Monday, April 21, 2008

Understanding the Anti-Gentile...

Jewish propagandist David Berlinski, writing at humanevents.com struts his neo-conish maneuvers in the following,

One man -- Charles Darwin -- says: “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. …”

Another man -- Adolf Hitler -- says: Let us kill all the Jews of Europe.

Is there a connection?


You'll note the his Darwin quote is in quotes, whereas the Hitler one isn't.
Why?
Because Hitler never said any such thing.

So right from the start Berlinski is misleading.

A professor of theology at Iowa State University, Hector Avalos is persuaded that Martin Luther, of all people, must be considered Adolf Hitler’s spiritual advisor. Luther, after all, liked Jews as little as Hitler did...


Well, yes Luther was an "anti-Semitic", but then so was Shakespeare, Henry Ford, Ricard Wagner, H.G. Wells, Cicero, Voltaire, King Ferdinand, Thomas Edison , Ezra Pound, H. L. Mencken, T.S. Elliot, Immanuel Kant, Edward VIII, Queen Isabella, Charles Lindbergh, Ulysses S. Grant, Strabo, etc....just to name a few.

In fact, the most worldly, well educated and socioeconomically successful people throughout the ages have been the most likely people to be of accused of being anti-Semitic.

Gee, I wonder why...

And yet if anti-Semitism has been the white noise of European history, to assign it causal powers over the Holocaust is simply to ignore very specific ideas that emerged in the 19th century, and that at once seized the imagination of scientists throughout the world.

To understand the above, here is an excerpt from Prof. Kevin Macdonald's book 'The Culture of Critique'
The material in the previous four chapters indicates that individuals who strongly identified as Jews have been the main motivating force behind several highly influential intellectual movements that have simultaneously subjected gentile culture to radical criticism and allowed for the continuity of Jewish identification. Together these movements comprise the intellectual and politi-cal left in this century, and they are the direct intellectual ancestors of current leftist intellectual and political movements, particularly postmodernism and multiculturalism.
Collectively, these movements have called into question the fundamental moral, political, and economic foundations of Western society. A critical feature of these movements is that they have been, at least in the United States, top-down movements in the sense that they were originated and dominated by members of a highly intelligent and highly educated group.
The originators of these movements were all vitally concerned with anti-Semitism, and all of the utopias envisioned by these intellectual and political movements would end anti-Semitism while allowing for Jewish group conti-nuity. A generation of Jewish radicals looked to the Soviet Union as an idyllic place where Jews could rise to positions of preeminence and where anti-Semitism was officially outlawed while Jewish national life flourished. The psychoanalytic movement and the Frankfurt School looked forward to the day when gentiles would be inoculated against anti-Semitism by a clinical priest-hood that could heal the personal inadequacies and the frustrations at loss of status that gentiles murderously projected onto the Jews. And the Boasians and the Frankfurt School and their descendants would prevent the develop-ment of anti-Semitic ideologies of majoritarian ethnocentrism.
A palpable sense of intellectual and moral superiority of those participating in these movements is another characteristic feature. This sense of intellectual superiority and hostility to gentiles and their culture was a recurrent theme of the leftist movements discussed in Chapter 3. I have also documented a profound sense of intellectual superiority and estrangement from gentile culture that characterized not only Freud but also the entire psychoanalytic movement. The sense of superiority on the part of a “self-constituted cultural vanguard” (Lasch 1991, 453–455) of Jewish intellectuals toward lower-middle-class mores and attitudes was a theme of Chapter 5.
Regarding moral superiority, the central pose of post-Enlightenment Jewish intellectuals is a sense that Judaism represents a moral beacon to the rest of humanity (SAID, Ch. 7). These movements thus constitute concrete examples of the ancient and recurrent Jewish self-conceptualization as a “a light of the nations,” reviewed extensively in SAID (Ch. 7). Moral indictments of their opponents are a prominent theme in the writings of political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and we have seen that the Frankfurt School developed a moral perspective in which the existence of Judaism was viewed as an a priori moral absolute and in which social science was to be judged by moral criteria.
As noted in Chapter 1, current psychological theory and data are highly compatible with supposing that viewpoints advocated by minorities are able to influence attitudes held by the majority, especially when possessing a high degree of internal consistency and especially when they are disseminated from the most prestigious academic and media institutions in the society. Although the influence on gentile societies of Jewish involvement in these intellectual and political movements cannot be assessed with any degree of certainty, the material presented here suggests that Jewish involvement was a critical factor in the triumph of the intellectual left in late-twentieth-century Western socie-ties.
-Prof. Kevin MacDonald, the rest here.


A persistent theme among critics of Jews—particularly those on the
pre-World War II right—has been that the Bolshevik revolution was a
Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was dominated by Jews.
This theme appears in a wide range of writings, from Henry Ford’s International
Jew, to published statements by a long list of British, French, and American
political figures in the 1920s (Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, and David
Lloyd George), and, in its most extreme form, by Adolf Hitler, who wrote:

"Now begins the last great revolution. By wresting political power
for himself, the Jew casts off the few remaining shreds of disguise
he still wears. The democratic plebeian Jew turns into the blood Jew
and the tyrant of peoples. In a few years he will try to exterminate the
national pillars of intelligence and, by robbing the peoples of their
natural spiritual leadership, will make them ripe for the slavish lot of a
permanent subjugation. The most terrible example of this is Russia".1

This long tradition stands in sharp contradiction to the official view,
promulgated by Jewish organizations and almost all contemporary historians,
that Jews played no special role in Bolshevism...
More on this from Prof. MacDonald here.'


Not surprisingly, Prof MacDonald has come under attack by the Jewish Establishment.

For more historical perspective, see here.

Mr. Berlinski is a Jewish Apologist who, along with other Jews, crafted the Neo-Con movement in an attempt to establish a Jewish presence on the Traditional Conservative side of American politics with the eventual goal of altering it in favor of leftist idealism. And one way to prop up unquestioning support for Jews while appealing to Conservative hearts, is to link Hitler (who has been turned into a cartoonish archetype of "Evil") with Evolution.
Other current examples include Jewish "White nationalist" Laurence Auster.
And Jewish activist Ben Stein's film 'Expelled'.

This attack on Darwinism by Neo-Con Jews is simply to endure, unquestioningly, Jewish interests and goals into the hearts of Gentiles by simultaneously appealing to their (Traditionalist Gentiles) Creationist sympathies.

Yet, as Prof. MacDonald points out in well documented fashion, long term Jewish interests are decidedly anti-Western and anti-Gentile...



.