Sunday, April 23, 2006

Friend of Van Gogh assaulted by Muslims

Ebru Umar a newspaper and internet columnist and friend of Theo van Gogh was assaulted (Dutch) by Moroccan youth for lambasting Islam last Friday.



Mayor Cohen of the city of Amsterdam recently warned for violence between Moroccans and other groups in Multi-ethnic and Multicultural Amsterdam, the utopia that is the making of Cohen and his Socialist predessessors.



Ebru Umar writes the column in the Metro newspaper that used to be written by Theo van Gogh, who was murdered for his opposition to Islam. She is from secular Turkish parents and makes no excuses for her strongly anti-islamic views.


A week ago Moroccans killed a Flemish boy in a full trainstation in Brussels. For a mp3 player. The Belgian authorities blame Belgian society.

They should really blame themselves for not protecting society against the rats from Morocco, who cause murder, theft, violence and rape everywhere they go.

It is the duty of the rulers of society to protect society. Our authorities are sadly failing in their duty.


22 comments:

Ethnocentrist said...

"Cohen"....Is that Dutch???

:)

nouille said...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2149297,00.html


here's an interesting article.(in english)

Snouck said...

Interesting chap, that David Myatt. Interesting to see that he recognizes Islam as a stronghold of warrior values, which it is. It is also true that these warrior values are lacking among Western populations.

The road of terrorism is a dead end as are all forms of "lazy violence". The main challenge of the Right against the suicidal Left is to survive (seperately) until the failings of Leftism become so obvious that they cannot be ignored by the population any longer.

Snouck said...

Cohen is by ancestry a Jew. He is a prominent representative of the Dutch upper class and was a brilliant university administrator. At one time, until 2-3 yrs ago, he was slated to be the next candidate for Labour to become Prime Minister.

He is selling Jews in The Netherlands down the river even more faster than Whites. His nickname is "tea drinker" for his propensity to go drinking tea with parents and elders of violent immigrant youth. The motto of the Amsterdam Mayor is "keeping things together" implying he understands that Amsterdam is a powder keg.

Ethnocentrist said...

Snouck, I don't buy it. Rabbi Cohen there may be selling Jews in the Netherlands down the river faster than Whites, though he knows that Jews can always flee to a safe haven named Israel. This line of thinking is no different than Noel Ignatieff, an English professor at Harvard whose claim to fame is his rabid anti-whiteness views. He calls for the abolishment of "white skin privilege" which in essence means white race. He claims the same for Israel knowing full well that that wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.

Jews have Isael to run to. Where do European Whites have?

Snouck said...

Ethnocentrist:
Jews have Israel to run to. Where do European Whites have (to go)?

Snouck:
We have huge lands. In 1500 we just had Europe and Russia. Now we got Europe, Russia, North America, Australia and huge parts of South America.

The Jews just got tiny Israel. Israel is an ethnostate which is good for them.

Whites can have ethnostates too, but we will have to struggle for it. We all know Liberalism and Multiculturalism are dead ends. The end of both will come in the USA, which is the current leader in the world and the main agent of Multiculturalism for Whites.

The problem is that whites have it good and we effortlessy have dominated the planet for 200 years. This and the development of nuclear arms have made us smug and decadent.

Ethnically aware Whites have a tendency to blame the Jews or "Zionists" for their misfortunes. And it is true that political Jews issue forth a lot of Multicultural bullcrap. (Like a repository of bad ideas).

But have you ever wondered why the generation of the 60ies bought the bullcrap and their ancestors not?

We have got a 15.000 strong Jewish population in the Netherlands. We have got no-one to blame for our predicament than ourselves.

Can Americans genuinly state that their situation is caused by the activities of a ethnocentric subgroup of the population of 6 million and not by the idiocy and smugness of the 200 million plus core nation?

Honest question....

Ethnocentrist said...

Good question Snouck. I agree with your comment above. I'm not a Jew basher nor do I see a Jew under every rock as some do. David Duke is a prime example of a bright man who can find the root of every White problem originating with the Jews. That is too simplistic for me and not realistic either. I think I believe what you imply. Jews have a heavy portion of the blame, yet we Whites do as well.

Just a little FYI to put things in perspective though, you mention that Jews make up a small portion of the population of the US. That is true and the accepted figure is somewhere around 2-3% of the total US population. Yet, they comprise ~50% (+/-) of the super wealthy(billionaires), media moguls, harvard law school acceptances, people in Congress etc. They are the only ethnic minority to successfully lobby the US Census to NOT include Jewish as part of the census. So, while I agree with you that WE are ultimately to blame for our relative slothlike behaviour. They are tricky little bastards themselves and I question their motives. I also agree with you that the average Jew on the street may be oblivious to these power plays behind the scenes, though they have the mentality, from multiple sources and multiple reasons, to do what is "good for Jews". Immigration being front and center in the US in this regard. This info comes from Jewish sources and not some clandestine neo-Nazi website.

If Jews had the mentality of wanting to assimilate into whatever nation they found themselves in, instead of being "the chosen" and maintaining separatism, I would have no problem with them because they are bright and industrious. The problem is that many, especially in places with large numbers, continue to put Jewishness above the wellbeing of the nation they live in. Then they wonder why they get expelled, as that post on my blog indicated. You can't have it both ways and many European Whites that immigrated into the US after the Northern Anglo founded it, all assimilated and became "American".

That is my opinion.

Snouck said...

Ethnocentrist:
"I think I believe what you imply. Jews have a heavy portion of the blame, yet we Whites do as well."

Snouck:
....Ships passing in the dark....

I am going to refrase the question in starker terms. Let's assume that 95 percent of American Jews are as a Mephistopheles (Morris Dee, Abe Foxman) and the Wasps as Doctor Faust.....

Why is it then that caused the 1960ies generation of Anglos to accept the 1965 Immigration Act opening the USA to mass third world immigration while two generations before the 1920 generations CLOSED the country to preserve the country's ethnic core.

What deal or understanding was offered to the Anglos and why did they accept what their grandfathers ethnocentrically had declined?

That is the question. And the same deal was taken by the core ethnics of the European nations. They took the deal, because they thought it was a sweet deal and they were flower children.

It is a question which answer is IMO essential to someone who calls himself European-ethnocentrist.

Ethnocentrist said...

Snouck,

Are you trying to get me to say that Europeans, going back to ancient Greece with its Hellenisation of the Roman empire in using thought, logic, and individualistic thinking is the cause of our downfall? Also, after the Dark Ages, when the "enlightenment" came, so did our further push towards individualism and the shedding of feudalism and tribalism? If that is it, then of course I agree that Europeans have evolved into people who are individuals first followed by clannish second. Though the clan/tribe mentality still was prevalent up until the middle of the last century. Europe still is tribal, though the tribes have national boundaries in the present day. Americans have succumbed to the ideology of patriotism, which is a form of tribalism that involved European peoples up until the mid 60s. That notion is losing its lustre with more and more non-Europeans in the country.

Now with that said, there are the other components of greed and individual self-interests of WASPs that has allowed the current state to take hold as well. All this does not absolve a hostile ethny in the midst that has been deceptive in many major instances. They have pushed this ideology even before the 1920s when the immigration act was much more rigid. Yet through a slow and steady assault on our thoughts and belief systems they have created followers, if you will. These followers are now major proponents. A significant player in the assault of racial awareness of Whites is Franz Boas, famous anthropologist, who forged data to fit his ideology of race does not exist and we are all the same. This was going on for decades at all the major universities in the US. Eventually those lies were believed and if we are all the same, then why not open immigration to the third world? Not to mention the 1965 Immigration Act was sold as a "minor change" that would not change the face of America in any appreciable way. How wrong that was.

If this is not what you are after, then please explain.

Infidel Mojo said...

Several Points:

Marginalized groups frequently find themselves in the position of either reacting violently or, if cultural norms and ideological archetypes permit, quietly functioning behind the scene, so to speak, focusing on more cerebral methods of establishing power. Why have Jews been so successful? First of all, at the time of the Roman Diaspora, there was a transformation underway within the Jewish community wherein education and philosophy was presented both as a good in and of itself, and as a means for essentially beating Rome at its own game. Clearly, warfare against Rome had failed – only an idiot or a nation bent of self-destruction would continue down that path. The result was that successful Jews found themselves in Roman centers of education and business. This carried over to post-Roman Europe which in turn carried over to the US.

Note that the vast majority of Jews in the US are of European origin, not Middle Eastern. Second, Europe after the fall of Rome established a mix of Christian doctrine and Germanic tribal law that forbade the general population for partaking in certain jobs, such as money lending, astronomy, and non-Christian philosophical endeavor. Being a marginalized people who were deprived of land and basic legal protections, Jews frequently took up those jobs the European nobility and peasantry alike were disallowed. This continued into the 20th century in some areas (Germany, the Ukraine, the Balkans most notably). Those Jews with the ability to flee to the US did so and the skills they brought reflected roughly 2000 years of cultural reaction to repressive social and political climates. Simply put, the European Jews made the best of an adverse situation and the skills acquired carried over when they came to the US. Also note that 1) the 50% figure is actually incorrect (try reading government statistics rather than political diatribe) and 2) the financial giants within the Jewish community are almost exclusively of 19th and 20th century European origin. Regardless, there is no empirical data to state that the majority of Jews, Orthodox and Hassidic populations being the exception, have not assimilated or indeed avoid it. In fact, where they have not been marginalized, assimilation has tended to be the norm. That being said, populations tend to avoid assimilation when they know they will continue to be regarded with hatred, fear, and bigotry. This has proven to be the case regardless of the culture in question since time immemorial.

The second point to mention is the use of the word “tribal”. Like the word “culture”, it is thrown around rather liberally without any definition. What precisely does “tribal” mean here. The word "tribe" was used at an early point in anthropology to denote a relatively well-bounded group with its own language, culture, history, territory etc. As opposed to peasant societies, tribes have little or no regular contact with the larger society. Tribes are self-sufficient in most meanings of the word. Within neo-evolutionist thinking, "tribe" is used to denote groups who do not subsist on hunting and gathering, but most commonly on agriculture and/or intensive animal husbandry. The concept has been the subject of much discussion, and some have argued that it should be deleted from the anthropological vocabulary. A nation/state of subcultural groups within the larger society do not constitute anything remotely "tribal". So what does “tribal” mean here? Nothing – it is a catch phrase seemingly used to bolster a political viewpoint. Unfortunately, without a consistent definition it lacks any credibility.

The third point deal with the work done by Franz Boas and relates specifically to work the US government commissioned at the turn of the 20th century. At that time the government asked Dr. Boas to do physiological measurements on immigrants(craniological measurements most notably) entering the US to determine what role race played in behavior, intelligence, and the probability of success in the new society. He found that race did not impact these issues at all. Nothing in his work was forged. Stating as much is the equivalent to saying that the Earth is only ten thousand years old even though 99.9% of the evidence available suggests otherwise. I would suggest actually reading the original documents (available through nearly any Anthropology department in the world) before commenting on the work. The bulk of his research focused on native populations in the Pacific Northwest, incidentally, not issues of race. That being said, claiming that the work done at the turn of the century (and replicated numerous time since) is fraudulent has no academic or intellectual merit.

Finally, regarding the 1965 Immigration Act, the reason behind the belief that it would not significantly change things in the US was the result of poor statistical projection and the historical realities at the time. Third world populations made up a miniscule portion of the immigrants at that time coming to the US and there was no reason to believe that would change. Projections were based on the available data at the time. The data did not account for changes in population outside the US (aero growth in Europe vs. 40% growth in India, for example). Nor did it take into account the decline of border nation economies (i.e. Mexico) and the impact that such economic decline has on migration patterns. Stupidity on the part of government officials is not sinister, it is simply par for the course.

Infidel Mojo said...

By the way, for further reading on the adaptive practices of marginalized populations living inside a different cultural setting, I would suggest Clifford Geertz's work in Morocco, Marshall Sahlins' work in Hawaii, Cora DuBois's work on the Trobriand Island and amongst Indians in South Africa, Rosalie Wax's work in Japanese-American internment camps, Ian Burkitt's work on social formation, and William Partridge's case study of Basques in the US (part of a larger work on applied anthropology and economic development).

Snouck said...

Infidel Mojo:
The third point deal with the work done by Franz Boas and relates specifically to work the US government commissioned at the turn of the 20th century. At that time the government asked Dr. Boas to do physiological measurements on immigrants(craniological measurements most notably) entering the US to determine what role race played in behavior, intelligence, and the probability of success in the new society. He found that race did not impact these issues at all.

Snouck:
Dinesh da Souza amongst others maintains that Franz Boaz rigged his research. The work of Margareth Mead is another infamous example of rigged research.

Infidel Mojo said...

My view is perhaps skewed as an anthropologist. However, considering that I left academia largely on the grounds that I felt it (the anthropology department in particular) had become a haven for the far Left, I think my bias is in check.

Again, this returns us to the 99.9% rule and Law of Parsimony. When a single author (Dinesh da Souza) or tiny, tiny group of researchers with little formal training in a discipline (anthropology in this case) start making accusations that fly in the face of the overwhelming majority of people with a vested interest in the subject matter, it seems wise to go with the expert opinion rather than the fringe. Could Boas have fabricated data? Sure. Were the pyramids built by aliens? It's possible. Is the Church an Illuminati front? Could be. Did Jesus get married and have a baby? Why not. However, the overwhelming evidencee to all of these (including Boas's work) suggests otherwise.

As for Mead, her work has been called into question in large part because of anthropologists doing later fieldwork in the areas she had worked in, only to discover that her findings were suspect. However, rather than accusing her of fabricating lies, a little investigation reveal she had simply gotten it wrong (little things like teenage girls in Samoa not telling the truth about their sexual behavior -- go figure). That being said, Mead was a show-boat personality with an axe to grind. Boas was primarily interested in training anthropologists and seeing to the founding of depatments. (As a side note, Boas reprimanded Mead on numerous occasions because of what he viewed as her lack of professional integrity and politicizing of science.) Drawing links between the two is like drawing links between Henry VIII and George Orwell on the grounds that they were both English.

Regardless, Boas' work had to do with the concept of race as a biological unit, stresses that phenotypic markers are too broad to have much value (blood type, for example, is a more reliable genetic marker than eye color because variation is so loose at the phenotypic level). The work stressed that culture is the defining characteristic in the debate and that biology was generally of secondary importance.

Perhaps the only saving grace in academia (at least at that time) was the belief that hoonesty was king, particularly with culturally sensitive matters. This wasn't out of intellectual piety, but simple expediency -- if you get caught lying (and there were many, many people trying to refute Boas) you no longer have a job, a department, or any kind of career in your field. So again, Dinesh da Souza may be right. And Dan Brown may be right as well. It is certainly a possibility. It really comes down to faith.

But the debate over the research of a long dead anthropologist is to my mind secondary. The deeeper issue is about assimilation and the ability of groups to become part of the larger society. Jews have been able to integrate. Muslims have not. Will not. And does a culture have a duty to protect itself against assault? My view is that it does. And by any means necessary. Western Civilaiztion needs to take up not the pen, but the sword and do what it does very well: total war. It needs to stop apologizing when it does. And banning the entry of Muslims into the EU and US is the starting point.

Ethnocentrist said...

Snouck,

are you going to give me the answer to the question you posed? I'd like to hear what you have in your mind.


Mojo,

What is a tribe you ask? A tribe is a group that works for the benefit of that group. Jews do so consciously and subconsciously. Jews have remained Jews in every nation they have been in for the last umteen centuries. If that is not an indication of tribalism, what is? You as an anthropologist would know better than I, however you must be aware of all sorts of migrations of people across the globe and what happens to these migrants/discoverers/adventurers. Did not all or nearly all become assimilated in their new environs? Why did that happen while we have Jews remaining intact, or nearly intact? Is it simply religion? I highly doubt it?

I think your assimilation assertion is highly dubious and simply based on a gestalt of the landscape. The US is where Jews have assimilated the most and even still, not tremendously so despite the warnings of Jewish groups. By this I mean intermarrying and shedding Judaism. I think they pose a threat and has been the case in other instances in history, they have played major roles in the course of the US and Europe.

I also think your eagerness to explain away their behaviour, namely they were treated badly, is off the mark as well. I can speak for an ethnic European group that has been treated poorly during their immigration into the US and they did none of the things Jews did in their "fear" to be persecuted. They assimilated, intermarried and contributed.

You worry about Islam, which is appropriate. They are here thanks to Jews, like Boas and groups who rattled the immigration debated for decades in order to make it lenient. Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush, however there is more truth to my words than not.

Ethnocentrist said...

Let me add that without addressing all the issues, simply going to war with Muslims is but a bandaid solution. Wanting to gloss over the nefarious effects of one of the truest tribes will get us to square one in another...what? Century?

As I've said before, Jews can join us. Though they must shed their Judaism, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. With the furor of the recent Israel Lobby paper, it only solidifies in my mind that Jews (organized Jewry) has divided loyalties.

Snouck said...

Infidel Mojo:
The second point to mention is the use of the word “tribal”. Like the word “culture”, it is thrown around rather liberally without any definition. What precisely does “tribal” mean here. The word "tribe" was used at an early point in anthropology to denote a relatively well-bounded group with its own language, culture, history, territory etc. As opposed to peasant societies, tribes have little or no regular contact with the larger society. Tribes are self-sufficient in most meanings of the word. Within neo-evolutionist thinking, "tribe" is used to denote groups who do not subsist on hunting and gathering, but most commonly on agriculture and/or intensive animal husbandry.

Snouck:
I would like to propose as a definition of "Tribe": a group that defines itself according to a kinship or blood ties definition.

Tribes do not have to be primitive. In most parts of the world outside the West people define themselves according to blood or kinship ties.

Ethnocentrist. You will receive an answer. My humble apologies for the delay.

Pim's Ghost said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pim's Ghost said...

This has been an interesting read, to be sure! I always enjoy Mojo's commentary on these matters. But I fear that he knows a bit more about Boas than his commentary has thus led you to believe. He is an Anthropologist, and I'm just waiting to see more of what you all have to say on this subject.

Infidel Mojo said...

A perfectly acceptable definition of "Tribe", though to be fair that definition could be applied to any extended family network. But when I consider the fact that the discipline of cultural anthropology can't come to agreement for the definition of "culture" (the very thing it studies), I think the definition is perfectly fine.

Regarding Jewish assimilation, my comments were directed specifically toward Jews in the US, not Europe. However, history should be a marker in the process of assimilation, or lack thereof, in the European context. Anti-Semitism has been the norm since the Jews set foot on European soil. Furthermore, the Jews are little different than Catholics, at least until Vatican II. They are little different than Basques. They are little different from of any number of populations who find themselves in the minority (and let’s not forget that Jews were actively excluded from things like intermarriage even as they excluded non-Jews from entering the fold).

Regarding my eagerness to explain away their behavior, I am hardly an apologist. My point is simply this; going back to the work of Raymond Firth, Rosalie Wax, Felix Moos, and James Marcus, populations under maintained stress find ways of reacting – the reaction undergone by Jews is not normative, but one of a number of trajectories that shaped by variation on a continuum of cultural similarities (common religious origins, linguistic parallels, folkways, food, concepts of meta-belief, etc.). Any one of us can speak for an ethnic European group that has been treated poorly during their immigration into the US. My German grandfather suffered during the lead up to the first world war, however, he was part of an establish German community in a fairly rural area. Most Jews (not being able to engage in things like farming for 1000 years) have tended to congregate in urban centers, making them easier targets. Rounding up Jews for the ovens was a task made immeasurably simpler because they were living in Ghettos, both enforced through legal means as in Poland, or through social segregation as in France. My German grandfather also had cultrually and religiously shared experiences (at the meta and material levels) with his Swedish, Gaelic, and Anglo-Saxon neighbors. Jews are utter aliens to the European landscape. By this same token, native populations in Europe and America (from the Lappps to the Apache) have suffered the same basic fate of the Jews. However, these people provided little economic value to the larger populations and were either eliminated or allowed to drift into obscurity on land no one wanted. Jews, while remaining to focal point of violence and repression, served a purpose.

But again, the point is not to suggest that Jews have not made mistakes. Nor is it to suggest that they have largely failed to assimilate in Europe. It is meant to explain, in part, some of the reason behind the process. And to be fair, Europeans (and their offspring in the the Americas, both North and South) have a consistent pattern of killing off or repressing anyone they see as a threat. And to be fair, this isn't confined to Indo-Aryan populations, but most cultrues throughout history, from China to the Inca. And indeed, one would be inclined to think that the Basques and Finns, both in Europe long before Indo-Europeans, harbor similar opinions about those European invaders who were so unwilling to assimilate.

Again, returning to Boas, I would suggest reading the work and the context thereof. Nowhere does it address policy in the sense of making recommendations. What it does is address the questions posed by government officials using both quantitative and qualitative data. The original research comprised several thousand pages of documentation. The simple fact is that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about genetic variation, evolutionary biology, and the processes of human migration should be able to come to terms with the points he addressed. Central to that theme is that “race” is largely cultural and using phenotypic determinism as a measuring stick for who does and does not get to enter a country is fallacious, without scientific merit, and based on folk-understandings of science. If, on the other hand, we accept cultural norms as a means of determination (which is, in fact, what Boas was suggesting, then the results are more reliable, if perhaps less quantifiable. Keep in mind that Nietchze had his works barrowed from repeatedly to bolster the positions of the Nazis, though Nietchze would have found the Nazis contemptible and laughable. Applying political agendas to portions of someone else’s work is an easy task, particularly when only portions of it are being used. No doubt there immigrant rights people who have done just that. Unfortunately, such behavior is not a reflection of the science from which it borrows.

That being said, rejecting an argument because it doesn't fit a political trajectory doesn't make the argument any less real. Are Muslims a threat? Yes, by my reckoning. Are Jews? No, by my reckoning. Ultimately, this comes down to either belief (as in "faith") or inductive argumentation derived from social theory, a reasonable understanding of history, and good ethnomethodology.

Ethnocentrist said...

Mojo,

Thank you for the follow up comment. It clarified several points. Hopefully we are not speaking past each other here.

Regarding Jews: I can agree with your comment and how things came about to where we are now. Of course they have suffered in the past at our (collective) hands. We have as well at the hands of others. Now, I believe you are saying that it is what it is and there are bigger fish to fry, correct? Or most aptly, they are not a big problem and are more helpful than harmful?

Regarding Boas: Can you link a source where I may go through his work, if at all possible? I would be interested to see it first hand. Not that I do not believe you, as I'm sure you are correct regarding his work and the premise it was initiated. More for my interest.

Now this leaves us still somewhat apart on thinking. My feeling is your views on the benignity of Jewish influence both past and present definitely have validity. You bring on a strong case for it and judging by what you write, is probably more correct than not. Here is where I have an issue. It is analogous to the OJ Simpson double murder trial. We have evidence that Jews have done some not so upstanding things along the way. We have evidence that certain schools of thought have been under the influence of Jews, from Europe with or without an political axe to grind. We can explain away one thing after another, as was the case in the OJ trial, and when looked at the micro, individual level, it makes perfect sense. The issue with me is when we look at ALL the evidence collectively, as the jury should have done in OJ, then one has a harder time making the case of benignity. Too many coincidences for my taste. Now I could be wrong and/or misguided and am willing to be proven wrong. However I do not think I am. What are your thoughts regarding this?

Thanks.

Infidel Mojo said...

Indeed there are bigger fish to fry, so to speak. And clearly, contrary to the positions put forward by Derrida, Foucault, and other deconstructionist, postmodernist, and post-enlightenment social theorists, I believe a population (be it a nation, a state, or a tribe) has the right and duty to defend itself. Therein lies the distinction between cultural relativism (the ability to understand) and ethical relativism (the ability or attempt to excuse, self-delude, and dismiss). As to whether the Jewish population in Europe is helpful or harmful, I cannot say.

I would say this, however; there are fewer than 2 million Jews in Europe, half of whom reside in three countries (600,000 in France, 267,000 in the UK, 100,000 in Germany). The Netherlands has a total population of 16, 407, 491 people. Of those, 32, 814 are Jews. In polling from 2004, 80% of Jews in Europe self-identify first with being citizens of their specific state, placing their Jewish identity second or third (more self-identify as being “European” second and being Jewish third). The birthrate for Jews is on par with the rest of Europe, or below basic replacement levels. In other words,

Conversely, there are 20 million Muslims, for whom the birthrate is triple that of the native populations. Only 20% of Muslims in Europe self-identify with the nationality of the country or the EU – they are Muslims first and foremost. This is a stark contrast to the self-perception of most European Jews.

To my mind the question is not about Jews but about Europeans. Europe still embraces entitlements, vast social welfare networks, and a thirty hour work week. Unemployment is typically over 10%. By and large, this is not the norm for the Jewish population with Europe. Perhaps there is a hidden Jewish conspiracy to create disproportionate wealth and influence amongst their own kind, but the far simpler (again, returning to the Law of Parsimony) explanation would be that they are simply working harder. I could be substantially off the mark, not being a scholar of European socio-economics. But I would be disinclined to spend my time examining the motives of the Jews when there is a clear threat posed by Muslims, when the population of Europe is generally unwilling to take a stand against this invading force, and when the economic standards are in decline due to an anemic birth rate and inflated entitlement system.

Regardless, the jury as you say, could make similar arguments for the English, the French, the Germans – a history of invasions, economic stewardship, political maneuvering, expressions of racial and cultural superiority, exclusion, etc. However, whereas Napoleon could invade his neighbors, the Jews could not. Whereas Hitler could ravage and subjugate an entire continent, the Jews cannot. But with 20 million people, a growing birthrate, and faced with a population slowly but surely resigning itself to Dhimmi status, the Muslims in Europe can. As such, attacking the Jews in Europe is rather like scratching at freckle even as large wounds are causing you to bleed to death.

Regarding the work of Boas, it is decidedly problematic to find (much like William Labov’s recent work on North American language variation – $650 for a copy of the book), because it is exceedingly dull, academic, and out of date. However, the Harvard library system, University of Kansas, and American Anthropological Association all have the material (probably not an electronic version). There may also be copies at the University of Amsterdam or through the Royal Anthropological Institute in the UK. These links also might be helpful (though the last three are synopses of the work and probably familiar to you.

http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/
http://www.aaanet.org/aa/
http://www.southwestern.edu/~greenmue/boas.htm
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/23/14636
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5069/

The crucial point in looking at Boas’ work is, to my mind, to look at it from an evolutionary and biological perspective. I equate it to the work of Noam Chomsky – the linguistic and syntactic research is without flaw, though his political writings are remarkably suspect. The same can be applied perhaps to Boas’ work – the biology is brilliant, but the political underpinnings may be suspect, depending on your perspective. But again, this is exceedingly dull work and may require a visit to a university (or having them ship something – I don’t know that his work ever found much interest outside the US).

Ethnocentrist said...

Thanks Mojo. I appreciate the follow up. I certainly agree that the bigger fish are the Muslims in Europe and the Mexicans in the US. Though as I said previously, when all is said and done and assuming we come out the other side relatively unchanged from where we are now, all issues need to be looked at with brutal honesty. Otherwise all this will be for naught.