HOW MacDONALD ADDRESSES THE WESTERN/JEWISH CONFLICT VS A PROPERTARIAN EXPLANATIO

HOW MacDONALD ADDRESSES THE WESTERN/JEWISH CONFLICT VS A PROPERTARIAN EXPLANATION – WHICH I THINK IS MORE PRECISE.

(Fascinating. You know, I wouldn’t think this would be all that controversial. It’s politically incorrect. But you know, it is what it is. Groups need strategies. Western people are better killers than anoyone else on earth becuase they have better spatial reasoning, higher trust in one another and lower impulsivity. Westerners also tend to be extremely fascinated with technology, for thousands of years. And they used that to conquer the world despite their small numbers. We call this Imperialism.

I can critique every culture, and it’s in fashion now to do so, as we all explore why the west succeeded and others did less so, particularly China.

So why is it that this topic is so un-PC? Because it’s true?

I care about this argument because it is addressable under propertarianism. In fact, under propertarian analysis it’s just blatantly obvious. So it’s an amazing sort of test of the explanatory power of propertarian argument: structure of production + structure of reproduction + structure of group in context of other groups = property rights. And thats because otherwise, the group would cease to survive. It can’t function any other way.

Propertarianism renders all moral, ethical and institutional strategies commensurable.

And yes, I know I get crap for this stuff but you know its REALLY fascinating. 🙂

Kevin MacDonald’s Argument:

—————————

“My logic is as follows: I see conflicts of interest between

ethnic groups as part of the natural world. The only difference between conflicts between Jews and non-Jews compared to garden variety ethnic conflict stems from the fact that for over a century, Jews have formed an elite in various European and European-derived societies, an elite with a peculiar profile: deeply ethnocentric and adept at ethnic networking; wealthy and intelligent, aggressive in pursuit of their interests, prone to media ownership and the production of culture, and hostile to the traditional peoples and cultures of the societies in which they form an elite.”

“As an elite, Jews have wielded power that is vastly disproportionate to their numbers, so that anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior are to be expected when Jewish power conflicts with the interests of others.”

“The various themes of moderm anti-Semitism all boil down to the Jewish role as a hostile elite whose attitudes and behavior are in conflict with the interests of others: economic domination in many parts of Eastern and Central Europe prior to World War II; cultural subversion via the Jewish role in the media and intellectual life (e.g., removing Christian symbols from public places); facilitating the displacement of native populations via mass migration into Western societies; dual loyalty because of Jewish sympathies with foreign Jews, especially Israel since 1948; and the history of Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR during the period when it became the most

murderous regime in European history.”

“Since I believe that these propositions are intellectually defensible, and since these propositions, if believed by non-Jews, would cause them to attempt to lessen Jewish power and thereby further their own interests, it is indeed the case that my work could be said to provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior.”

“But this isn’t really any different from claiming that Zionist theories provide intellectual legitimacy to the dispossession of the Palestinians, or that psychoanalysis or the Frankfurt School provide intellectual legitimacy to anti-Western attitudes. At the end of the day, what counts is whether indeed my writings are intellectually defensible.”