?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Sergey Oboguev's Journal
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]

Thursday, August 9th, 2001

Time Event
8:12a
«Рынок всё расставит по своим местам» или Ничто не ново под луной
Они звона не терпят гуслярного,
Подавай им товара базарного!
Всё, чего им не взвесить, не смеряти,
Всё, кричат они, надо похерити;

. . .

И приёмы у них дубоватые,
И ученье-то их грязноватое,

       И на этих людей,
       Государь Пантелей,
       Палки ты не жалей
             Суковатыя!


– А. Толстой, февраль 1866

* * *

В сущности, если попытаться вычленить главную универсалистскую максиму российского “либерализма” 1990-х гг., это: “Человек не есть ценность”.

* * *

Первоначально, разумеется, имелось в виду “Русский человек не есть ценность”. Потом постепенно, и как бы даже невзначай и само собой, распространилось на узбеков-калмыков. И уже затем – силой вещей обратилось на самих проектировщиков.
9:42a
Либерталианство № 2
Комментарий, оказывается, не может превышать 4000 символов. Придется поместить ответ здесь, а в разделе “комментарии” дать ссылку.
vyastik  said: Хм. По-Вашему, все либертарианцы -- жыды?

Разумеется, не все, не так чтобы стопроцентно. Однако, как практически и во всяком радикальном движении, в либерталианстве можно вычленить еврейское течение, действительная повестка которого этно-специфична – как по стилистике, так, главное, и по целевой направленности.

Например, ACLU принято считать либерталианской организацией. Известно, что ACLU доминируется евреями и, как обсуждается Мак-Дональдом, продвигает программу действий, направленную на создание конкурентных преимуществ для еврейской группы по сравнению с неевреями в эволюционном процессе.

Некоторые отрывки из “The Culture of Critique” (стр. 147, 151-2, 250, 325) и “Separation and its Discontents” (стр. 84-5), упоминающие ACLU и могущие служить вводной иллюстрацией на тему еврейского либерталианства вообще:
Besides these functions, the cultural influence of psychoanalysis may actually have benefited Judaism by increasing Jewish-gentile differences in resource competition ability, although there is no reason to suppose that this was consciously intended by the leaders of the movement. Given the very large mean differences between Jews and gentiles in intelligence and tendencies toward high-investment parenting, there is every reason to suppose that Jews and gentiles have very different interests in the construction of culture. Jews suffer to a lesser extent than gentiles from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting, and Jews benefit by the decline in religious belief among gentiles. As Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (see note 2) have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement is a central component of this war on gentile cultural supports for high-investment parenting.

[ . . . ]

The continuing role of psychoanalysis in the movement toward sexual liberation can be seen in a recent debate over teenage sexuality. An article in the Los Angeles Times (Feb. 15, 1994, Al, A16) noted the opposition of the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood to a school program that advocated teenage celibacy. Sheldon Zablow, a psychiatrist and spokesperson for this perspective, stated “Repeated studies show that if you try to repress sexual feelings, they may come out later in far more dangerous ways-sexual abuse, rape” (p. A16). This psychoanalytic fantasy was compounded by Zablow’s claim that sexual abstinence has never worked in all of human history – a claim that indicates his unawareness of historical data on sexual behavior in the West (including Jewish sexual behavior), at least from the Middle Ages until the twentieth century (e.g., Ladurie 1986). I am not aware of any stratified traditional human society (and certainly not Muslim societies) that has taken the view that it is impossible and undesirable to prevent teenage sexual activity, especially by girls. As Goldberg (1996, 46) notes, “within the world of liberal organizations like the ACLU.... Jewish influence is so profound that non-Jews sometimes blur the distinction between them and the formal Jewish community.”

[ . . . ]

Kallen’s idea of cultural pluralism as a model for the United States was popularized among gentile intellectuals by John Dewey (Higham 1984, 209), who in turn was promoted by Jewish intellectuals: “If lapsed Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant sensibilities, Dewey’s kind were resoundingly encouraged in that direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities” (Hollinger 1996, 24). “One force in this [culture war of the 1940s] was a secular, increasingly Jewish, decidedly left-of-center intelligentsia based largely ... in the disciplinary communities of philosophy and the social sciences.... The leading spirit was the aging John Dewey himself, still contributing occasional articles and addresses to the cause (p. 160). (The editors of Partisan Review, the principal journal of the New York Intellectuals, published work by Dewey and called him “America’s leading philosopher” [PR 13:608, 1946]; Dewey’s student, New York Intellectual Sidney Hook [1987, 82], was also unsparing in his praise of Dewey, terming him “the intellectual leader of the liberal community in the United States” and “a sort of intellectual tribune of progressive causes.”) Dewey, as the leading American secularist, was allied with a group of Jewish intellectuals opposed to “specifically Christian formulations of American democracy” (Hollinger 1996, 158). Dewey had close links with the New York Intellectuals, many of whom were Trotskyists, and he headed the Dewey Commission that exonerated Trotsky of charges brought in the Moscow trials of 1936. Dewey was highly influential with the public at large. Henry Commager described Dewey as “the guide, the mentor, and the conscience of the American people; it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that for a generation no issue was clarified until Dewey had spoken” (in Sandel 1996, 36). Dewey was the foremost advocate of “progressive education” and helped establish the New School for Social Research and the American Civil Liberties Union, both essentially Jewish organizations (Goldberg 1996, 46, 131). As with several other gentiles discussed in this volume, Dewey, whose “lack of presence as a writer, speaker, or personality makes his popular appeal something of a mystery” (Sandel 1996, 35), thus represented the public face of a movement dominated by Jewish intellectuals.

[ . . . ]

The conflict of interest between Jews and gentiles in the construction of culture goes well beyond advocacy of the multicultural ideal. Because they are much more genetically inclined to a high-investment reproductive strategy than are gentiles, Jews are able to maintain their high-investment reproductive strategy even in the absence of traditional Western cultural supports for high-investment parenting (Ch. 4). Compared to gentiles, Jews are therefore much better able to expand their economic and cultural success without these traditional Western cultural supports. As Higham (1984, 173) notes, the cultural idealization of an essentially Jewish personal ethic of hedonism, anxiety, and intellectuality came at the expense of the older rural ethic of asceticism and sexual restraint.

Moreover, traditional Western supports for high-investment parenting were embedded in religious ideology and, I suppose, are difficult to achieve in a postreligious environment. Nevertheless, as Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the ACLU have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, or have led the fight for lifting restrictions on pornography. Further, we have seen that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement has been a central component of this war on gentile cultural supports for high-investment parenting. Whereas Jews, because of their powerful genetically influenced propensities for intelligence and high-investment parenting, have been able to thrive within this cultural milieu, other sectors of the society have not; the result has been a widening gulf between the cultural success of Jews and gentiles and a disaster for society as a whole.

[ . . . ]

Goldberg (1996, 46) notes that “within the world of liberal organizations like the ACLU and People for the American Way, Jewish influence is so profound that non-Jews sometimes blur the distinction between them and the formal Jewish community.” The ACLU often has been the target of cultural conservatives writing from non-religious perspectives. See, e.g., Robert Bork’s (1996) Slouching Towards Gomorrah. Bork states that the ACLU “has had, through litigation and lobbying, a very considerable effect on American law and culture” (1996, 97). Bork is also one of many cultural conservatives to emphasize the products of media conglomerate Time Warner as particularly destructive (pp. 130-132; see also note 45). The result is that while Jews and Judaism are never mentioned in books like that of Bork, many of the books’ complaints are directed at Jewish activities and organizations. My personal impression from talking privately to cultural conservatives is that they do not raise the Jewish issue because of fear of being charged with anti-Semitism. (I have never spoken to Robert Bork and have no idea what his attitudes are on Jewish issues.) However, these conservatives are quite aware of the role Jews play in what they view as the decline of Western culture. Their attitudes constitute a sort of underground anti-Semitism and they illustrate the effectiveness of Jewish strategies for combating anti-Semitism (see also Chapter 6).

10:35a
Московские Новости, № 321 (1099), 7-13 августа 2001.

Рой Медведев, “За кулисами августа” (часть 1-я).

Полезно, если неохота читать мемуары.

<< Previous Day 2001/08/09
[Calendar]
Next Day >>
About LiveJournal.com