2011 July 24 Sunday
Fred Reed Says Disengage From National Loyalty

In a declining society Fred Reed thinks it makes sense to withdraw your loyalty and reduce involvement in decayed institutions.

When a country works reasonably well—when the schools teach algebra and not governmentally mandated Appropriate Values, when the police are scarce and courteous, when government is remote and minds its business and works more for the benefit of the country than for looters and special interests, then pledging to it a degree of allegiance isn't foolish. Decades back America was such a country, imperfect as all countries are, but good enough to cherish.

As decline begins, and government becomes oppressive, self-righteous, and ruthless yet incompetent, as official spying flourishes, as corruption sets in hard, and institutions rot, it is time to disengage. Loyalty to a country is a choice, not an obligation. In other times people have loved family, friends, common decency, tribe, regiment, or church instead of country. In an age of national collapse, this is wise.

Fred says you can do something short of becoming a physical expatriate. As a domestic expat you could see yourself as a resident or visitor in 21st century America. I think this is a cool idea. I felt like an outlier when I was young. But now my feeling is more like an alien.

Fred argues for home schooling . His arguments against universities might seem over the top but one does not have to look far to find evidence that universities have been captured by people with seriously messed up priorities who are damaging these institutions. One of my recurring themes here is that online education can enable escape from both the costs and the ideological messages of the modern university. Escape to online. Create a subculture there.

One does not have to look far to see the United States as a whole is headed down with lots of bad things in store: oppressively high taxes, lower per capita wealth, declining incomes (with California and Texas notably headed down) with the young folks poorer and, according to Alan Greenspan, less able to compete.

I do not know how far or how fast the US will decline. But conducting your life in a way that cuts your dependence on core societal institutions seems wise at this point. This has implications for career choices. Reduce your dependence on a single location or region by developing skills, contacts, and a career trajectory that enable you to work abroad if necessary.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2011 July 24 10:38 PM  Civilizations Decay


Comments
WJ said at July 25, 2011 12:03 PM:

In other words, we're transforming ourselves from a high-trust society into a low-trust society - like Nigeria, Iraq, Somalia. We're in the process of becoming a Third World country. Who would have guessed?

Expend your money, time and energy on improving the lot of your extended family. Major charities, like universities or the United Way, do not share your interests. I am still not convinced that online universities are better than real ones. Avoid the multicult at the universities and stick with core disciplines - engineering, science, business, finance - and you'll do fine, and you'll emerge with a solid network that can help your career.

REN said at July 25, 2011 3:15 PM:

Thank you 1965 immigration reform act. First of all, a disclaimer, "I am pro Zionist." I believe all tribal groups should have a homeland, and a place to feel safe.

OK, now that is said, it is very important to note, that every immigration bill up to the 1965 act, was paid for and written by Jewish interests. When the act passed, it was Jewish legislators that helped it pass. Ted Kennedy was a useful idiot and front man. Ted also got some gravy in that the Irish got a carve out, which has since evolved into the lottery.

Why were and are Jews so pathological about having a diverse population to swim in? Their history of getting kicked out of Europe 100's of times would be a start. Then, the 1920's immigration cut-off would be another. The 20's immigration cut-off meant that Jews could no longer emigrate from Eastern Europe. Jewish leadership felt that this cut-off was second only to the Holocaust in damaging Jewry’s interests. For example, in 1939 Franklin Roosevelt could not convince Cuba to let the St-Louis dock. Roosevelt knew it would be impossible to let the Jewish refugee ship dock in American ports due to the cut off.

The war between WASPS and JEWS in the early part of the century broke down along ideological lines; Jews pushed international communism while WASPs promoted paternalistic American values. It came to a head with the cut-off, so the country could consolidate into one American man (see Teddy Roosevelt's speeches). To be fair, other ethnics were also in conflict, especially Catholic Irish and the Italians not being fully accepted. (They were not WASPS.)

Eventually WASPS lost control of the country around 1965, with country clubs being integrated and banking being consolidated. Many of today's Jews are not even aware of the maneuvering their leadership did with regards to immigration reform.

The consolidation of banking into one pariah entity came to the fore in the mid 70's. In 1971 when we went off the Gold Standard, and 1972 or so when Kissinger signed the deal with the Saudis, we pretty much supercharged American Imperialism. Eventually, Mexico had two peso devaluations, due to American bear raids. (Yes, Goldman Sachs was involved in the bear raids.) Nafta provisions allowed foreign American banks to dominate in Mexico, which in turn allowed Mexico to completely lose control of its money supply.

Bill Clinton signed provisions of NAFTA into Law, the Telecommunication Act, and also MFN status for China. NAFTA allowed private banks into Mexico, and MFN status for China short-circuited the Maquiladora's. When was the last time you bought a Mexican made TV set?

So, between the 1965 immigration act, busting out Mexico financially, and Bill Clinton selling us down the river in the mid 90's, we have massive illegal Mexican and other chain migration.

The people directing this maneuvering of our country, and others, have since evolved into our parasite financial oligarchy.

Abelard Lindsey said at July 25, 2011 3:16 PM:

But conducting your life in a way that cuts your dependence on core societal institutions seems wise at this point. This has implications for career choices. Reduce your dependence on a single location or region by developing skills, contacts, and a career trajectory that enable you to work abroad if necessary.

This has been instinctively obvious since I moved to Japan in 1991. This is also an integral aspect of transhumanism as well. Why subscribe to external institutions and agencies if you can be self-reliant instead?

solaris said at July 25, 2011 5:17 PM:

I still have loyalty to my nation, I'm just aware that it is no longer coterminous with the borders of the state I live in.

Hey, we're all Jews now.

sabril said at July 25, 2011 7:52 PM:

"OK, now that is said, it is very important to note, that every immigration bill up to the 1965 act, was paid for and written by Jewish interests. When the act passed, it was Jewish legislators that helped it pass. "

I'm skeptical. Would you mind summarizing the best evidence for this claim and providing links and quotes?

WJ said at July 25, 2011 9:04 PM:

It is interesting that while Jewish interests are almost unanimously supportive of wide open immigration in the United States and all other Wetsern nations, they strongly oppose open borders/mass non-Jewish immigration into Israel, and one Israeli legislator, Danny Danon, actually proposed offloading Eritrean refugees in Israel onto Australia. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which threw open our borders, was known as the Hart-Celler Act, for Emanual Celler, who spent 4 decades in Congress working to overturn the 1924 law. At the same time America was being forced into accepting multicultrualism at home, Israel was solidifying its ethnic statehood status. Another major lobbyist for the 1965 law was, get this, Japan, which of course has never embraced multiculturalism at home.

I hate making any issue "about the Jews," but I do think it's time we started asking why so many of those who would feed us the multicultural medicine are unwilling to swallow it themselves.

REN said at July 25, 2011 9:57 PM:

We should be able to talk about our real history without being called Anti-Semites, or bigoted. A salient question would be, “Why would a dominant ethnic group vote for its own demise?” The answer is, they would not, unless other forces were at play. We cannot understand our history without understanding Jewish involvement.

In the case of the 1965 immigration act, Jewish interests are the central players.
“Jews have been the single most persistent pressure group for a liberal immigration policy ..beginning in 1881” (Neuringer 1971,). Nathan C. Beith (1979) in the history of the ADL, “through all the years when the immigration battles were being fought, the names of Jewish legislators were in the forefront of the liberal forces, from Aldolph Sabath, to Samuel Dickstein and Emmanuel Cellar in the House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob Javits in the Senate.”

Jewish organizations persistently pursued goals of increasing the rates for Jewish immigrations. Opening up the United States to immigration from all the peoples of the world is supported by the historical record. The proposition that Jews wanted the U.S. to evolve into a multicultural society is recounted in Jewish literature. A.J Cohen, of the AJCommitee discusses this subject at length.

Senator Jacob Javits played a prominent role in the Senate hearings on the 1965 bill. Javits authored an article entitled ‘Let’s open the gates’ that proposed immigration levels of 500,000 per year for 20 years with no restrictions on national origin.
Congressman Emanuel Celler, who fought for unrestricted immigration for over 40 years in the House of Representatives, introduced similar legislation resulting in the “Cellar-Hart Immigration Bill,” the precursor to the fatal 1965 immigration act.

Some dominant Jewish organizations funding and litigating for the immigration act were the American Jewish Congress, The Jewish Federation, the ACLU, the B’nai B’rith, among many others.

With regards to the cutoff in 1924, “Jews were viewed as infected with Bolshevism…unpatriotic, alien, inassimilable (Neuberinger 1971). The 20’s cutoff was an ideological conflict, not racial.

sabril said at July 26, 2011 3:36 AM:

"'Why would a dominant ethnic group vote for its own demise?' The answer is, they would not, unless other forces were at play."

In a representative democracy, a dominant ethnic group might very well vote against its own interests, because some factions are able to pursue their short term selfish interests over the interests of the group as a whole. For example, long before there was significant Jewish participation in American politics, WASP Americans brought in large numbers of blacks; gave them citizenship; and passed civil rights legislation. This all took place in the 19th century or earlier and clearly worked against the interests of WASP Americans as a group.

"“Jews have been the single most persistent pressure group for a liberal immigration policy ..beginning in 1881” (Neuringer 1971,). Nathan C. Beith (1979) in the history of the ADL, "

So your main evidence is that two persons -- Neuringer and Beith -- assert that your views are correct. Is that right?

And who are Neuringer and Beith? Why should I accept their assertions? And can you please link to the actual articles in question?

REN said at July 26, 2011 8:17 AM:

"Main evidence is two persons...blah blah blah." There is plenty of evidence out there...go look. The authors are available, and quoted. Look into the Congressional record and go all the way back like I did. Senators like Jacob Javits did exist. You cannot knock that down. Knocking down arguments with a feeble, there are no links, is a straw man argument. Use an erg of energy and raise your fingers onto a mouse and do your own search, or go the library. I get sick of links embedded in documents, and hence present the facts and quotes to make it easy for the reader. If you don't like the facts, then too damn bad. The facts exist and are irrefutable, whether you like it or not. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

If you don't want to look objectively at the world, then that is your problem. I look into Jewish history because we cannot understand our Western civilization without it. The two histories are intertwined. But, every time, and I mean every time, there is always somebody that says, don't look here -there’s nothing to see here...move on. It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Don’t look at me or my group, I’m not guilty. I’m pure as the driven snow. Every tribal group has its ugly history and that’s another obvious fact of life.

Jewish interests helped fund and drove us to the 1965 immigration act. There were other forces pushing too, because nothing is sterile and perfectly neat. But, to ignore the dominant Jewish contribution does violence to history and the truth.

no i don't said at July 26, 2011 8:33 AM:

Now you're talking Randy!! Who'd've known...

Good for you. Doesn't it feel good to finally get rid of all that patriotism and mad nationalistic fervour?

I think that the only allegiance that one should pledge is to the human race, or to the Earth, who at the moment is infested by parasites of three different kinds: politicians, big company owners and religious ministers.

Cheers!

sabril said at July 26, 2011 8:49 AM:

"There is plenty of evidence out there...go look."

Sorry, but it's not my responsibility to go looking for evidence to support your claim. The only evidence you supported is bare assertions by people I've never heard of before. You don't tell me who these people are or even link to the sources. Probably you are just copying what you found in a Kevin MacDonald book.

"But, to ignore the dominant Jewish contribution"

I would pay attention to it if you actually presented decent evidence that it exists. All you have provided is quotes from two unknowns and identified a few Jewish politicians who supported the 1965 immigration act. You have also exhorted me to go out and do your research for you.

"Senators like Jacob Javits did exist. You cannot knock that down. Knocking down arguments with a feeble, there are no links, is a straw man argument."

You are the one who is attacking straw men. I do not deny that there were Jewish politicians and organizations who supported the 1965 immigration act. But that's not the claim you are making. You are claiming that Jews were the dominant driving force behind the law. I am skeptical which is why I have asked for evidence.

Again, it's not my responsibility to go out looking for evidence to support your claims. I am not your research assistant. It's up to you to back up the claims you make. In other words, put up or shut up. Although I have a feeling you will not do either.


REN said at July 26, 2011 9:07 AM:

OK let's turn the tables to show how your straw man attack works.

How about you prove to me that Jews were NOT the dominant group behind the 1965 immigration act. I want to see your counter claims so I can make feeble knock downs. I see no evidence supporting your contention. Show me your links.

(By the way, I gave enough data to make any rational person go hmmmm?) See how it works. Your points are childish and irrational, and an attempt to paper over the real points I've made.

Even if I put pages of info here, which I could, your answer will still be the same, "I don't believe it emotional response."

Go to google and type in something. How hard is that? Oh yeah, It's totally on me to make you believe. Give me a break.

no i don't said at July 26, 2011 9:24 AM:

Well, Abraham Lincoln is my favorite American president and I reaaly enjoy Neil Diamond's music, Carl Sagan's books and Bill Maher's show. Who cares if they're Jewish or Germanic or Arab or Indian.

They are just great.

no i don't said at July 26, 2011 9:42 AM:

I do hope we really free ourselves from national and-religious- loyalties.

Just by finding out what happened in Norway couple of days ago takes me to the conclusion that being obsessed with your god or your nation might lead you into a psychotic state of mind.

¿What's with all the attraction to middle-age oscurantism, nazi resurrection displays, templars "imitations", crusade justifications for war, etc.?


Once again we look at History and see proof that religious and national fanatics have caused more wars and killing than atheists and agnostics.

Do people still think that one needs a religion or a nationalism to be an etical person?
Do people still think that ethical principles come from religion and nation?

Mthson said at July 26, 2011 9:56 AM:

Related: The economic "recession" and "housing crisis" have been mostly a NAM (non-Asian minority) phenomenon.


"The analysis by the Pew Research Center, released on Tuesday, found that from 2005 to 2009, inflation-adjusted median wealth fell 66 percent among Hispanic households and 53 percent among black households, compared with a 16 percent decline among white households.

"The ratio of wealth for whites to blacks, for instance, is now roughly 20 to 1, compared to 12 to 1 in the first survey 25 years ago and 7 to 1 in 1995
"The declines from the recession left the median black household with $5,677 in wealth (assets minus debts, where assets include items like a car, a home, savings, retirement funds, etc.) and the typical Hispanic household with $6,325. White households, by comparison, had $113,149, the study found."
"The study said the sharper decline among Hispanics happened because a large share of Hispanics live in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona, which were among the states hardest hit by the housing crisis."

-Ha... they got it backwards. NAMs didn't get hit hard because they live there, those states got hit hard because many NAMs live there.

sabril said at July 26, 2011 10:56 AM:

"How about you prove to me that Jews were NOT the dominant group behind the 1965 immigration act."

Sorry, but you have the burden of proof. I'm not claiming that any particular group or groups were the dominant force behind the 1965 Act. I'm simply skeptical of your claim that it was the Jews. Which is why I asked you for evidence.

"Go to google and type in something. How hard is that?"

Depends what you are looking for. Anyway, if it's so easy, why don't you do it? Go find actual evidence which supports your position as opposed to bare assertions by obscure persons.

REN said at July 26, 2011 11:08 AM:

Effete elites have existed in every tribe since the dawn of humanity. They find some way to rent seek off of the population. In a very complex way, our credit money system is manipulated to vector your output to the elites. How is it that we are getting poorer, yet we just put the industrial revolution into hyper-drive? If we went back to 1945 and told people all the advances we have made, they would think we lived in a leisure society. But, that is not the case, as our output is diverted away from us, mostly to service credit masters.
Earlier Sabril was getting all prickly because I pointed out that Jewish elites maneuvered the immigration act. Hamilton started the first bank by buying up war bonds on the cheap, then presenting them for face value. Here was a case of WASPs using the Bank of England model to put the population into debt slavery. These rent seekers would be with us whether they were of Jewish origin or not. It just so happens that there’s an element of the Jewish community who perfected these rent seeking methods since Pharos time.

The poor will always need stable money as a source for storing their output. Otherwise they can never rise out of poverty. The rich will store their wealth in assets that maintain their value despite the maneuvering of our money supply.

I’m pointing my finger at the real problem. It is no longer a left/right paradigm. It is new Statist Feudalism that is on the march. Their desire is to make the world into a toll booth society, where everybody’s productive output is vectored to rent seeking plutocrats.

Our politics and our philosophy haven’t caught up to our new reality. Stupid people are easier to game and keep in a feudal subservient state. The NAMs produce enough output to keep themselves clothed and fed. It is outrageous that we put them into debt bondage, and then claim it is their fault because they are on the left side of the IQ distribution. Yet, when nobody is looking, the rent seeker sneaks in and puts them into permanent debt peonage. The NAM’s are canaries in the coal mine, and we are next.

sabril said at July 26, 2011 3:49 PM:

"These rent seekers would be with us whether they were of Jewish origin or not. It just so happens that there’s an element of the Jewish community who perfected these rent seeking methods since Pharos time."

It's one thing to say that a disproportionate amount of the elites who are selling the country out are Jewish. It's another thing entirely to argue that the Jews are the main driving force.

But let me ask you this: If every society has a class of elite rent seeking plutocrats, why is it important to identify the ethnicity or religion of these people?

Randall Parker said at July 26, 2011 8:46 PM:

Guys,

Some other Western countries have let in large numbers of immigrants in recent decades without a big a Jewish influence. Look at Canada, Britain, Australia, Sweden, and France as examples. How to explain their policies?

Comparison between nations is helpful as a way to control for variables.

I'd like to see some quantitative way to control for various forms of influence. Ethnic groups, industries, economic classes, etc.

WJ said at July 26, 2011 11:57 PM:

Randall, while I'm no fan of turning every issue into a debate about the influence of "the Jews," the countries you cite as counterexamples do not make your case. Britain, Canada, Australia, and France are all among the top 10 Jewish countries, both in absolute terms as well as share of their populations that are Jewish. Canada's Supreme Court is one-third Jewish, as are at least 8-9 of its estimated 59 billionaires; and France's president and Britain's prime minister both have some Jewish ancestry.

I suspect that Jews are overwhelmingly pro-open borders for three reasons: 1) they are disproportionately among the elite, and benefit from cheap labor; 2) they are not in economic competition with, nor do they live amongst, low-class immigrants; and 3) they *already* view themsleves as a minority in any country but Israel, so don't see mass immigration as a problem in any country but Israel. Not one of the 11 Jews in the Senate was among the 36 who voted against the 2006 amnesty proposal.

But of course it's not really about "the Jews." The fact is that the elites in every country have sold out the citizens. Just because the Irish-American holding down a cubicle or driving a bulldozer sees an Irish-American millionaire or senator as part of "his tribe" does not mean the senator feels the same way.

sabril said at July 27, 2011 7:22 AM:

"Comparison between nations is helpful as a way to control for variables."

I agree. But the usual approach of the anti-Semites is to point to a few prominent Jews in liberal countries (or half-Jews, or Christians with Jewish blood) and leave it at that. Or if it's a country like Norway which doesn't even have prominent Jews, they blame it on American influence.

Fundamentally, these anti-Semites are like white liberals who blame black failure on unequal school funding. But when you point out that many schools in black areas are well funded, they blame the "legacy of slavery." Then when you point to blacks in Africa who were never enslaved, they blame "colonialism" Then when you point out that many other areas were colonized, they invent something else. In short, they are so invested in their hypothesis that they must construct epicycle after epicycle to explain away evidence which undermines their world view. In the case of white liberals, they cannot accept that black failure is a result of inherent characteristics in black people. In the case of anti-Semites, they cannot accept that whites as a group might behave self-destructively.

Probably the most telling quote in this whole discussion is this:

"A salient question would be, 'Why would a dominant ethnic group vote for its own demise?' The answer is, they would not, unless other forces were at play."

This is the fundamental flaw in the reasoning of anti-Semites. Here's a thought experiment for American whites: If you could push a button which would let another 10 Mexicans into the country and in return you would get a check for $100,000 would you press it? Realistically, at least 90% of whites would press that button. Probably most whites would do it for a thousand dollars.

The point is that evolution has not programmed people to think about the long term interests of their racial group. People are programmed to think about the short term interests of themselves and their families. So yes, most people would sell out their race or ethnic group in a heartbeat.

REN said at July 27, 2011 7:47 AM:

I’m pro Zionist. I want to see Jews, and all other humans, live a life of freedom and dignity. However, how should I view Jews that don’t want that condition for me? Should I be afraid of calling them out because they are Jews? If I say anything negative at all, even if it is demonstrably true, then I get piled on. It is without question that Jewish money and power was involved in the 1965 immigration act. These were not rank and file Jews, but were instead leaders and people of influence.

I’ve investigated the money system in more detail than all but tiny fraction of people alive. I’ve traced the money movements from east to west in ancient times, and I’ve studied the Jewish diaspora because they are linked. I know exactly how credit money vectors to plutocrats, and it is not entirely a Jewish phenomenon. But, the money system we have today was put into motion in Holland, with Sephardic Jews (who followed the Portuguese after the East/West money mechanism was broken). It jumped to Britain with the Orange Kings (paid for by Dutch/Jewish money) and the bank of England in 1694. The BOE money system was adopted by Hamilton and later by our bankers in 1913 (many Jews) creating the Federal Reserve. Jewish money and individuals are heavily involved in all of these maneuverings, and hence we cannot understand our history without looking at Jewish history. The heavy credit money involvement often exceeds 50% despite Jews being less than 2% of the population.

We do point out NAM behaviors, and black american behaviors, etc. So, why do Jews get a pass? It is fear of being painted as anti-semites, and that is probably due to a compliant press. A press which has had corrosive money vector its way due to our credit money system.

Tikkun Olam (perfecting the world) combined with in-group behaviors, means Jews should be watched and studied. The in-group behaviors are self-identification markers with rules requiring things like in-group marriage. Jewish ghettos and self segregation were hallmarks in ancient times.
Do Hispanics have rules for in-group marriage? No, in fact, most of the NAM’s will out-marry at a high rate. But, Jews will demand in-marriage for their group. Jews will prescribe group identity for themselves, but not others. Jews want a multicultural society for us, and have the money power to see it happen.

Ironically, in America, Jewish in-group behaviors are starting to break down. When they have been broken and our country has been broken, then who wins? The most stable countries in the world are always single tribe. It will take centuries of no immigration to become a "one american" nation again. Thanks bunches Jewish leadership, you've done a great job with your paranoia and power. White Christian Americans were never your enemy.

WJ said at July 27, 2011 10:27 AM:

REN, perhaps a great many Jews don't want you to live a life of freedom and dignity. But for most of them it is not because they are Jewish, certainly not deliberately. Large numbers of other people, and most of the elites of all races and ethnicities, are indifferent to your dignity. They would sell you out in a minute. In fact, they have already done so.

As for intermarriage, some Jews and many Jewish nationalist/religious groups may want in-marriage for their group but, increasingly, they aren't getting it. A large and growing number of Jews are intermarrying. I knew perhaps a dozen Jews in high school, all of upper middle class background, and virtually all of them have married non-Jews. Jews almost certainly have a higher rate of out-marriage than Hispanics or blacks - over 50% is a number often cited, and based on what I've seen it's probably accurate.

sabril said at July 27, 2011 10:32 AM:

" However, how should I view Jews that don’t want that condition for me?"

The same way you view college graduates who don't want that condition for you.

" It is without question that Jewish money and power was involved in the 1965 immigration act."

This is what I call "weaseling," i.e. you are changing your position without actually acknowledging it. Claiming that Jews were the dominant factor behind the 1965 Act is not the same thing as claiming that Jews were involved. Are you abandoning your earlier claim?

"Jews will prescribe group identity for themselves, but not others."

The Jewish inter-marriage rate in the US is above 50%. Other groups are perfectly free to value intra-marriage.

REN said at July 27, 2011 3:32 PM:

"This is what I call "weaseling," i.e. you are changing your position without actually acknowledging it. Claiming that Jews were the dominant factor behind the 1965 Act is not the same thing as claiming that Jews were involved. Are you abandoning your earlier claim?"

oops. sorry about not parsing the words in an exactly legal fashion. Yes, they were the dominant factor in the 1965 immigration act. Without Jewish money, agitation, and political power, the act would not have passed. I call your claim a legalism, which is a way of skewing the subject away from the real points. Look over here and not there - those tactics don't work.

"The Jewish inter-marriage rate in the US is above 50%." Yes, and that is why in-group behaviors are starting to break down. The very liberal multiculturalism Jews prescribe for everybody else is coming back to bite them in the ass. The groups that have the highest birth rates are the Orthodox, and not many of those live in the U.S. Interestingly, the Orthodox tend not to be Ashkenazi, and are not as liberal. I suspect the Orthodox are not as interested in shifting the Political landscape to suit their needs as well.


Sabril, you are prickly and illogical and emotional in your responses. Your very behavior makes my case. Any sort of claim against Jews, where they are held in a negative light, and you go nuts. Why? Every other group can be held up and examined, but not Jews? Jew's are somehow pure as the driven snow and above reproach?

I still maintain that if we don't understand Jews, we cannot understand our history. Trying to obscure and using straw man arugments will not make the truth go away.

Keep trying. You haven't changed the basic premise that our demographics shifted largely because of Jewish meddling and pushing to get the 1965 act passed. It's a moot point anyway, because the demographic changes may be too big to reverse. The Jews (and their liberal co-travelers) won. Hope you enjoy the future in a country on its way to third world status. I commend you for not devolving too far into ad-hominem territory.

sabril said at July 27, 2011 6:05 PM:

"sorry about not parsing the words in an exactly legal fashion. "

Lol, yes there is only a minor technical difference between claiming that Jews were involved in the passage of the 1965 Act and claiming that Jews were the dominant force behind passage of the 1965 Act. (That was sarcasm by the way.)

"Without Jewish money, agitation, and political power, the act would not have passed."

And your evidence for this is the bare assertions of two individuals nobody has ever heard of before.

"The very liberal multiculturalism Jews prescribe for everybody else is coming back to bite them in the ass."

Are you now claiming that Jews are the cause of "liberal multiculturalism"?

"Sabril, you are prickly and illogical and emotional in your responses. "

Lol, if "prickly and illogical and emotional" means "asking for evidence," then yes, I admit it.

" You haven't changed the basic premise that our demographics shifted largely because of Jewish meddling and pushing to get the 1965 act passed. "

:shrug: I've asked for evidence; the only evidence you have presented is bare assertions by obscure people. If I can find two obscure people who say that it was the Catholics who were responsible for the 1965 Act, will you accept it?


kanut said at July 27, 2011 9:32 PM:

I'm skeptical of the claim that Jews were not the dominant group behind the 1965 immigration act. Can anyone summarize the best evidence for this claim and provide links and quotes? Thanks in advance.

WJ said at July 27, 2011 9:50 PM:

"I'm skeptical of the claim that Jews were not the dominant group behind the 1965 immigration act."

Those damn dirty Jews are to blame, unless proven otherwise...

kanut said at July 27, 2011 10:05 PM:

"Those damn dirty Jews are to blame, unless proven otherwise..."

I am skeptical of the claim that they weren't. That is why I have asked for evidence.

Harrison said at July 27, 2011 10:32 PM:

"But let me ask you this: If every society has a class of elite rent seeking plutocrats, why is it important to identify the ethnicity or religion of these people?"

Genetics matters. I would think readers of an HBD aware blog would understand this.

Greater genetic distance between the rulers and ruled is likely to result in more severe treatment of the ruled and more harm to its genetic interests. And for any given amount of severe treatment or harm, it's more harmful to the ruled's genetic interests if it's done by more genetically distant rulers. For example, if the ruled were basically genetically identical to the rulers and shared the same ethnicity, and the rulers sent them to war to help, protect, serve, etc. the rulers, then it wouldn't be as bad to the ruled's fundamental interests i.e. genetic interests than if they fought and died for more genetically distant rulers.

Harrison said at July 27, 2011 11:04 PM:

"I’ve investigated the money system in more detail than all but tiny fraction of people alive. I’ve traced the money movements from east to west in ancient times, and I’ve studied the Jewish diaspora because they are linked."

Do you have any good books or other sources on this? I'm genuinely interested.

andrew said at July 28, 2011 1:09 AM:

Randall,

What has happened to Europe and European derived nations following WW II can't be considered independent of US hegemony, and US hegemony can't be considered independent of its dominant influences, such as Jewish influence.

sabril said at July 28, 2011 3:11 AM:

"I am skeptical of the claim that they weren't."

This is what's known as "shifting the burden of proof."

"What has happened to Europe and European derived nations following WW II can't be considered independent of US hegemony, and US hegemony can't be considered independent of its dominant influences, such as Jewish influence."

If the "American Hegemony" argument were correct, one would expect that Japan would have gotten on board the multicultural train by now. The United States has militarily occupied Japan for more than 50 years now. Besides, how exactly would this work? Norway and Sweden are democracies and the people elect the representatives who are selling them out.

sabril said at July 28, 2011 3:17 AM:

"Genetics matters. I would think readers of an HBD aware blog would understand this."

Well I understand that genetics sometimes matters. I don't understand that genetics always matters.

"Greater genetic distance between the rulers and ruled is likely to result in more severe treatment of the ruled and more harm to its genetic interests."

Can you give me some examples of this idea relating to multiculturalism?

kanut said at July 28, 2011 3:45 AM:

"This is what's known as "shifting the burden of proof.""

I consider your position to be "shifting the burden of proof."

Can you please summarize the best evidence for the claim that Jews were not the dominant group behind the 1965 immigration act and provide links and quotes?

REN said at July 28, 2011 5:56 AM:

Thorstein Vleben made an observation that all tribal groups form a rent seeking class. These would be people who rent off of others. Ancient shaman’s who use incantations and special voodoo powers would be an example. Kings and Queens who lived off of others simply by virtue of heredity would be another group. Feudal masters who own the land and also the ability to control the money would be a third group.

Today we are moving into a new neo-feudalism, where banksters are financializing everything. Eventually, all of your economic output will go to pay tolls. Your excess output will not go to improve your standard of living, but will instead be shifted to credit masters. I think everybody sees this, but cannot articulate it. Stripping companies and refinancing them, shifts the wealth to the dealmakers, and puts labor in hock. Shifting jobs overseas to China, allows the masters to siphon off the delta in wages.

It is very important to note that this mechanism is caused by credit money. Credit money is that which comes into existence by the issuance of new loans. Private bankers have the money power to issue new credit money when you take out a loan. They create new money to do this action. Eventually, this money power can be used to influence government, as everybody has a price. Over half of all lobby money comes from one zip code, the banking sector in Manhattan. If you drill into the data, over ½ of the top 200 rich people in America are Jews. Of those Jews, almost all of them made their money in the FIRE industries. (Finance, Insurance, or real estate). These industries have carved out a rent seeking niche for themselves by changing the laws over time. Also, credit money vectors wealth away from the producers and toward the money makers. (A good book to start with is, “The lost science of money” by Stephen Zarlinga. It can be bought at www.monetary.org.)
HR6650 (house bill by Kucinich) gets rid of credit money, and returns power to labor. Money becomes fairly valued again and doesn’t vector to rent seekers.

Credit money is the mechanism that funded Jewish perfidy on the 1965 immigration act. Today, credit masters can be any ethnic/religion, as it has expanded to a new tribe of “banksters.”
If we want a country that is of the people and for the people, then we cannot give rent seekers special privilege. The money power needs to be brought to heel, or the promise of America is over. The best way to do that is house bill HR6550. It will defund the masters, and stop us from funding our own dispossession. The bill will come up for vote again, but it is a question of how far gone our Senators are.


I’m not trying to be anti-semitic. I’m making observations and following the logic trail. I try to use the blue man approach, where I don’t filter with my own ethnicity.

There is a very simple fix to undo all the massive problems facing us. HR6550 will be re-introduced. Everybody is so confused they are not even looking in the right place. The shaman's have cast their spell.

REN said at July 28, 2011 9:11 AM:

When the Balkans got independence from Communism, they found themselves with a paid-for commons. All the public lands and buildings and roads, etc. was owned by everybody. The Latvians hypothecated their public commons to foreign bankers, mostly Swedes.

When credit money pops into existence in this fashion, it demands to be repaid and vectors usury to the banker. The banker creates the new money from nothing and pays the Latvians. Simple keystrokes on a computer are all that are used for the new loan money to pop into existence. New credit money does not come into existence out of somebody else’s savings, contrary to what most people belive.

If credit money is used to increase productivity, then the usury can be managed. But, if the credit money goes to consumption, then the people find themselves in debt peonage to foreign credit masters. In this case, it is Swedes, not Jews who benefit from the rent seeking of credit money.
In the case of Iceland, a few families decided to gamble in the derivatives Casino. Once that bubble collapsed, the bankers demanded payment, and they demanded that the Icelandic population go into long term debt. These bankers are mostly British, who made the loans to the (few families) of Iceland. But, it was only a few plutocrats in Iceland that got the whole country in to trouble.
In the case of Greece, the Government borrowed against foreign bonds. They borrowed in excess of their taxation, in order to spend above their output. Now, Greece is in hock to foreign credit masters, who are mostly Germans.

This credit money system has spread its tentacles and is now infecting much of the western world. This is why “nation state” analysis breaks down. You have to look at the money system, as it is the only defining variable that matters.

Our parasites are now controlling the host. This is why analysis becomes difficult until you understand the mechanism.

Mthson said at July 28, 2011 9:38 AM:

Jews are 2% or less of the US population --too small a number to dominate the other 98% without substantial participation by that 98%. Jews wrote books that gentiles wanted to buy. Noam Chomsky is influential not because he's Jewish, but because he wrote books that were desired by the genetic temperament of idiot white liberals.

JRN said at July 28, 2011 9:52 AM:

I guess Henry the VIII wasn't influential because he was only a small fraction of the population? It is not the population percentage, it is the power. The argument has no merit.

no i don't said at July 28, 2011 11:35 AM:

I'm pro Human, pro Homo Sapiens, cause I believe those are the ones that have made the greatest changes, like the Scientific Method, the Enlightenment, etc

So, the hell with nationalisms, patriotisms, racisms, politics, religions, economic systems and all other type of violent attempt to makes us humans look at each other as if we were a different species!

JRN said at July 28, 2011 2:25 PM:

"So, the hell with nationalisms, patriotisms, racisms, politics, religions, economic systems and all other type of violent attempt to makes us humans look at each other as if we were a different species!"

You may feel that way, but what about the alpha males, or the criminals that come your way? The Kings and Royalty of old used to "breed" into the population. If you had a good looking daughter, then maybe you might have to raise the King's progeny. And what are you going to do - if you say something you get killed.

How about if you lived during the dark ages. Say anything or do anything wrong, and you could disappear. Most people were property. The dark ages were an economic event.

The only way you can say something like that, is because you live in a land that was created by ideas of the founding. Those ideas are under attact by Statism, which is and has been the dominant condition of mankind's history.

Nice sentiments, but that is all they are. Hopefully eveybody would think that way, but we aren't that advanced yet. Systems need to be in place to allow freedom, yet keep the criminals at bay.

sabril said at July 28, 2011 5:46 PM:

"Can you please summarize the best evidence for the claim that Jews were not the dominant group behind the 1965 immigration act and provide links and quotes?"

No I will not. If you honestly believe that the default assumption is that the Jews are responsible for the 1965 Act, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

sabril said at July 28, 2011 5:58 PM:

"Your excess output will not go to improve your standard of living, but will instead be shifted to credit masters."

Ironically, it was a Jew named Karl Marx who popularized this kind of thinking back in the 19th century. The fact is that bankers are essential to a modern industrial economy. If you get rid of them, you end up with the Soviet Union. Or Afghanistan.

"I guess Henry the VIII wasn't influential because he was only a small fraction of the population?"

I would say that in a monarchy or a dictatorship, it's possible for a tiny group or an individual to consistently hold on to power. But in a democracy? I kinda doubt it. Maybe if the group focuses on a few narrow issues.

Stephen said at July 28, 2011 11:36 PM:

"The fact is that bankers are essential to a modern industrial economy. If you get rid of them, you end up with the Soviet Union."

You can end up like the Soviet Union with bankers as well. Increasing centralization of capital means fewer and fewer people making capital and economic decisions in the economy. It can come to resemble central planning where a small group of people monopolize much of the capital and economic decision making of the economy.

You can also end up like Afghanistan with bankers. Investment presupposes some kind of business plan, which presupposes a market to be served. A market is defined by demand. Demand means that there is liquid money to be exchanged for the good or service of that market. If financial activities in the economy greatly centralize assets, and thus the liquidation value of assets in the economy, then there is no demand, and thus no market, and thus no business plan, and thus no reason to invest.

Eastside School said at July 29, 2011 12:45 AM:

Is Fred Reed suggesting giving up? Not gonna give up. Not going to surrender while I have means to resist. The universities? Take them back. The main stream media? Going extinct. The lies this society is built on? Being exposed one by one. If it takes 50 years to undo the damage that the Frankfurt School did, then let the 50 years start now.

sabril said at July 29, 2011 4:18 AM:

"You can end up like the Soviet Union with bankers as well."

I agree, but so what? Without bankers, it's impossible to have a modern industrial economy. With bankers, it's possible but not certain. So the claim that in essence bankers are merely parasites is obviously incorrect. Clearly they can and do add something important, but not necessarily.

The problem comes in when unsophisticated people look at a market economy and notice that there are people who are doing very well but seem to be only shuffling paper. Throw in a little envy and perhaps a little racism and it's easy to conclude that these paper shufflers are simply parasites.

bbartlog said at July 29, 2011 6:01 AM:

'Without bankers, it's impossible to have a modern industrial economy.'
Now you are the one making bold claims without offering any proof. The fact that banks and bankers have been ubiquitous throughout the rise of the West does not show that they are or were indispensable. More particularly, while I would concede that some of the functions of banking are indispensable (money storage and lending, long-distance transfers of funds, etc.), this in no way implies that fractional reserve banking such as we have is anything other than a kind of rent-seeking.

Stephen said at July 30, 2011 1:10 AM:

"I agree, but so what?"

You said that without bankers you end up with the Soviet Union or Afghanistan. So I noted that you can up like the Soviet Union or Afghanistan with bankers as well. Those kinds of scenarios aren't exclusive to cases where you don't have bankers.

"Without bankers, it's impossible to have a modern industrial economy."

So what? A modern industrial economy isn't necessarily a good in itself. The Soviet Union had a modern industrial economy.

"So the claim that in essence bankers are merely parasites is obviously incorrect. Clearly they can and do add something important, but not necessarily."

The fact that they "add something important", however you define "important", doesn't mean they aren't parasites or can't act parasitically.

Stephen said at July 30, 2011 1:14 AM:

"More particularly, while I would concede that some of the functions of banking are indispensable (money storage and lending, long-distance transfers of funds, etc.), this in no way implies that fractional reserve banking such as we have is anything other than a kind of rent-seeking."

Banking loses periodically more than all past cumulative profits, with losses covered by governments.

sabril said at July 30, 2011 4:38 AM:

"So I noted that you can up like the Soviet Union or Afghanistan with bankers as well. "

And again, so what? This doesn't contradict my point.

"So what? A modern industrial economy isn't necessarily a good in itself. "

The post I was responding to was criticizing bankers on economic grounds.

"doesn't mean they aren't parasites or can't act parasitically."

I'm not sure what you mean . . . if on the whole bankers add to the economy (which clearly seems to be the case), then
they are not net parasites. Of course, any person or group can act parasitically for example by
lobbying the government for a bail-out. If the proposal is that the government should not bail out failing
investment banks, I would probably agree.

sabril said at July 30, 2011 4:39 AM:

"Banking loses periodically more than all past cumulative profits, with losses covered by governments."

I would be interested in seeing your evidence for this.

JR said at July 30, 2011 11:22 AM:

"Increasing centralization of capital means fewer and fewer people making capital and economic decisions in the economy. It can come to resemble central planning where a small group of people monopolize much of the capital and economic decision making of the economy."

Central planning took over the decision making process in the US, both through the growth of government and through an unparalleled concentration of wealth.

The parallels between the rapid growth of US government bureaucracy and the Soviet bureaucracy is straight forward. As more and more of US economy was controlled by a narrow group of decision makers allocating government resources, the more sluggish the entire economy became (most of this was due to massive growth and mis-allocation in entitlements and defense). Further, the ability of government bureaucracies to extend their decision making to remaining majority of the economy through regulatory action, is also a form of centralization. However, even with all of this government growth, it's is still not enough to account for the level of misallocation we are seeing.

There's is something else at work.

The answer is that an extreme concentration of wealth at the center of our market economy has led to a form of central planning. The concentration of wealth is now in so few hands and is so extreme in degree, that the combined liquid financial power of all of those not in this small group is inconsequential to determining the direction of the economy. As a result, we now have the equivalent of centralized planning in global marketplaces. A few thousand extremely wealthy people making decisions on the allocation of our collective wealth. The result was inevitable: gross misallocation across all facets of the private economy.

aandrews said at May 12, 2013 6:30 AM:

REN said at July 26, 2011 8:17 AM:
"Jewish interests helped fund and drove us to the 1965 immigration act."

sabril said at July 26, 2011 8:49 AM:
"Sorry, but it's not my responsibility to go looking for evidence to support your claim."

John F. Kennedy and Immigration Reform
"As has become the custom of aspiring presidential candidates, Senator Kennedy in 1958 was seeking to get his public policy ideas and visions in print and in the public record. In the Anti-Defamation League, Kennedy found a willing and powerful outlet for his views on immigration policy; in the issue of immigration reform, Kennedy and the ADL—a division of B'nai Brith, the most prominent Jewish organization in the United States—found a commonality of interests."

Kevin MacDonald: Jews and immigration policy — Again
"Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration."

Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review (Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique)
"Jews have been at the forefront in supporting movements aimed at altering the ethnic status quo in the United States in favor of immigration of non-European peoples. These activities have involved leadership in Congress, organizing and funding anti-restrictionist groups composed of Jews and gentiles, and originating intellectual movements opposed to evolutionary and biological perspectives in the social sciences."
(Cf. Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald by Takuan Seiyo, "Prof. MacDonald is correct in linking the rise of multiculturalism and massive non-white immigration to the activism of organized Jewry. Reading demographic dissolutionist Jewish statements like HIAS’s Progress by Pesach — and there is something in that category every week from ADL, AJC, HIAS and from crypto-Jewish organizations like ACLU and SLPC — is a revolting experience.")

‘Progress by Pesach’ urged on immigration reform
"The coalition also includes the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Union of Reform Judaism and a number of local organizations."

Community Questioning 'Open Door'
"While 80,000 of 120,000 refugees entering the United States in 1991 were Jewish, a decade later only 20,000 of 70,000 total refugees were Jews, according to Nyana officials. HIAS [Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society] officials maintain that Jews should continue to support immigration of other groups. 'The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are,' Glickman told the Forward."


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©