Steve Sailer writes:
Jews have taken on the role of society SuperEgo, while wanting to remain the Id in private. This is an unstable combination, has the high proportion of Jews have gotten in trouble attests.
…When I was a kid, National Review was fascinated by a 1974 book by the New York Irish-American sociologist John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Lévi-Strauss, and the Jewish Struggle with Modernity. Cuddihy had been trained by New York Jewish intellectuals, and he turned his hyper-intellectualized style back on Jewish intellectuals. Forty plus-years ago, this kind of turn-about was seen as fairly fair play, and Cuddihy was nominated for a National Book Award. But since then he and his book have disappeared down the memory hole.
I’ve only read a couple of chapters of The Ordeal of Civility. Cuddihy’s style isn’t too my taste. I’d sum up the idea as that, as Heinlein said, “An armed society is a polite society,” and Ashkenazi society wasn’t very armed and thus was, despite its high literacy rate, pretty crass. So it ended up less civil than gentile polite society of similar wealth levels, which caused post-Jewish Enlightenment Jews a lot of distress and agitation when they tried to enter the broader society.
In a new article in Thermidor, Hoyt Thorpe summarizes Cuddihy in relation to Trump’s highly Jewish crassness…
Comments at Steve Sailer:
* Until the Sexual Revolution ™ , how common was it really for women to be solicited for sex?
A not yet married young girl was owned by her father who would not take kindly to random men soliciting her for sex. Married girl obviously owned by their husband and soliciting one I think had a credible threat of getting killed attached to it.
With marriage at much younger ages than today, I don’t think that “single women” were really a thing. Prime reproductive age women were not just wandering around on their own in big anonymous cities.
And going back to evolution, way way back, all women were owned by the top male, who definitely discouraged other males from soliciting.
So I dunno. Like I said I agree with you, but I’m not sure if history really supports that women should have plenty of experience and be good at this because western civilization.
And – they definitely aren’t equipped to handle this specific scenario where we made a tiny little world called a federal court and made Kozinky the king shit within that world, and then on top of that he’s the girls boss so he directly controls her economic livelihood, and then he hits on the girl. A lot of parts of her are saying “yup, sounds good Judge, let me open my legs right now” and so it’s expected that she would not know what to do.
* It goes beyond women. Your average well-bred WASP does not want to eat at the same table with some neurotic, fussy Jewish guy who tantrums over what he’s being served and who is rude and harassing to the waitstaff. This is profoundly irritating to someone who’s been properly brought up.
Well-bred WASPs were raised to deal with mishaps calmly and politely and not freak out over them. Making a terrible scene in public is a major faux pas in WASP culture, because one of the defining characteristics of people who run things in life is that they are hard to rattle, they stay in control of their emotions, they fix problems quickly and easily, and they do all of these things with panache.
The generation of Jews who complained about not getting into the country clubs were only 1-2 generations themselves from being peasants on the Russian shtetl, and they were taught peasant manners.
* Howard Stern is a modern day American version of the same project.
Stern’s mission seemed to be a relentless assault on the WASPs from the point of view of a hideously ugly, sexually vulgar low rent Jew from Long Island.
Trump routinely appeared on Stern’s show and was a listener of it for 20+ years.
Stern’s format included a relentless sexual harassment of his female guests over commercial broadcast radio.
I don’t know if would be tolerated today. Now he’s hiding on satellite radio and even more obscene.
Stern’s fundamental obsession is the sexual relations between black males and White women. Especially in pornography and among his celebrity guests.
It has always been obvious to me that in no small way this is his fascination with “degrading” White women/shiksas by fixating on this “defilement” of White America’s women black males.
James Toback shares the same world view and made a movie expressing it called “Black and White”. He has also fixated on the sexuality of Mike Tyson and Jim Brown.
Brett Ratner apparently was the liaison between somewhat naive White girls and black alleged rapist Russell Simmons.
* Sailer is the therapist we need for our time. In addition to psychoanalysis therapy, there is a vital need for cultural-analysis. Find the courage to peer into the dark heart to understand hidden cultural motives for our behavior that fuel so much misunderstanding and conflict. Our very reluctance and cowardice to confront these probably doom us to endless unsatisfactorily unresolved conflicts between our tribes. “Diversity is our strength” is the empty platitude aimed to placate us and make us ignore the real problems and conflicts between citizens, neighbors and colleagues hailing from different tribes and traditions. Rather than demanding that we actually put in effort to understand the different kinds of motives and styles of negotiation we are dealing with and to create institutions that could hope to accommodate these diverse styles of interaction, we’ve chosen to close our eyes, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil in order to hold on to the fiction that “we’re supposed to be all exactly the same progressive Universal Unitarian rainbow flag worshipping, Whole Foods shopping, bourgeois bohemians with the same tastes and values but with different pigmentation, features and stature.” Indeed this expectation of uniformity of values and tastes is such hypocritical contradiction to the oft proclaimed yet apparently hollow pieties to “diversity.”
Perhaps independent outsiders like Sailer’s will continue to influence the more authoritative voices of the establishment to examine our cultural differences with a greater honesty that actually respects the integrity of these people much more by viewing all their features and foibles without the need to replace these with more palatable idealized fantasies. What makes Sailer’s observations and musings about various cultures and ethnicities so remarkable and constructive is that he’s never rude, condescending or dismissive about it. Sometimes his observations are obviously jarring, especially to any forged in this context of a culture that views such frank but statements beyond the tolerable range of polite discourse. Despite the many calls for frank discussions of race, almost nobody demanding this actually wants anything resembling frankness or even real discussion for that matter. Sailer’s indifference to the kind of etiquette that prohibits the honest consideration of various races and cultures has exacted a great cost of his exclusion from the Cathedral establishment, marginalizing a voice that might have otherwise been rewarded with more social success and status had he given his “cultural superego” more control and bitten his tongue to compromise in order to choose a different trajectory. Yet his indifference to these rules of etiquette have freed him to explore territory other less courageous but otherwise great minds have ignored and have fueled his curiosity to understand the real reasons, motives and origins for behaviors and characteristics of the various cultures. Even though he’s already violated this key taboo, he’s not completely dispensed with civilization and become something like another Andrew Anglin. Absent civilization, men don’t monstrous barbarity doesn’t automatically erase the nobility, humanity and dignity that exist along with the selfishness and wrath that compete with them. Even when examining the most difficult areas aspects of weaknesses that challenge or bedevil the various races and cultures, Sailer does so with a tenderness that shows a genuine desire to appreciate the reality and depth of all of their features and characteristics, not only the good ones that their idealized image of themselves wish to incorporate and present for a public image of their “cultural ego.”
Perhaps the Id, Ego and Superego are useful after all, even as metaphors also for races, nations and cultures to understand themselves? Will Dr. Sailer and others continue their thankless mission to help therapy these? How can communities most in need of therapy be moved to seek help to gain a better awareness of themselves?
* It’s very common for Jews to boast about their lack of civility, and I see as a overcompensation for a lack of physical stature. It may work in the Northeast, but it goes over like a lead weight down South. My wife had a scrawny accountant/business development contracted to her workplace call himself the “Hebrew Hammer.” His presence at a workplace staffed with Scots-Irish and Italian women was a morale bust, but her delusional boss thought he was the kick in the pants the company needed.
* “Courtesy” is the word Kenneth Clarke used. In his 1969 book (and tv series), he defined courtesy as “the ritual by which we avoid hurting other people’s feelings by satisfying our own egos.”
* Our barbaric impulses NEED sublimating; it is like wearing clothes to ward off the cold.
Our civilization has cast off the clothes that checked barbaric impulses and is now, figuratively, naked and freezing to death. Thanks, Freud et al.
* The Ordeal of Civility is so obtuse because what Cuddihy is trying to say is Freudianism really is just a projection of …Jewish perversity onto Christian culture.
Likewise Marx is all about critiquing the Jewish exploitation of others, especially the goyim, but of other Jews as well if necessary(or possible), but then again projecting it all upon the goyim.
If Steve finds Cuddihy to be obscurantist then E. Michael Jones may be more accessible.
For E Michael Jones, “The Ordeal of Civility” presented by Jews is really just their rejection of Logos as symbolized by their persecution of Jesus Christ.
* It’s like blacks wallowing in culture of violence but throwing fits about violence done to blacks.
It’s like homos wallowing in culture of pansyass vulgarity and flamboyance but bitching about how people find them ridiculous.
It’s like Jews wallowing in a culture of hostility and nastiness but getting so antsy about hostility shown to Jews.
If you start a forest fire, it can destroy your side too. But we live in such an egotistical and ‘ethnotistical’ age. Some groups want to subvert rules and act more freely… but are shocked when greater licentiousness or lack of inhibitions lead to behavior by other groups that offend them.
Homos still haven’t owned up to the fact their sicko behavior led to AIDS disaster in the 80s. If anything, they were turned into saints and gifted with ‘pride’ parades, ‘gay marriage’, and homomania as new religion. Identity Politics is shocked that whites also want an identity.
* I remember in the 80’s how seriously everyone who was intellectually anyone took Freud, and thinking that while this whole id/ego/superego thing made sense, the whole secretly wanting to kill my dad to sleep with my mom thing made absolutely no sense, but that’s supposed to be subconscious, so am I a rube for not accepting this thing that goes against every fiber of my being and is literally supposed to be unprovable simply because all the smart, sophisticated people say I should? Being a dissident on that was the beginning of my intellectual nonconformism, and honestly as socially trying as being a Trump supporter is today.
