Luke Ford

Steve Sailer writes:

It’s fascinating how the reigning philosophical discourse in the 21st Century has become simply:

1. Puncher-downers … bad.

2. Puncher-uppers … good, even when they punch-up with AK47s against cartoonists and shoppers.

3. Don’t you dare question our definitions of who are the puncher-uppers and who are the puncher-downers, you racist puncher-downer, you. We know who should be the who and who should be the whom, and if you question us, you deserve to wind up a whom…

Todd is an expert about how traditional family ties in Christendom explain current political views, but similar analysis of Jews is basically not done.

For example, the triple bankshot ideologies of Todd’s kinsman Levi-Strauss, along with those of Marx and Freud, were subjected to an intentionally New York Jewish intellectual-style analysis in the 1974 book The Ordeal of Civility by Irish-American New York academic John Murray Cuddihy.

But you’ve probably never heard of that book because a gentile analyzing hugely influential Jews qua Jews is unimaginable. Jewish intellectuals very much do not like their own tools of analysis being applied to themselves. Turnabout may be fair play, but it’s also, to be frank, zombie Catholicism.

A huge amount of intellectualizing consists of triple bankshots made up by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize primal emotions they feel. Their triple bankshots (bomb Libya abroad, lay down to Muslim inundation at home, or whatever) frequently don’t make much sense in non-emotional terms, but they very much do not like gentiles applying Occam’s Razor to their triple bankshots.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Two points on Todd:
1) The Charlie Hebdo marches were a weird of mix spontaneous feeling and politico-mediatic orchestration. Nominally for free speech and “tolerance,” the next day the government arrested the comedian Dieudonné for “hate speech.” In short, the French government is subsidizing anti-Muslim blasphemy and is persecuting anti-Holocaust-Industry blasphemy. Nor was there any recognition that shutting down Islamic immigration could limit these problems in the future or that the FN had a point and should be allowed to participate in democratic politics. The government also exploited the incident to pass more surveillance legislation. There is nothing good about these sheep-like demonstrations and on the contrary shows the government’s ability to rally people around a somewhat authoritarian, faux-patriotic, and censorious agenda. I think the latter is what disturbs Todd about “Je Suis Charlie.”

2) Todd has been roundly mocked for his unbelievably obtuse pseudo-explanation of the “Charlie” phenomenon and is basically a very, very roundabout way of avoiding any mention of Jewish ethnocentrism in French politics. Said ethnocentrism however largely explains the double standard on insulting the Prophet vs. the Shoah.

* Jews think that 1950s era America, which defeated Nazi Germany and prosecuted the perpetrators of the Holocaust just a few years earlier, was also deeply anti-semitic.

* You seem to be flirting with Kevin MacDonaldism, where the Eternal Jew is always pushing Jewish interests at the expense of everyone else.

Now, no doubt many Jews advocate for Jewish interests. But what is your support for the idea that anti-white Jews somehow can’t just be self-hating ethno-masochists like other white ethnic groups? Why is it when a Jew advocates his country to be inundated with Muslims, it is some convoluted “triple bankshot” to advance Jewish interests, but not when Italians or Swedes do the same?

If you want to apply Occam’s razor here, it is that French half-jews like Todd that advocate France be overrun with Arabs and black muslims that hate jews, they do it because they are, at best, indifferent to the country being overrun by anti-semites who will attack Jews on the streets and vote in George Galloway types who want to BDS Israel into a South Africa type pariah state.

* The NYT had a very insidious reportage of Trump deporting Ramos from that room which summed up the way Jews have corrupted public discourse:

“The 30-minute news conference Mr. Trump presided over in Iowa on Tuesday night was the purest distillation of the psychological quirks and emotional idiosyncrasies that have made his candidacy such an irresistible spectacle — at times repellent, but often riveting.”

Gosh, psychological quirks and emotional idiosyncrasies—well but of course everyone thinks of Woody Allen when they see Trump on the stump.

* I remember reading when I was a young man about some adult clubs in Paris that featured frottage, basically some guy would come out onstage and some woman would come out, well-versed, as Voltaire would say, in the science of hydraulics and sufficient reason, and through the expert application of friction and manual pressure, would achieve tremendous distances for the resulting ejaculation. Triple bank shot, indeed.

Quite a lot of intellectual activity is focused on justifying some emotional attachment, or some some irrational conception. Quite a lot. Of course none of us are immune, so, if you want to be rational you have to be detached, and you also have to make sure that emotionally you are in a good place. Good writing and good thinking come mostly from being in a good mood.

* Aside from the pleasure of ratiocination, is there some goal that “analyzing hugely influential Jews qua Jews” serves?

It isn’t as if analysis of “Jews qua Jews” doesn’t happen. Sure, it is a disreputable activity, but there is no shortage of smart people like MacDonald doing it.

Whatever the ostensible goal, the actual effect of “analyzing hugely influential Jews qua Jews” seems to have is offending and alienating a highly intelligent, moral, and influential group of Americans, and prolonging the evil taint Nazism attached to what was once a humane, influential, and progressive eugenics movement.

Aside from all that, I find it sort of tiresome and boring as well. The question of the percentage of Jewish Bolsheviks, their relative responsibility for the ’65 immigration act and 70′s feminism, and the other questions that preoccupy MacDonaldists for me are not very interesting as historical questions compared to, say, Roman history, or 17th century England. Nor do they seem relevant to issues confronting our present and future: how do block amnesty at home, elect the Donald president, and stop the exponentially growing stream of refugees from the Third World from destroying the First.

* Puncher-downers are good when they’re Jews punching down on ‘white trash’.

Puncher-uppers are bad when they are middle class white challenging Jewish privilege.

* When I start typing “mondoweiss” into the Google query box (private browsing tab/no cookies) it auto-prompts me with “mondoweiss hate site” as the 1st suggested search query. Isn’t that redundant? If people were trying to answer the basic question of “What is the site / Is it a [sic] hate site” wouldn’t they just Google the 1st term? The only way these suggestions would emerge organically would be a semi-collaborative googlebomb effort in order to provoke the artificially-intelligent search cache into believing that “[x] hate site” was a practically useful subcategory or refinement of searches on [x] — which it isn’t, in the Western civilization sense (cf. also the auto-prompt “steve sailer racist”).

If Google espoused some kind of laissez-faire Prime Directive about the low-grade hacking of the suggested search by aggrieved partisans, that would be one thing. But they don’t — in fact they blacklist web sites who “game” the results order (albeit rarely). The manipulation would be simple to fix from an engineering standpoint; “Microsoft racist” is not a case of someone mistyping an intended search for “Microsoft,” after all, and it’s not a hit song or new smartphone, so there’s no utility gained by suggesting it. The presence of these prejudicial auto-prompts belies Google’s stated libertoid mission that they just wanna Organize Information For Make Great Benefit Global Community. Ironically I guess it makes it less work for fans of racism to socialize online w/ other fans.

* Since the French have passed laws against ‘Holocaust denial’ (as well as other ‘thought crimes’ and ‘speech crimes’) , and indeed the (nominally) conservative Sarkozy expressed support for a law against denying the ‘Armenian genocide’, the French could probably go some way to ameliorating their problem with radical Islam (surely some muslims have been smart enough to notice the hypocrisy) by enacting a law against denigrating ‘the Prophet’. And this would not be inconsistent with their propensity for ideological tyranny — as noted above.