Jews and other news.
An excellent Joyce piece about Jewish self-glorification.
Jews have a joke among themselves that goes something like this: A class of schoolchildren is asked to produce an essay about giraffes; little Tom Smith hands in a piece on the neck; little John Baker writes about its diet; others write about the tail, the environment, and so on. Then little Benny Cohen hands in his paper, and it is titled “The Giraffe and the Jews.”
The joke, little-known among non-Jews, conveys an important truism — that, for Jews, everything, no matter how distant or abstract, often comes back to the idea and feeling of being Jewish. In other words, it is a joke about Jewish ethnocentrism. That non-Jews aren’t very familiar with the joke speaks to the fact that Jewish ethnocentrism is something that is very frequently discussed and celebrated by Jews, but also something that is frequently downplayed, obscured, or even denied when queried by outgroups.
A particularly interesting aspect of the study by Brown et al. is the response to increasing rates of intermarriage among American Jews. Jewish intermarriage has been raised as evidence by some scholars objecting to analyses of Jewish ethnocentrism, most notably and recently by Nathan Cofnas. However, as Brown et al. note, given more than a century of intense assimilation and acceptance by the host population and a population size of only around 3%, “an endogamy rate [among Jews] of 50% is surprisingly high.”
People familiar with my work over a long period of time may remember that I did a quantitative analysis of this, graphing various White American ethnic groups for proportion of the population (X axis) and outmarriage rate (Y axis). A linear relationship was established – the smaller the group, the greater the outmarriage rate (since the greater the chance of a partner of a different ethnicity). I then tried to place Jews (in America) on that line and saw that they didn’t fit; indeed, their outmarriage rate was depressed compared to gentile groups of similar population size (who had outmarriage rates of greater than 70%). Of course, the more ethnocentric Jews practice endogamy, and if ethnocentrism has, at least in part, a genetic component, this trend would have the effect of increasing Jewish ethnocentrism over time.
One can note that arguments about Jewish outmarriage rates, while perhaps relevant to Jewish genetic strategies, are not directly relevant to the effects of Jews in White societies. Even if Jews are destroying their ethnic integrity through outmarriage (which is questionable) that doesn’t obligate other groups to endure Jewish destructive behavior toward those other groups for the period of time that Jews are still extant.
And speaking of self-glorification, isn’t that what Jewish involvement in the HBD cult is about? When is Joyce going to denounce that cult and denounce “pro-White activists” who seemingly care more about Jews than about European-derived peoples? Both Joyce and Strom write good things about the general subject of the Jews, but when it comes to criticizing people on the (Far) Right who are slavishly pro-Jewish, they suddenly become reticent.
And then we have this nonsense:
TOQLIVE: JAMES EDWARDS HOSTS KEVIN MACDONALD: INDIVIDUALISM AND THE WESTERN LIBERAL TRADITION
Amoral Familism is Not Ethnocentrism
This Afrowop defect is not the same as this.
That the HBDers are apparently unable or unwilling to distinguish amoral familism from ethnocentrism does not reflect well on their intelligence or their honesty.
Whether amoral familism is a step on the universalism-ethnocentrism spectrum, or represents an independent entity (in which case we would have at at least a triangle rather than a straight line representing the possibilities), is open to debate.
However, it should be clear that in many ways amoral familism is, practically speaking, as opposed to ethnocentrism as universalism is. Universalism rejects ethnocentrism because it sees the ethnocentric view as too selfish and narrow, amoral familism rejects ethnocentrism because it is too broad and selfless.
For EGI, ethnocentrism is the “sweet spot,” and the other two options are defects. From the standpoint of building a civil society, amoral familism is the worst, ethnocentrism is the best in a (relatively) homogeneous state but leads to problems in multiculturalism. Universalism allows for temporary smooth functioning in a multicultural state, but long term leads to ethnic replacement of universalists by ethnocentrists. Universalism in a homogeneous state is not stable, since it will eventually lead to alien immigration and multiculturalism.
A moderate degree of ethnocentrism in a (relatively) homogeneous state is more optimal than the alternatives.
There is also a question of the relative hereditability of these behavioral patterns. The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable. Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism hereditability of these behavioral patterns. The more genetically influenced, the more the pattern should hold with migration and existence in multicultural societies. The two extremes of universalism and ethnocentrism may be most heritable. Contra the HBDers, aside from a dwindling number of mobsters, Afrowops in America really don’t practice amoral familism, while Jews and other Asians definitely still practice ethnocentrism. Thus, I doubt that amoral familism is strongly heritable. It seems like a very plastic behavioral phenotype.
While it may be extremely difficult to make ethnocentrics into more disinterested civic-minded people, hopefully the more universalist and ex-familistic can be “trained” to become more ethnocentric, in competition to those with an innate sense of extreme ethnocentrism.
This isn’t the kind of analysis one would get from a HBDer, who instead would be pathetically groveling in front of the Altar of Asia, and worshiping a pile of yarmulkes.
HBD: the enemy of truth.
MacDonald is essentially trashing his legacy in his old age. While it is sad to see, and unfortunate, it doesn’t obligate me to pull my punches when I comment on such mendacity.
Trump’s campaign antagonism toward the military and intelligence world was at best a millimeter thick. Like almost everything else he said as a candidate, it was a gimmick, designed to get votes. That he was insincere and full of it…
But, hey, according to Greg Johnson, Trump’s sincere, a man of genuine greatness, who could have won with Jeb Bush’s political views. Even Trump himself refutes the latter, as chronicled at this site. But Johnson continuously insists otherwise. Is that rent-seeking behavior? Is Johnson using the Counter-Currents platform to gaslight his readers in order to safeguard his own reputation and the flow of “D’Nations?”
Not a bad Zman essay…particularly as it repeats points made here years ago.
After all, she’s of great benefit to all humanity. Why would anyone think otherwise? How dare you! In all seriousness, the positive attitude of Der Movement to that obviously unbalanced little Ladogan is truly tragicomic and pathetic. It is also confirmation of the validity of my criticism of Der Movement.
Hey! Giovanni Gentile had that Ray Luca-John Gotti-Judge Napolitano puffed up hairstyle. It’s in the blood, apparently.