Okay. Let me back up. Is there really a Jewish Question at all? It seems there exist a range of possibilities on the JQ, starting with the null hypothesis:
The Jews are as destabilizing as their representation in the Smart Fraction (itself a minority) would suggest.
Put simply: There is no there there. On the surface, this seems a wild claim. Bolshevism, Rothschilds, QED. Now this hypothesis is contingent on Smart Fractions actually being destabilizing; which is far from self-evident. The back of the napkin calculation might go something like: Smart Fractions already have power, so why would they destabilize. But the next napkin might contain: Historically, power flowed toward martial excellence and/or landed gentry and/or Church, at the expense of the Smart. So maybe the Smart would tend to destabilize. And a third napkin might say: Since the advent of Low Church Protestantism, barriers to power have consistently become less aristocratic (or less austere), more meritocratic, and consequently easier to breach with verbal IQ, and thereby inductive per se for destabilizing contests for power. Liberal democracies appear to have been custom made for just such a mess.
So the null hypothesis is really a different (non-null) hypothesis: The Smart Fraction Question. Do Smart Fractions tend to be destabilizing in many/most social constitutions. It calls for political theory… and data. If yes, then maybe the Jews play an role in destabilization consistent with their (admittedly out-weighted) representation in that Smart cohort or maybe not. A purely empirical question.
Or:
The Jews are as destabilizing as other high functioning minorities (e.g., high-caste Indians).
I think it is relatively uncontroversial (in these parts) to suggest that minorities are inherently destabilizing. Therefore Jews could be destabilizing on account of their minority status alone. Blacks and Gypsies are destabilizing too, but they rarely rise to cultural significance and power. Given a certain small number of them, we can probably keep them under a boot. No problem. But what about high-functioning minorities. Have to say, I’ve met a few high-caste Indians who give proggie Jews a run for their money. So maybe the Jews are a problem but only like any other high functioning minorities: The High Functioning Minorities Question. This seems like an empirical question.
Or maybe:
The Jews just happen to be more destabilizing than any other known identifiable minority.
It’s possible. It is a purely empirical question. But maybe:
The Jews qua Jews are more destabilizing than any other identifiable minority.
It’s possible. This is an empirical question but with a twist that goes beyond. We would be identifying something deep within the Jewish genome or culture or psyche which makes them tend strongly to be this way. Of course, if we identified that special thing, we might look around and find it in other subcultures as well. William Wilberforce was no Jew. So who knows?
And finally, the most extreme position (that I am prepared to countenance at any rate) is:
The Jews qua Jews are so uniquely destabilizing that no Jew could ever be trusted with any amount of power. They should be banned from our organization (presuming we had one) and probably forcibly relocated to a homeland of their own.
I don’t think the last one is an empirical question.
As for me, my thoughts are far from settled on this. On one hand, I’m glad Jews helped America build the atomic bomb. On the other hand, I’m pretty pissed that they gave away our secrets to the Russians. I don’t think the Jews had much of a hand in killing King Charles, but I’m pretty pissed at them for feminism. Win some, lose some.
High functioning Indians from India, and other high functioning minorities, cause many of the same problems as Jews, but do not perceive themselves as exiles.
That Jews are uniquely destabilizing is demonstrated by the fact that they even destabilize Israel. Israelis worry about mistreating people that are making war on Israel in ways that Armenians do not worry about mistreating people who are making war on Armenia, Australians do not worry about mistreating illegal immigrants, and so on and so forth. Exile is part of their identity, and they are reluctant to give up the exile identity even when no longer in exile, hence the reluctance to take back the temple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking as someone with a Jewish wife and half-Jewish children, I would endorse the third option:
“The Jews just happen to be more destabilizing than any other known identifiable minority.”
I don’t pretend to know the optimal way for societies to deal with this fact. I think a strong and competent regime should be able to find a productive use for such potentially valuable human capital. On the other hand, a weak and incompetent regime could find itself destabilized to the point of destruction by them. Like all policy questions, the right answer likely depends to an enormous extent on the particular circumstances in a given time and place.
LikeLike
A quick Google search shows outmarriage in American Jews (as of 1999) to be 8 percent for Orthodox, 22 percent for Conservatives, and 36 percent for Reform Jews. Add in the fact that the ultra-orthodox sects are completing a relatively rapid demographic takeover of American Jewry and I think you’re going to have a completely different situation in another 50 years where many people are partially Jewish but Judaism itself is largely an insular sect like you’d have seen in Europe three hundred years ago.
LikeLike
The kingdoms and principalities of the 16th-19th centuries were indeed able to “find a productive use for such potentially valuable human capital.” (I’ve been reading Niall Ferguson’s Rothschild book). On the other hand, Jews are as destabilizing as any minority population, except that they’re above average, therefore more so. Is there a parallel with Overseas Chinese in a number of countries? I don’t know enough about that to have an opinion, but it’s surface plausible.
LikeLike
they were huge behind the mass immigration movement, civil rights and multiculturalism. Since those are the topics that probably top of the list on the downfall of Western Civilization over past 50 years and coming 50, I’d say yes… they have a lot of blame on their shoulders.
They have their own country now. What’s stopping them from going there?
Many point to the benefits to West of having them amongst us, but frankly most of the gains are internalized by them, not the West. We’d enjoy their inventions, etc. just as much if they’d been made in Israel. The only real diff is the tax revenue, but frankly the ideological cost is swamps that and then some.
Here’s a hypothetical: If in 1945 EVERY jew in the US had left and gone to Israel, would the US now be a more or less conservative place? A more or less feminist place? A more or less “diverse” place? A bigger or smaller government? And would that US be at all that different on economic terms than the one we have now?
And above all, if you could press a button that would make our world THAT world, would you?
I know my answer.
LikeLike
Since this is a Christian site, I will add that “Jew” is not just an ethnicity but also a theological construct, defined specifically as rejection of logos. Since the rejection of Christ and destruction of the Temple, Judaism has become a new religion whose essence is anti-order. This is why Abbie Hoffman is in some sense more Jewish than the Tefillin wearing “orthodox” Hasidic Jew. Hasidim was a reaction to the fact that the Frankist movement had demonstrated that Judaism was crazy and destructive.
LikeLike
This topic hasn’t attracted as much discussion as I expected, from NRx, increasingly self-aware as the brains of the pro-Whites. Perhaps because everyone here understands that the real threat to Whites is not from any other people in particular, but in concert, with the goal of racial replacement, preferring what place they can find in the subsequent world to their place in a world dominated by Whites; and the best way forward for Whites is to simply remind each other that they exist.
In search of another redpill, I started flipping through a copy of Henry Ford’s The International Jew, coming across chapter 77, What Jews Attempted where they had Power (page 591/645 of https://archive.org/details/TheInternationalJew_655 ). We’ve all heard it said that political correctness comes from the cultural marxism of the Frankfurt School. But if this article from the Dearborn Independent has any truth to it, in 1920 political correctness was alive and well, using techniques we all recognize today. Chapter 77 is about an extension school lecturer, who having said something two Jews hearing his lecture objected to, was subjected to a letter-writing campaign towards the leadership of the school he was employed by, followed by a sort of a mock trial. According to The International Jew, it was thereafter declared that no lecturer could discuss the Jews or the Irish.
Is intelligence the only aspect of racial character we’re allowed to discuss? We can also mention the time horizon of Black decision-making, or their savage brutality. We may be able to mention the Chinaman’s incuriousity that leaves his intelligence disappointing. Is there anything to the Jew that isn’t just the same as a particularly intelligent White? Is political correctness really just the White tendency towards sanctimony acting in a democracy?
LikeLike
The White tendency toward sanctimony is really the New England Protestant Universalist tendency toward sanctimony. Many of the rest of us are noticeably lacking.
LikeLike
Like you, Peppermint, I am surprised at the lack of interest. I have had many private conversations with folks who insist that the JQ is the Big Q, and we’ve just got to have an answer. That alone motivated me to start this series: Can we carve out an answer or at least the boundaries of an answer to the Jewish Question? Actually I’m relieved that the discussion has been relatively light, because I’m not sure it would have brought as much light as heat.
You make a good points. Certainly the Frankfurt School did not spring from nothing. I remain convinced of the overall tenor of Moldbug’s Cathedralist (hyper-puritan) hypothesis, but
A) I’m far from convinced that when you describe puritans you’re NOT also describing a judaized religion—one which just happens to reward the kinds of traits Jews are good at (verbal IQ, high abstraction, excessive rationalism).
B) Ashkenazim do seem, even given their higher average intelligence and outweighted representation in the cognitive elite, to be rather central to the worst excesses of Western social upheaval and moral decay over that last 150 years or so.
I do have a hard time believing that Jews are only as guilty as gentile white elites. But I also have a hard time blaming Jews very much for progressive victories like abolitition and temperance.
I have interlocutors in private who say, No: Ashkenazim are exactly as destabilizing as their representation in the smart fraction would dictate. I still think it is an empirical question, requiring some dispassionate study.
LikeLike
New England Protestant Universalist
Didn’t start in New England. I’ve been wondering why Carlyle liked Cromwell so much (but not enough to find out more on Cromwell from Carlyle, lol). Carlyle condemns empty cant, the replacing of real things by formulas, as “Jesuitism”, presumably following Ignatius Loyola’s statement “I will believe black is white if the hierarchial Church so defines”; Carlyle seems concerned with what Vox Day calls the unreality principle rather than sanctimony as such.
Scrupulosity is still a sin, and one today’s youth are ordered to revel in more than any other.
LikeLike
Temperance is just a symptom; women’s suffrage is a natural part of the progress of democracy.
I feel like political correctness is always assumed to be something new, but it was surely alive in the ’60s when the immigration act was passed, and the civil rights act was passed even with the women’s rights gambit attached to it. If The International Jew isn’t speculative fiction, it was alive at the dawn of the 20th century. How much political correctness was around in the 19th century? Carlyle seems to have written as offensively as he dared, and Wikipedia records that people ritually shunned him for it.
LikeLike