Katif, they were able to make quite a good business of it-if you compete in a niche, agriculture can be very lucrative.) We also have a thriving industrial sector making all kinds of stuff for export all over the country, including in the middle of Tel Aviv, and of course the high-tech sector.
In general, it’s a much healthier national model than that of the West, where if you’re low-IQ, you can go on welfare, if you’re middle-IQ, you can have your job exported to China, then take it in the ass from the low-IQ, and if you’re high-IQ, you can either work in Silicon Valley or in the Apparat hoovering up resources from everybody else and persecuting Crimespeak and Crimethink (hi, Anil!)
Anyway, the role the West has for Jews is one of mutual destruction; being a high-IQ outgroup, they can be used to implement the elite’s distasteful policies, then thrown under the bus. In the process, many buy into the dominant philosophy and assimilate, turn homo or just fail to have children for status reasons. Israel’s current government is in large part (but not completely) a Western colonial subsidiary, a sort of overseas franchise of the same system that uses the Jews of the West in the ways described above, and receives patronage in return for obeisance. This patronage takes many forms, money, arms, cachet (subject to instant revocation for disobedience, as the NYT never tires of reminding us,) and of course intel. What specific NSA-gathered data the Israelis get and what they do with it is, of course, a matter for speculation, but I doubt it has much to do with White Nationalism, Dennis Mangan’s online dating site search data, or anything of the sort. Of course, that’s the thin edge of the wedge, to be followed up by the thick; even without an explicit quid pro quo, being reliant on someone else for strategically important intel is tantamount to being their bitch, and there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Sorry for the long comment.
The British conquer the entire world
With a little help from their friends.
Yeah, let’s face it, prior to the 19th Century and the Rothschilds, the British simply weren’t getting anything done of any significance.
Point taken, although they also made not-insignificant Jewish alliances prior to the 19th century.
A perfectly reasonable distaste for fanatical Jew-hatred should not blind one to the fact that Jews are sui generis and thus a proper object of fascination and even concern (as opposed to hysterical alarm).
There are two sides here: the pro-freedom of association side, and the anti-freedom of association side.
The “bad equilibrium” and “coordination problem” over this issue is the fault of the anti-freedom of association side. The pro-freedom of association side has no problem with Jews or with non-Jews who like Jews or want to include Jews. The pro-freedom of association side has no problem with Jews or non-Jews who wish to exclude people like them. The pro-freedom of association side has no problem working with or allying with Jews or non-Jews for shared goals.
The anti-freedom of association side is by definition opposed to freedom of association and cannot tolerate coordinating and working with a group of people who would implement and practice freedom of association.