WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Jewish groups are slamming Arizona’s stringent new immigration-enforcement law, but hope outrage over the measure will reignite efforts to push comprehensive immigration reform on a national level. [...]Of course these same groups completely support Israel being the Jewish State, with a right of immigration and citizenship for any Jew who wants it. Yet they have no compunction in denying the right of Americans to define the immigration laws of their own country. If they do so, they're little better than Nazis, is what they seem to be saying.
The new law has been criticized by an array of Jewish groups, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center, National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a public policy umbrella group comprised of the synagogue movements, several national groups and scores of local Jewish communities across North America.
If they wanted to alienate the majority of the American people, they could hardly have done better. The majority supports the new law and sees nothing wrong with it.
Groups like these are engaging in hysterics and bad faith when they liken enforcement of already existing laws to a police state, or when they say that because the U.S. has had immigrants before, it can never refuse any others, legal or not. One would think that they themselves know this, hence the conclusion one comes to is that they have contempt for the white, non-Jewish majority and wish to see it become a minority. If so, their tactics are working.
It's been often said that American Jews don't truly understand their own self-interest, in that America has been the best thing that ever happened to them, and mass immigration can do nothing but hurt them. Conservatives often say the same about blacks and affirmative action. Yet, blacks in general are all for AA, and one would think that they know their own interests better than whites. So with American Jewish groups: when they speak in such a unified voice, one must conclude that they know what they're doing, and correctly see the demotion of whites to a minority as in their best interests.
In fairness, it must be pointed out that a number of religious leaders, for instance among Catholics, have criticized the new law, such as the Archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahony. (Though "criticized" seems a mild term for comparing the law to Communism and Nazism.) The difference is that on any other topic, the opinions of people like Mahony are dismissed as irrelevant, while American Jewish groups have considerable clout, and the media takes their pronouncements seriously.
"in that America has been the best thing that ever happened to them"
ReplyDeleteThis isn't stressed enough.
Are there any Jewish groups that support it? A google search for 'jews support arizona immigration law' turns up nothing.
ReplyDeleteFWIW I'm jewish and I support the new law. I also can't stand the thought of America losing its white majority. In fact I agree with you guys on most things. There are many others like me. The "leaders" of our "representative groups" don't speak for a lot of jews. They're just playing nice because they don't want to seem discriminatory. We aren't monolith in our opinions.
ReplyDeleteI'm suprised you overlook the obvious fact that most Jews probably view themselves as a minority who has been persecuted in the past and are thus sympathetic to minority causes such as gay rights etc.
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't give into the anti-semitism conspiracy thories that are so prevalent on the ultra right.
How have I "overlooked" that? That they have been persecuted undoubtedly explains their opposition, but OTOH they haven't been persecuted in America. To the contrary, as I wrote, America has been the best thing for them.
ReplyDeleteThis is not an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. Everything I cited is a matter of public record. Your saying that it might be one is the usual response to anyone who criticizes Israel or American Jews.
Anonymous: Nothing about what you've said about jews being a persecuted minority rules out the fact that they are fearful/disdainful of the white majority and are seeking to undermine it. If anything, your assertion offers a good reason for their anti-white behaviour.
ReplyDeleteADSF and Mangan: Jews have been discriminated in the US check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States
ReplyDeleteThe only thing unique to American jews is secularism and intelligence. They vote about 78% for Democrats, guess what other demographic votes 78% for Democrats? Athiests. American Jews also don't have a very strong association with Israel like you seem to think, only the neoconservatives do.
When you come from a group that has a bad history of being persecuted by the majority group, it's hard to come out publicly against another minority group.
ReplyDeleteThis is why many vocal jewish groups are reluctant to do so; because they know what it's like to be on the receiving end.
That being said, there are many, many jews who are against the "de-Europeanizing" of the West. I am one of them. I am appalled at the demographic trends in Europe and North America. I commiserate regularly with other jews who feel the exact same way. The jews I know have no ill-will to white society whatsoever.
Like you guys, our opinion is not mainstream and less "out-there". Coming out publicly against the demographic decline of the West is not exactly practical for us either because it could cost us our careers and friendships because we would be branded as hateful racists.
I have to emphasize that phrases like "the jews inherently want to undermine white society" is too much of a generalization. We don't all think the same- it's just that the PC/lefties of our group are more vocal and out there like PC/lefties in general.
Mangan, these American Jewish groups are yours, not ours. The people whose views they represent are children of intermarried people who themselves intermarry and whose kids intermarry a.k.a. goyim.
ReplyDeleteWealthy and self important goyim who like to relax in the imagination that they have anything to do with their 2 nominally Jewish great grandparents who themselves did everything they could to "melt" into America's mosaic but goyim nonetheless.
And not even that many goyim. These organizations are self-important self-aggrandizing fronts for a few rich people. Nobody else.
In fact, looking at the writhing masses of mischling "Jews" in America one STILL finds (you must have seen the polls, no?) that the vast majority of them oppose illegal immigration. Do they oppose it a few percent less than do nominal Protestants? Sure. But literally just a few percent.
In any case, these people are not the Jews of either history or destiny. They're individuals with the remnants of brainy Jewish DNA that moved them into the well-to-do elite and so they ACT like the elites do - everywhere and always - by dividing and conquering the masses against themselves and by defining the moral conversation for them.
If you want to know the opinions of people who had four grandparents who called themselves Jews and who will have grandchildren who can read Hebrew too then speak to people who attend synagogue at least once a week and who can speak a coherent sentence in either Hebrew or Yiddish.
Foxman and friends are tiny men behind the curtain who amplify their voices and claim to speak in the name of people who have never heard either of them or of their organization (if this sounds exaggerated go to Williamsburg, NY and ask people). These are elites acting like elites and wearing the mantle of Jewish Victimhood because of the ex cathedra status it gives them.
And again, they're not my people, they're yours. The few of them who don't yet hang ornaments in late December have children who CERTAINLY will.
Sadly in America being able to claim fellowship in some traditionally victimized group is rewarded. Minority genes are dominant. Just ask the million or so terrifically pale 'black' people. The selfsame people whose grandfather joined the Elks and married a Christian Idahoan lady have since rediscovered their Jewish "roots". This is a scam and a sham. Unlike Blacks, Jews do not have community organizers speaking for them. Elite people who can track down a Jewish ancestor and then use that to keep a cheaper nanny in the country will do so. But they speak for no one but themselves and wouldn't be able to converse AT ALL (or at least on any Jewish subject) with the American Jews whose children know how to put on Tfillin.
On the one hand, Jewish liberalism is not much different than what you'd find among garden variety SWPLs, Ivy League students, etc. Just look at the recent crucifixion of that Harvard 3L.
ReplyDeleteOn the other, Jews are very much afraid of white gentiles, specifically those of archetypal Middle America. They'll rarely say it outright, and only imply it among fellow Jews. They're not really sure what to expect, but they are sure that more nonwhites is a hedge against future antisemitism. "First they came for the Mexicans..." type of mentality.
The operative emotions are disgust and righteousness among the yuppies, and fear among the Jews.
Just my opinion but it seems to me that the Jews in the US suffer from sectionalism more so than us white/euro/christians. The Jews in flyover country still have most of their organizational roots set in eliteville New York and these organizations echo the liberal/progressive values that the rural Jews in the boonies don't share. Most Jews around here seem to favor the values of the other locals.
ReplyDeleteKinda like old time Democrat families from podunk town saying WTF we don't support that.
As for these Jewish organizations just like White American elites they are all for open borders and other multicultural stuff since they are not the ones paying the price for it.
To provide an example, these Jewish groups get funding, prestige, etc and ADVOCATE ON BEHLAF OF the "kabbalah bracelet" wearing Madonnah and the Bris-for-the-black-baby Sandra Bullock. That's their membership. Oh and probably the "Israelis are today's Nazis" Roseanne too.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of which, you paleo-right bloggers and commenters never cease pointing out the reputed hypocrisy between supporting Israel and opposing America. Fair enough then. Try an honest experiment. Gain the confidence (in person of course otherwise obviously they'll be afraid of being Watsoned and will spout the elites's lines) of American Jews who strongly care about or advocate for Israel (by which I mean for the Likud or rightward obviously) and see what opinions they also happen to harbor about unfettered immigration, affirmative action, public prestige moving from Physicists to Female Poets of Color, etc.
I promise you any such experiment will show a LARGE correlation between supporting Israel and supporting America. The "Jews" (who again have children with fewer Jewish grandparents than non-Jewish) who want to uproot America are no friends to Israel either. Pretty much the most pro-Israel you'll find among them are Trojan Horses who "support Israel" by supporting B'tzelem, Shalom Achshav and Abbas.
Frankly, it surprises me that for all the semitic-mania on the paleo-right, most bloggers appeared not to have figured this out yet despite how plainly it stares us all in the face on a daily basis.
I don't think anyone says (well, most people don't say this) that Jews are monolithically globalist leftists, just that practically all of the Jewish elite and institutions are. Obviously 78% of Jews voting Democrat means that 22% of Jews aren't voting Democrat.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while you do hear these kinds of things on right wing websites sometimes, I don't think Mangan is implying that Jews are necessarily part of the open borders camp, but that in the US they are contingently so. It isn't a law of nature or anything like that.
My Dad is Jewish and I am for American national identity and building a fence. I don't have a group, though.
ReplyDeleteMangan, these American Jewish groups are yours, not ours. The people whose views they represent are children of intermarried people who themselves intermarry and whose kids intermarry a.k.a. goyim.
ReplyDeleteThat and the rest of your comments sound either like special pleading or you're making it up as you go along. Did you just read most of the Jewish community out of Judaism? I'm sure they'll be happy to hear that mnuez doesn't approve.
In any case, the fact that, whoever they are, they identify as Jews and show solidarity and support these organizations negates your point. (And I emphasize that I discussed groups in my post, not Jews as a whole.) It makes no difference whether those who support the ADL, for example, aren't "real" Jews by your criteria.
Sure, plenty of SWPL types also have attitudes like these, but the Jewish groups I mentioned are very influential, plus they claim to speak in the name of American Jews.
When you come from a group that has a bad history of being persecuted by the majority group, it's hard to come out publicly against another minority group.
ReplyDeleteUnless they're the Palestinians of course.
Do Jews support the persecuted white minority in South Africa?
Who? Whom? Understand that and you understand most politics. Only the naive think there's something called principles which people stick to.
The hysteria of Jewish organizations doesn't surprise me. It was entirely predictable. I really have nothing to add.
ReplyDeleteI do want to say that I appreciate all of you Jews who oppose illegal immigration and the balkanization of the United States. We need more like you, especially in high places. Thanks.
I’ve known many Jews and I never met one who was “afraid” of white gentiles. I’d say disdainful, hateful, envious etc. is a much more accurate description of the attitude of most Jews vis a vis white gentiles.
ReplyDeleteIn 2006 88% of Jews voted for Democrats. That is about as close to unanimous as you can get.
BTW, the most moderate and conservative Jews I know are those that “leave Judaism” by marrying gentiles or are the off spring of mixed marriages. So Munuez is EXACTLY wrong, as usual.
I have to emphasize that phrases like "the jews inherently want to undermine white society" is too much of a generalization.
ReplyDeleteWhat we're talking about here is the "organized Jewish community", and on issues like immigration, gun control, Israel, abortion, and the separation of church and state, it is a monolith.
The difference is that on any other topic, the opinions of people like Mahony are dismissed as irrelevant, while American Jewish groups have considerable clout, and the media takes their pronouncements seriously.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholics are at least intellectually consistent though. Wrong, IMO, but consistent. They're not exempting any place from the ideas they espouse here in America. I'd respect Jews a lot more if their position on immigration was not so cynical and nakedly self-serving but reflected honest idealism.
When you come from a group that has a bad history of being persecuted by the majority group, it's hard to come out publicly against another minority group.
ReplyDeleteUnless the minority group is a minority group in Israel, in which case Jews display none of the excruciating sensitivity towards minorities which they do towards minorities in the West.
Israels stance on immigration makes Arizona seem like an open borders paradise. When the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society calls for a boycott of Israel until it changes its immigration laws, I'll take them seriously.
"At 4/30/2010 08:37:00 AM, Richard said...
ReplyDeleteFWIW I'm jewish and I support the new law. I also can't stand the thought of America losing its white majority. In fact I agree with you guys on most things. There are many others like me. The "leaders" of our "representative groups" don't speak for a lot of jews. They're just playing nice because they don't want to seem discriminatory. We aren't monolith in our opinions."
Good point. Left wingers seem to find a way to take over the leadership of just about any kind of "representative group" by inflitration, triangulation, intrigue or whatever and end up dominating that national leadership of the NEA, ABA, AMA, unions of every stripe, and collectivized professional and scientific groups all over this country from realators, financiers to tradesmen. Its amazing.
Jews are very much afraid of white gentiles, specifically those of archetypal Middle America.
ReplyDeleteMiddle America was instrumental in defeating the Third Reich. So much for gratitude.
It's worth mentioning that when prominent groups make public statements, often what is said has much more to do with strategy rather than the true beliefs of said organization.
ReplyDeletePublic organizations ward off lots of inconveniences/expenses/lawsuits/public support/you-name-it by simply toeing the PC line and make some statement that is not controversial.
We all know that groups who say non-controversial things GET LEFT ALONE and not hassled. We don't exactly live in an era where our views can be uttered publicly without subsequent annoying consequences.
I have no doubt that some of these groups oppose the ban. I emphatically disagree with their opposition and think it's hugely misguided. However I wouldn't be surprised if some of these groups secretly support the the new law and just don't want the hassle of controversy right now.
The difference is that on any other topic, the opinions of people like Mahony are dismissed as irrelevant, while American Jewish groups have considerable clout, and the media takes their pronouncements seriously.
ReplyDeleteThe real difference:
It's been often said that American Jews don't truly understand their own self-interest, in that America has been the best thing that ever happened to them, and mass immigration can do nothing but hurt them. Conservatives often say the same about blacks and affirmative action. Yet, blacks in general are all for AA, and one would think that they know their own interests better than whites.
Non-gentiles pursue their own ethnic interests. Whites do not.
FWIW I'm jewish and I support the new law. I also can't stand the thought of America losing its white majority. In fact I agree with you guys on most things.
Great, thanks.
There are many others like me. The "leaders" of our "representative groups" don't speak for a lot of jews.
Nonsense. Non-gentiles are probably at the top of the list of groups of people who manage quite well at speaking for themselves. You're the one misrepresenting most non-gentiles.
I wonder how we're supposed to suss out the difference between when organized non-gentilery is speaking for non-gentiles, and when they're not. I mean, other than the word of a single amateur non-gentile PR guy like yourself.
They're just playing nice because they don't want to seem discriminatory. We aren't monolith in our opinions.
They're not playing nice. They're doing everything they can to screw us out of our own country, while avidly supporting their own ethno-state across the sea, which is doing (to the nth degree) precisely what they're opposing over here.
I'm suprised you overlook the obvious fact that most Jews probably view themselves as a minority who has been persecuted in the past and are thus sympathetic to minority causes such as gay rights etc.
Maybe because the fact is so manifestly hypocritical and disingenuous? The criterion you proffer of course means nothing when it comes to their ethno-state.
ADSF and Mangan: Jews have been discriminated in the US check out
The persecution non-gentiles have generated against the founding stock of this country dwarfs the persecution non-gentiles have experienced here.
When you come from a group that has a bad history of being persecuted by the majority group, it's hard to come out publicly against another minority group.
Oh I dunno, non-gentiles are having a pretty good go at the Palestinians.
I have to emphasize that phrases like "the jews inherently want to undermine white society" is too much of a generalization. We don't all think the same- it's just that the PC/lefties of our group are more vocal and out there like PC/lefties in general.
Let's quantify "more vocal" here, say, with an analogy: one side has laryngitis, and the other side has a bullhorn.
MNuez, you use the Obama gambit (yak and yak and yak until no one even knows what you're saying any more) too often, to the point that I often just skip your posts.
As for these Jewish organizations just like White American elites they are all for open borders and other multicultural stuff since they are not the ones paying the price for it.
The difference being, non-gentiles gave up all but the elite part of their population long ago; they don't have a non-elite tied to their ethnic interests the way whites do.
My Dad is Jewish and I am for American national identity and building a fence. I don't have a group, though.
Exactly. You guys are such a tiny group that you can't move existing organizations an inch, or gin up your own. I'm not trying to crap on you guys, just pointing out that you're a tiny minority.
Some of you guys might want to come to terms with the fact that the vast bulk of the "PC persecution" and the like you suggest non-gentiles are trying to avoid comes from non-gentiles in the first place. You can't pass the buck when you're at the top. It's fine for you to claim dissent as an individual, but you can't absolve non-gentiles as a group in this manner, not in the eyes of any clear-thinking knowledgeable white man.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the other giant, gaping, Mack-truck-sized hole in the argument that non-gentilery opposes the Arizona law only to avoid persecution by the media and the PC police is that they didn't just keep their heads down, they came out fully against it. If they simply wanted to avoid the persecution, they could've kept mum.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any real Jewish groups who support the law. However, if three people is enough for a group, I can make up a whole new group.
ReplyDeleteIt's called Mercer, Kelsey and Schlussel.
Please give them a read - they are worth it.
(I'm not going to try to wax poetic about how courageous these folks are, but they are going against the opinions of a lot of at least the most high-profile Jews.)
And finally, let me direct you to the coolest logo in the biz (muzzle-loader and Calico 9mm carbine): JPFO. (Yes, that argue is relevant too, but it doesn't actually prove the gun-toting wing of Judaism supports on immigration, it just implies it.)
The target is leftism. Leftists are the enemy.
(I promise I'm really not trying to sound like a broken record.)
ReplyDeleteDiana West weighs in.
Exactly. You guys are such a tiny group that you can't move existing organizations an inch, or gin up your own.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say a group including Mercer, West, Kelsey, and Schlussel would make a splash. I don't think they should try to move the existing groups of the nauseating-leftist variety. Nor do I think they should form a membership-organization and keep out gentiles, or anything like that. I just think they should create a little forum and discuss immigration reduction vs. PC issues, without spending too many column issues on the fact that they're Jewish.
Just my two bits.
"I have to emphasize that phrases like "the jews inherently want to undermine white society" is too much of a generalization. We don't all think the same- it's just that the PC/lefties of our group are more vocal and out there like PC/lefties in general."
ReplyDeleteI think it's wrong to say that Jews as Jews "inherently" (ie. that it is in the Jewish nature to) undermine white society. This I believe qualifies as anti-Semitism. However, it is a plain fact that Jews, as a public, organized political force in America--which is what matters in these discussions, not the silent contrarians who exercise no political power--are, along with many other segments of the political class, seeking to undermine traditional, white America.
Given how Jew-friendly America has been in her history, that organized American Jewry would join in this effort to extinguish traditional, white America is well nigh unforgivable.
I’ve known many Jews and I never met one who was “afraid” of white gentiles....
ReplyDeleteThis "fear" is something you don't necessarily sense in your Jewish classmate or colleague, but it's a theme of several books I can think of.
For instance, In "Jews and American Politics" by Stephen D. Isaacs (Doubleday 1974),
the author talks about how "fear" drives affluent Jews to vote for
Democrats despite the fact that the Democratic Party's policies are designed to redistribute wealth from wealthy groups like the Jews to poorer groups. On page 148, he refers to a study performed by a Jewish researcher that concludes that US Jews are less trusting than white
gentile Americans -- to an astonishing degree:
Just how distrustful Jews are has been calculated in a survey
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for Dr. Melvin Kohn of the National Institute of Mental Health. In this survey, Jews almost leaped off the chart in terms of their intrinsic distrust of others. That survey, reported by the center's Andrew Greeley in his book That
Most Distrustful Nation, attempted to assess various white ethnic
groups' comparable levels of distrust. The scale went from Plus 4 -- most trusting -- to Minus 4 -- least trusting:
GROUP ORDER AND SCORE
+2.506 Irish Catholic
+1.583 Scandinavian Protestant
+1.481 Slavic Catholic
+0.767 German Protestant
+0.757 German Catholic
+0.502 Italian Catholic
+0.242 White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant
-3.106 Jewish
These figures might also suggest that the disparity in general outlook between Jews and non-Jews carries over into political behavior, since voting statistics of Jews compared with non-Jews show the same variant. It has been proven, too, that as other members of society advance up the educational, economic, and professional ladders, their votes become ncreasingly 'conservative,' for preserving the status quo. But as Jews move up the same ladders - and they have hurried up them faster than other groups - [p. 149] their votes become increasingly progressive, more amenable to change.
* * *
The upper class Jews are progressives because they reject what they see as a narrow, parochial route to survival -- the one chosen by the more ethnic, more sequestered Jews.... But this 'liberal' stance does not mean the upper class 'elite' is any less defensive, any less
protective of Jewish interests than the pious Hasidim with their side curls who want government aid -- their Jewish day schools. Their version of defense only sounds more polite than that of the Hasidim. That is why the pattern of Jews' voting in presidential elections is so consistently 'liberal.' It is in fact not so much liberal as it is anti what they fear, as is clear from the record of Jewish voting for the last half century....
Similarly citing fear as a motivating factor, Charles Silberman ["A Certain People: American Jews and Their Lives" (1985), pp. 347-48] discusses the attraction of Jews to
ReplyDeletethe Democratic Party...with its traditional hospitality to non-WASP ethnic groups.... A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with Mondale's economic policies voted for him nonetheless. 'I watched the conventions on television', he explained, 'and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.' The same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him. 'I'd rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican convention' a well-known author told me.
Thus, Silberman [p. 350] explains,
American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse 'gay rights' and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called 'social' issues.
David Kelsey replied to my comment on his blog.
ReplyDeleteHe points out that Stephen Steinlight is another Jewish writer who supports reductive immigration reform, and Steinlight's article (q.v.) points to an article showing that, like the rank-and-file of all religions, Jews oppose mass immigration and support better enforcement (though by fairly small margins on some of the questions).
Diana West wrote,
ReplyDeleteI don't think they should try to move the existing groups of the nauseating-leftist variety.
Obviously not the far-Left. Not HIAS and JCUA. But shouldn't we focus on trying to move the less radical ones towards a neutral position, which would be helpful? Why should we let HIAS and JCUA continue to set Jewish communal and organizational policy on immigration? We do have the Zogby poll in our favor on our side.
"Svigor said...
ReplyDeleteMNuez, you use the Obama gambit (yak and yak and yak until no one even knows what you're saying any more) too often, to the point that I often just skip your posts."
A concise summation of what mnuez usually has to say, and how he says it.
"Anonymous said...
"Jews are very much afraid of white gentiles, specifically those of archetypal Middle America."
Middle America was instrumental in defeating the Third Reich. So much for gratitude."
I often wonder if many jews have ever stopped to consider that there were almost certainly more anti-semites who fought and died to defeat the nazis than there were jews who did so.
Naw, I'm not Diana West, I'm just some guy. :)
ReplyDelete(I have huge respect for her, though, and I never quit pitching The Death of the Grownup to anyone who thinks pop culture is harmless fun.)
The thing is, I know little about the less radical groups. If you feel like they can be influenced, by all means give it a shot, and I'll make a toast.
Anyway, I've got my fingers crossed. I'll be perfectly honest as to why: because a lot of secular-left gentiles look to Jews for ethical leadership. Can I prove that? Heck no! But I hope the good folks at Mangan's will tolerate me and my unfalsifiable hunches.
The (utterly unspoken) sense that Jews are smart and the (oft-spoken) sense that Jews have a special grievance combine to give Jews an ineffable sense of moral import among the urbane & amorphous set. Combine this with the enormous charisma of John Stewart and various Hollywood types.
As a good rightist I should be saying "to Hell with the secular left" but immigration is way too urgent for that.
Perhaps their machinations will get whites to vote in their interests.
ReplyDeleteAs Dennis has pointed out before, there is often a difference between the opinions held by most jewish americans, and by the jewish elite, or segments thereof. On the Iraq war for example - most jews were against it.
ReplyDeleteOn immigration however, I perceive less distance between average jewish voters and the elite. Ellis Island, and all that, we are told. Still, there are plenty of third and fourth generation polish, austrian, czech, and irish americans, whose ancestors also emigrated here about the same time, and yet they are far more likely to not support illegal immigration, or even the legal kind. Something more is at work here.
And while elite jewish opinion need not reflect the everyman, what about jewish politicians? At the federal level at least, they tend to be enthusiastic supporters of immigration (is there even one jewish congressman who is against it?). And jewish politicians don't get elected to office without considerable support from jews, both as voters (in some districts) and - more importantly - as campaign contributors. The views of minority politicians are probably a better indicator of the opinions of the minorities they represent than the views of private organizations.
Then again, to say that these groups don't represent the opinions of a lot of jews, would be rather like saying that the NAACP does not represent the opinions of a lot of blacks. However, as far as I can tell, it does.
"Are there any Jewish groups that support it? A google search for 'jews support arizona immigration law' turns up nothing."
ReplyDeleteMickey Kaus supports the Arizona immigration law, as does David Frum, to mention two prominent Jewish pundits. Kaus is also running for Barbara Boxer's Senate seat, challenging her on immigration among other issues.
Why not make it mandatory for every person in American to carry a personal ID card at all times? And if they fail to produce such a card when stopped by the police this could result in them being detained and questioned.
ReplyDeleteProblem solved, no ethnic groups would be able to accuse the state of racism, unfair treatment or racial profiling as this new law would include every single person in America, white and black.
Now wouldn’t that be a brilliant idea?
Up until today, I'd had no idea that groups such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs were really cover groups for quasi-goyim with miniscule (and self-loathing) traces of Jewish ancestry and identity seeking to insinuate themseleves into the corridors of gentile power and priviledge.
ReplyDeleteMy God, but they're clever (!!), these mongrelized mischlings, even with their "remnants of brainy Jewish DNA" fading to near-obscurity amidst a sea of gentile genetic mediocrity.
It's arguments like this that the term "twisted logic" was coined to define.
These "conservative" jews all have four jewish grandparents.
ReplyDeleteDennis, I challenge you to show me a quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jew's only" immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteIf you can do that, I will concede that you have sustained your charge of hypocricy against HIAS.
Sabril, even if I concede that HIAS presents a very mild challenge to Israel on exclusively Jewish immigration, it doesn't mean anything, because not only does Israel mostly ignore what HIAS says, but even American Jewry mostly ignores what HIAS says when it comes to Israel. HIAS is only the point org for setting Jewish communal policy on immigration in the U.S. So HIAS may push a little bit, but it doesn't matter. The Jewish orgs know very well to tune out HIAS when it comes to Israel's policy on immigration, and HIAS knows not to become to insistent.
ReplyDeleteI'm suprised you overlook the obvious fact that most Jews probably view themselves as a minority who has been persecuted in the past and are thus sympathetic to minority causes such as gay rights etc.
ReplyDeleteSo what you are saying is that Jews will continue to undermine white gentiles until they are no longer the majority population? Thank you for letting me know that Kevin MacDonald was absolutely right about the Jews.
sabril said...
ReplyDeleteDennis, I challenge you to show me a quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jew's only" immigration policy.
If you can do that, I will concede that you have sustained your charge of hypocricy against HIAS.
Has HIAS ever come out and condemned Israel's "Jews Only" immigration policy?
Your faux outrage is so obvious.
In the latest HIAS Annual Report
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hias.org/uploaded/file/passages_spring10.pdf
they discuss some of their recent achievements, such as "Between July and October 2009, HIAS brought 57 Jewish refugees to the U.S. from Yemen, where they were in increasing danger due to the inability of the government to protect its Jewish minority." Why the U.S.? Isn't Israel the natural place for these people? Is Israel all full up?
HIAS also boasts about a Sudanese refugee who made it to Israel and whom HIAS helped resettle in America. Why are they doing this?
HIAS and the other groups cite the Bible when complaining about Arizona's new law:
“You shall have one law for the stranger and the citizens alike” (Leviticus 24:22)
The obvious problem here is that it is not the groups' law that is in effect, but American law, and it is not the groups' place to use the resources of others, namely the American nation, to fulfill their alleged religious commandments. That they cite this passage and then claim that it should guide the actions of the rest of us is almost the definition of hubris. Or chutzpah, in this case.
These are two different situations. The case of Sudan proves your point. The Yemenite situation is more exceptional.
ReplyDeletehttp://wejew.com/media/2129/In_Satmar_Custody_Expose_Trailer/
http://www.jewishrockland.org/page.aspx?id=202185
""Between July and October 2009, HIAS brought 57 Jewish refugees to the U.S. from Yemen, where they were in increasing danger due to the inability of the government to protect its Jewish minority."
ReplyDelete...
Respectfully, this does not support your claim. Indeed, there is no contradiction between supporting Mexican immigration to the US while simultaneously supporting Jewish immigration to the US.
Do you have any quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jew's only" immigration policy?
Or is that the best you can do?
(By the way, I picked HIAS simply because it was first on your list.)
"Has HIAS ever come out and condemned Israel's 'Jews Only' immigration policy?"
ReplyDeleteI have no idea. But I don't bear the burden of proof here. Dennis is charging HIAS with hypocrisy. I am asking him to show his proof. Which is, so far, lacking.
"Your faux outrage is so obvious"
What are you talking about? Faux outrage about what?
My citation of the HIAS document was not meant in answer to your question, sabril, it was just meant to illustrate some of its activities. However, I think it a good assumption that it and the other organizations want to keep Israel as the Jewish State, which necessarily means keeping out non-Jews. I mean, I've certainly never heard of any explicitly Jewish groups calling for Israel to become non-Jewish. That's just what Zionism is. I wouldn't say that the burden of proof is on me, but on you, unless you really believe that it's baseless to assume that these groups support a Jewish Israel and Zionism.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, I'm not that worried about hypocrisy; rather I'm worried about why these groups feel so intent on seeing white Americans become a minority.
First evidence of voting fraud in the UK?
ReplyDeleteDo you have any quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jew's only" immigration policy?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can provide a link showing HAIS condeming Israels immigration policy. That would be the appropriate response for you to make. I imagine that their actual practice is to ignore Israels immigraton polciy as much as possible.
Okay, so it seems to me are basically admitting that you cannot back up your claim, that it's just an assumption. i.e. a Jewish organization is probably Zionist simply because it is Jewish.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I would not assume that. There are many left-wing Jews who are anti-Zionist or neutral about Zionism.
American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief -- one firmly rooted in history -- that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.
ReplyDeleteThe beliefs which they hold make it difficult to accept that Jews are really as intelligent as popular myth makes them out to be. In particular, the belief above is most assurdly NOT born out by history.
Sabril, if HIAS were so stupid as to publicly voice support for Israel's ethnicity-based immigration system while at the same time avidly promoting non-European immigration into the U.S., they would have remained a marginal group and we wouldn't be talking about them. It's almost necessarily true that no such statement would exist.
ReplyDeleteBut isn't it a little strange that the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society is so enthusiastic about non-European immigration into our European nation, while making nary a peep about immigration into the Hebrew nation? - and that this has all been happening over a time during which Israel has been actively pursuing ways to grow its own population?
"sabril said...
ReplyDeleteDo you have any quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jew's only" immigration policy?"
Whatever happened to "Qui tacet consentit"? Of course, it is not always true that silence implies consent. Silence on a subject can simply imply ignorance of that subject, or that one just doesn't care. But I don't think that the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society is ignorant about Israeli immigration policy, or doesn't care about it. If they are silent on the matter, it is therefore reasonable to assume that they agree with it.
I had a look at the American Jewish Committee site, and while it's voluminous, so I can't read everything, the Israel page is entirely devoted to supporting and defending Israel. (Which I have no problem with, for the record.)
ReplyDeleteAn article by "Dr. Eran Lerman, Director Israel/Middle East Office" is called "Israel’s Political Identity as a Jewish State: Why Does It Matter?"
"For most Israelis, the answer is fairly straightforward: This is the nation-state created by the Jewish national movement—Zionism—so that an ancient people could exercise the right of self-determination and take its rightful place among the community of nations."
Fine. But then in another article we get this:
"AJC Calls Arizona Law Setback for Immigration Reform
April 26, 2010 – New York - AJC has condemned Arizona’s new immigration law, calling it "a setback in national efforts to achieve immigration reform."
The Arizona law, expected to go into effect this summer, will allow local law enforcement to stop anyone, if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, and arrest those unable to produce proper immigration documents." Etc.
So, the American Jewish Committee supports the Jewish State, but they do not support the State founded by white Americans. They believe it important that Israel be Jewish, but unimportant that America remain American. Q.E.D.
Hypocrites.
"But isn't it a little strange that the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society is so enthusiastic about non-European immigration into our European nation, while making nary a peep about immigration into the Hebrew nation? "
ReplyDeleteWell what do they say about immigration into Europe? Into Mexico? Into Argentina?
"Whatever happened to "Qui tacet consentit"?"
So if some Catholic group is silent about immigration into Israel, what exactly should be presumed? What if the group is silent about immigration into Ireland?
Does the American Jewish Committee "care at least as much about Israel as it does about its native land?" - to paraphrase myself.
ReplyDeleteNo. It cares about Israel much more than about America. And this is not because they and I have a difference of political opinion, but because they assert that the the State of Arizona, and by extension the US, is either wrong or bad to exercise sovereignty when it comes to controlling our border. We cannot remain the American Nation without controlling our borders, and it is simply impossible as well as highly undesirable to admit every person who wishes to come here. Yet presumably the AJC would always and everywhere condemn efforts to deport anyone.
"Israel has been ‘Arizona’ all along."
ReplyDeletehttp://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/israel-has-been-arizona-all-along.html
"Hypocrites."
ReplyDelete"Does the American Jewish Committee "
Okay, so as I understand things, you are limiting your charge to the AJC. And you are accusing the AJC of hypocrisy.
Is that correct?
So if some Catholic group is silent about immigration into Israel, what exactly should be presumed? What if the group is silent about immigration into Ireland?
ReplyDeleteBut Ireland isn't struggling to grow its ethnic Irish population and doesn't have an ethnicity-based immigration policy. In the meanwhile, the Hebrew nation is and does, and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society somehow avoids touching those two facts, despite their being highly relevant to the HIAS mission.
Sure, there are plenty of Christian and gentile activist groups that are complete aholes, but they tend to be a lot more intellectually consistent.
Let's put it this way. As that post on MondoWeiss shows, in Israel one must show an ID card upon demand, and the author of the post says that it almost always applied only to Arabs. And this is not new.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, any American Jewish organization that condemns the Arizona law on the grounds that it constitutes "profiling", but does not condemn the Jewish State for the same thing, is hypocritical.
And I also think that you're being pedantic, sabril.
Israeli women are under such pressure to procreate that they will undergo IVF treatment up to 35 times - at the government's expense.
ReplyDeleteNow this is funny. Thirty five times, for a treatment that, per cycle, typically costs around $15,000. That's about a half million dollars being offered merely to conceive an Israeli baby.
I wonder if Gideon Aronoff of HIAS has gotten in touch with them to let them know how Israel could simultaneously solve that pressing population problem and "help the stranger among us."
As a jew I have no problem calling the AJC hypocritical for their opposition to the bill. I do find their double standard both foolish and frustrating. America needs a strong white majority to maintain the country's integrity. Hostile, un-assimilable immigrants put the country's citizenry at risk and demographics is destiny; the left-wing jewish groups sorely need to understand this.
ReplyDeleteAs the old saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and the left-wing PC jewish groups have many (understandable) yet harmful good intentions in not wanting to "single people out". They need a reality check. There is too much at stake.
"But Ireland isn't struggling to grow its ethnic Irish population and doesn't have an ethnicity-based immigration policy"
ReplyDeleteUmmm, what is your answer to my questions:
(1) So if some Catholic group is silent about immigration into Israel, what exactly should be presumed?
(2) What if the group is silent about immigration into Ireland?
Two simple questions.
"Therefore, any American Jewish organization that condemns the Arizona law on the grounds that it constitutes 'profiling', but does not condemn the Jewish State for the same thing, is hypocritical."
ReplyDeleteDoes this principle apply only to Jewish organizations?
For example, if a Catholic organization condemns profiling in Arizona but not in Israel, is it hypocritical?
And what if the Catholic organization condemns profiling in Arizona but not in a Catholic country? Is it then hypocritical?
Or is only Jewish organizations which are presumptively nationalist until proven otherwise?
I guess you missed my mention of Cardinal Mahony in the post. He's a traitor, as are most of the rest of the Catholic hierarchy. Why would you think I'd defend the Catholic hierarchy? Because you defend the Jewish hierarchy?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you keep missing the point - besides being pedantic. Hypocrisy is not much of a concern of mine. As far as I'm concerned, any group can be as hypocritical as they want so long as it isn't trying to undermine my nation.
Under what conditions would you condemn Jewish groups for their stance on immigration? Simple question.
"Under what conditions would you condemn Jewish groups for their stance on immigration?"
ReplyDeleteI would condemn them if they support the third-world invasion into the West, including the United States. Whatever their stance is on Israel. Duh.
"Why would you think I'd defend the Catholic hierarchy?"
Who says I would think that? Your blog post does seem to be singling out Jewish organizations, however. It seems to me that religious organizations from pretty much all religious groups are hypocritical by your definition. So why does your blog post single out Jewish ones?
"Hypocrisy is not much of a concern of mine"
You can claim that as much as you like, but any reasonable reading of your blog post, as well as follow up comments, would indicate that a major thrust of your point is an accusation of hypocrisy. Indeed, you explicitly labeled the AJC as hypocrites.
"As far as I'm concerned, any group can be as hypocritical as they want so long as it isn't trying to undermine my nation."
In that case, what does it matter what the AJC thinks about Israel? All that should matter to you is their support of (somewhat) open borders in the United States.
(1) So if some Catholic group is silent about immigration into Israel, what exactly should be presumed?
ReplyDeleteThere is but one decidedly Hebrew nation in the world, and it's having population problems that could very easily be solved by non-Hebrew immigration. Yet the pre-eminent Hebrew pro-immigration activist group, HIAS, doesn't talk about it, at all. If a group like HIAS doesn't even talk about it, why would a Catholic group in the U.S. ever be expected to do so? They'd probably even be attacked as anti-semitic if they tried.
(2) What if the group is silent about immigration into Ireland?
Like I said, Ireland doesn't have an ethnocentric immigration policy to complain about, nor a population problem. It's even been undergoing a baby boom, very unlike that one country over at the eastern Mediterranean.
sabril, you're obviously more concerned with my alleged inconsistencies than you are about groups that "support the third-world invasion" of the US. That is exactly what the groups I mentioned are doing, yet you don't condemn them and keep asking me the same tendentious questions. You essentially condemn me for noticing.
ReplyDeleteYou were the one who asked about Catholics.
As for allegedly singling out Jewish groups, I can't cover every single issue in a blog post, and Jewish groups are far more influential than any other religious group, in my estimation.
"There is but one decidedly Hebrew nation in the world, and it's having population problems that could very easily be solved by non-Hebrew immigration. Yet the pre-eminent Hebrew pro-immigration activist group, HIAS, doesn't talk about it, at all. If a group like HIAS doesn't even talk about it, why would a Catholic group in the U.S. ever be expected to do so? They'd probably even be attacked as anti-semitic if they tried."
ReplyDeleteOk, so your answer is that NOTHING should be presumed. Correct?
"Like I said, Ireland doesn't have an ethnocentric immigration policy to complain about, nor a population problem. It's even been undergoing a baby boom, very unlike that one country over at the eastern Mediterranean"
Ok, so your answer is that NOTHING should be presumed. Correct?
"sabril, you're obviously more concerned with my alleged inconsistencies than you are about groups"
ReplyDeleteThat's nonsense. I have no idea who you are and I don't care. I'm simply responding to a particular blog post.
"That is exactly what the groups I mentioned are doing, yet you don't condemn them "
Of course I condemn them. I hereby condemn them 100 times.
"keep asking me the same tendentious questions."
Tendentious or not, why not just answer my questions like I answered yours?
"Jewish groups are far more influential than any other religious group"
Per capita or in absolute terms?
"sabril said...
ReplyDelete""Whatever happened to "Qui tacet consentit"?""
So if some Catholic group is silent about immigration into Israel, what exactly should be presumed? What if the group is silent about immigration into Ireland?"
I already said: not knowing much about it, or not caring much about it. Neither of those conditions apply to HIAS when it comes to Israel. The catholic church doesn't mind if the irish are entirely replaced by tamils, or the fillipinos by koreans, or americans by mexicans, as long as they retain or increase their market share. I suspect however that the HIAS cares very much that the jewish state remains jewish.
"Richard said...
ReplyDelete.......Hostile, un-assimilable immigrants put the country's citizenry at risk and demographics is destiny; the left-wing jewish groups sorely need to understand this."
I liked your post, and while I don't mean to sound hostile, I would point out that the left wing jewish groups understand perfectly well what they are doing in promoting unlimited immigration into the US. Their purpose is to destroy the US as we know it. They are not alone in this - it is the purpose of all left-wing groups.
""As the old saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and the left-wing PC jewish groups have many (understandable) yet harmful good intentions in not wanting to "single people out". They need a reality check. There is too much at stake.""
I think you are missing the point. A lot of gentiles are beginning to think that they DON'T have good intentions, rather that their intentions (with regard to us) are explicity malign.
Ok, so your answer is that NOTHING should be presumed. Correct?
ReplyDeleteNothing about your typical pro-amnesty/immigration Catholic group's silence on Israel's or Ireland's immigration policies makes me think they are being hypocritical on those topics. So, that would be "yes" and "yes."
show me a quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jew's only" immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteSo, all non-genites have to do is compartmentalize, and they can get away with anything they want as a group. E.g.:
Joe non-gentile donates 1 mil to HIAS, and 1 mil to Avigdor Lieberman, and he's kosher.
there is no contradiction between supporting Mexican immigration to the US while simultaneously supporting Jewish immigration to the US.
I for one am clearing away supposed contradictions, not objecting to them. E.g., supporting Mexican and non-gentile immigration to the U.S., while simultaneously supporting non-gentile ethnocentrism and non-gentile-only immigration to Israel, while simultaneously pathologizing Euro ethnocentrism or anything potentially leading to Euro-only immigration anywhere, is all perfectly consistent with a narrow reading of non-gentile ethnic interests (to the exclusion of all else).
I'm not that worried about hypocrisy; rather I'm worried about why these groups feel so intent on seeing white Americans become a minority.
But the hypocrisy is key to destroying their ability to act on their intentions.
it seems to me are basically admitting that you cannot back up your claim, that it's just an assumption. i.e. a Jewish organization is probably Zionist simply because it is Jewish.
Yes, that would seem tantamount to assuming a black organization is pro-black, and that, unless proven otherwise, it tends toward mainstream pro-black opinion. LOL.
But isn't it a little strange that the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society is so enthusiastic about non-European immigration into our European nation, while making nary a peep about immigration into the Hebrew nation?
Lol, no, no, of course not! Why would non-gentiles be held to the same standard?
Well what do they say about immigration into Europe? Into Mexico? Into Argentina?
What Chris said. In addition, they aren't an ethnic European, Mexican, or Argentinian group, so that's not germane.
"Whatever happened to "Qui tacet consentit"?"
So if some Catholic group is silent about immigration into Israel, what exactly should be presumed?
It should be assumed that they're fine with the Church's position.
And I also think that you're being pedantic, sabril.
Of course she is. She's trying to prove to us that non-gentiles in general aren't intellectually dishonest ethnocentrists by displaying a general pattern of intellectually dishonest ethnocentrism.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions
That's a pretty rosy characterization. There's harmful good intentions, and then there's willful negligence in pursuit of self-interest and wrapped in PR. In other words, it's a feature, not a bug. Funny how non-gentiles are all geniuses until they're caught with their hands in the till, then they're babes in the woods. This is the overwhelmingly common non-gentile response to criticism; PR, then go back to what you were doing.
Does this principle apply only to Jewish organizations?
Now you're not even being pedantic. How could a Catholic organization be held hypocritical in condemning Arizona's policy but not Israel's? Non-gentile ethnic interests aren't germane to Catholicism (though I would hold them hypocritical in refraining from applying the same standards to Israel that they do to America for fear of non-gentile reprisal; the difference being, the impetus is external). If Israel were a Catholic state, yes, you'd have a point.
Who says I would think that? Your blog post does seem to be singling out Jewish organizations, however.
For the zillionth time, non-gentiles single themselves out; they get to have an ethnostate, and condemn Euros for showing a scintilla of behavior that might lead toward a European ethnostate.
The target is leftism. Leftists are the enemy.
ReplyDeleteThe spirit in which this is offered (which I'm inferring, so correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be the same spirit in which a physician might say, "The disease is the target. Never mind the vectors."
Here's another blogger talking about religiously-motivated / religiously-organized opposition to the Arizona law. Flyover Libertarian doesn't limit himself to one religion, nor does he mention Jews at all.
ReplyDeleteFlyover Libertarian is particular in his harsh criticism of Catholics. It makes me wonder: do any Catholic-majority countries have strict immigration policies? Italy has its Bossi-Fini law, and Mexico has its "keep out the Guatemalans" policy, but I can't say myself if these are strict relative to the rest of the world.
The spirit in which this is offered (which I'm inferring, so correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be the same spirit in which a physician might say, "The disease is the target. Never mind the vectors."
ReplyDeleteIn fact I consider the disease and the vectors to be almost the same thing.
Svigor, I think it goes without saying that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, the polling data showing most Jews are against mass immigration means quite a bit. Kelsey, West, and Mercer mean a lot.
I can't add up all the talk about religion and come to any conclusions. Mencius Moldbug makes a case that the Puritans are to blame for leftism. TANSTAAFL and Svigor blame the Jews. Flyover Libertarian excoriates the Roman Catholics. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn implicates the Hussites. (As far as I know Shintoism smells like a rose.)
I guess no one's going to budge on these issues.
Why not make it mandatory for every person in American to carry a personal ID card at all times?
ReplyDeleteYou've stumbled upon the crux of the issue: in order to control unassimilable, low-IQ, and often highly violent alien peoples, Western society must instate draconian and intrusive laws. In the name of "fairness," these laws must apply to everyone, including the Western Caucasian peoples who established the society. The end result:
More NAMs = Bigger Government = Less Liberty.
Take blacks, for instance. Blacks make up 15% of the total population of the United States, but are 52% of felons. Blacks use guns to commit violent crimes on a massive scale, and since society cannot pass laws aimed specifically at black criminality, it instead passes gun control laws. As a result, law-abiding Caucasians are disarmed while violent blacks obtain arms illegally, which they use to kill the unarmed Caucasians. By and large, black criminality is responsible for gun control. So:
Large numbers of blacks = Less Liberty = Less Safety from both crime and tyranny
Problem solved, no ethnic groups would be able to accuse the state of racism, unfair treatment or racial profiling as this new law would include every single person in America, white and black.
With all due respect, you're projecting. Non-whites are going to accuse us of racism no matter what we do, and they will continue to do so as long as there are large numbers of them among us. All non-white grievances boil down to Kill Whitey.
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteI was actually wondering whether you were ever going to cover this topic, so thanks for finally doing so. Good, balanced writing on the role of Jewish organizations, their hypocrisy, and their promotion of an agenda counter to that of Whites.
I know a lot of people feel uncomfortable with discussing Jewish influence; however, it has to be done. Being afraid to discuss racial and cultural matters is what has created this looming demographic implosion and many of the problems such as declining quality of life, crime, and illegal immigration.
White people need to find their voice.
It looks like things are rolling a bit more now, thankfully. Whether it is in time to avoid serious conflict I don't know, but at least it's a start.
We keep hearing that rank and file Jews are more conservative than the leadership of the organizations that take left wing positions. Polling indicates that this is true, but the rank and file Jewish community remains more left of center than any of the other traditional major religious groups on immigration (excluding Muslims, Hindus and other recent groups that haven’t been a major presence in the Western world until recently).
ReplyDeleteFor example, while 43 percent of Jews oppose Amnesty for illegal aliens, 40 percent approve of it. Only 12 percent of conservative Protestants and 23 percent of liberal Protestants approve of Amnesty (24 percent of Catholics favor Amnesty). 50 percent of Jews think immigration levels are too high, but 78 percent of conservative (i.e., born again) Protestants and 72 percent of liberal Protestants (i.e., mainline) think immigration levels are too high (69 percent of Catholics think immigration is too high). Again, Jews are far more likely to favor high immigration than the other groups. 22 percent of Jews think immigration is too low, far more than the other groups. Just 3 percent of conservative Protestants and just 2 percent of liberal Protestants think immigration is too low (only 4 percent of Catholics think immigration is too low). http://www.cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll
Rank and file Jews may well be waking up to the fact that gentle white gentiles are not enemies of the Jewish people and the state of Israel. But they have a way to go before they have enough clout to change the positions taken by organized groups that speak in their name. Time is running out for the Western world and with it the Jewish state, which likely won’t survive a collapse of the influence of Europe and the USA.
"So, all non-genites have to do is compartmentalize, and they can get away with anything they want as a group."
ReplyDeleteIf I understand what you are saying, then pretty much yes.
The alternative is to hold each Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew.
Which is not only unfair, but I don't see anyone trying to impose this sort of responsibility on any other group.
"I for one am clearing away supposed contradictions, not objecting to them. "
I'm not sure what your point is here. In my very first post in this exchange I challenged Dennis to show me a quote or statement showing that HIAS supports Israel's "Jews only" immigration policy. I further stated that if he could do so, I would concede that he has demonstrated hypocricy on the part of HIAS.
Feel free to take up that challenge yourself.
"Yes, that would seem tantamount to assuming a black organization is pro-black"
pro-Jewish doesn't necessarily mean pro-Zionist. In fact, I was looking at the Wikipedia article on the Zionist movement and it stated that the American Jewish Committee was actually opposed to it.
In any event, it's pretty clear to me that jews are capable of the same sort of self-destructiveness of which white gentiles engage in.
"How could a Catholic organization be held hypocritical in condemning Arizona's policy but not Israel's?"
Easily. If you infer from its (assumed) silence about Israel that it supports Israel's (apparent) identity card policy.
"they get to have an ethnostate, and condemn Euros for showing a scintilla of behavior that might lead toward a European ethnostate."
Ok, so you are claiming that Jews as a group are uniquely hypocritical, right?
"Nothing about your typical pro-amnesty/immigration Catholic group's silence on Israel's or Ireland's immigration policies makes me think they are being hypocritical on those topics. So, that would be 'yes' and 'yes.'"
ReplyDeleteAnd what exactly makes you that HIAS, for example, is being hypocritical?
Isn't it safe to assume that an explicitly Jewish org is pro-Israel unless it's explicitly anti-Israel? And if it's pro-Israel it must be supportive of Israel's exclusionary policies, which have been in place from the beginning and over time have only become more intense. See, for example, the various posts at Mondoweiss.
ReplyDeleteFrom the GSS:
http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/01/sometimes-theyre-all-same-and-different.html
(..)
Percent who really like Israel
Jews 90.4
All Americans 34.0
(...)
sabril:
ReplyDelete"Ok, so you are claiming that Jews as a group are uniquely hypocritical, right?"
No. The claim is actually that Jewish people act in a single consistent manner: ethnocentricly. The hypocrisy is a minor side effect.
"Mencius Moldbug makes a case that the Puritans are to blame for leftism. "
Mencius's claim is a bit more subtle. He (convincingly) argues that the intellectual basis for progressivism is puritanism. This claim says nothing about the current leadership of the progressive class.
I really wonder why people of European descent are so surprised by the fact that Jews act like any other group of people living in the midst of another group of people. This is what minorities do all the time, regardless of who they are. Period. Obviously, you will have parts of minorities that do have an identity like the Jews, side with the majority, like Richard. But this is the same as saying that all blacks are brilliant because some do get to Ivy league schools with merit, not affirmative action. It's a mute point.
ReplyDeleteB Lode, you make a mistake. Opposing the left is irrelevant. You must stand for something first, not simply oppose the left. It's 101 Sun Tzu. Know yourself, know your enemy and know the field of combat. Knowing yourself doesn't mean being the opposite of your enemy, but standing FOR something.
Also, any group living in the midst of another group inherently wants to gain power at the expense of the other group. This is common sense. They can be Jews, Muslims, Africans, Asians, it's the same thing.
Here's something on which I agree with kritisk. It's not even that hard - make the ID have a series and a personal ID number. If the person doesn't have it and knows both, he can tell them to the cop, along with his ID series and personal number and he would be checked. This is how things are done in my country sometimes. Also, the new cop cars have computers in them so they can just get the photo associated with your name and be done with it. But still, why not target Mexicans? I mean, from what I recall, more than half of them in Arizona are illegal. Hardly unfair. Just like I was called racist for saying that the Fort Hood shooter is Muslim before that being in the news. It was just obvious, profiling or not. lol. Van Wijk nailed it about this.
Dennis, what's hilarious is that Israel is closer to both Sudan and Yemen alike.
sabril, since most Jews are pro-Israel and pro-immigration, it's a normal thing to assume that they are for both. And Catholics being nationalist has nothing to do with immigration to Israel. The number of logical fractures that one is willing to make on this subject is really hilarious. And the singling out of Jews is the same as talking about the crimes of immigrants - neither are us. It's quite as simple as that. Actually, it's even quite obvious why Catholics don't point out the prejudice in Israel's immigration law - for the same reason why they don't support Europeans to move to South Africa. But you'd have to understand liberalism in order to get it. And no, you don't hold every Jews responsible for what another Jew does, it just means that collectively, Jews aren't a great thing as an organized minority for us. Period. Just like I could care the less if a Muslim is peaceful or not, their collective presence in Europe is bad.
Actually, it's even quite obvious why Catholics don't point out the prejudice in Israel's immigration law - for the same reason why they don't support Europeans to move to South Africa.
ReplyDeleteSay what? I never even knew that Catholics opposed Europeans moving to South Africa, and I suspect that you just made that up. In any case it has nothing to do with Israels immigration law.
Anon, just ask people around if they think that South Africa should take lots of immigration and if it should be an idea nation for all groups of people, not just blacks. You'd be surprised. I don't see Catholics in general having a problem with the South African policies related to whites. It's not being opposed, but actively supporting people movement. But again, you probably knew that since you misinterpreted what I said, either on purpose or out of a mistake.
ReplyDelete"Just look at the recent crucifixion of that Harvard 3L."
ReplyDeleteIt bears pointing out that the woman who forwarded the email (Yelena Shagall) and the libelous dean are both Jewish.
"No. The claim is actually that Jewish people act in a single consistent manner: ethnocentricly."
ReplyDeleteHow does it advance Jewish ethnic interests to increase the number of Mexican immigrants here?
Increasing Mexican immigration seems to be a goal of the WASP elite. The leadership of the 2.2. million strong Presbyterian denomination came out against AZ's immigration bill. Where are the criticisms of the Presbyterians?
And, hey look -- the Episcopalian Church opposes the AZ immigration law too, and wants comprehensive immigration reform. Any guesses on where the Methodists stand?
When do we get the post criticizing WASP organizations for their positions on immigration?
When do we get the post criticizing WASP organizations for their positions on immigration?
ReplyDeleteI linked to one. Flyover Libertarian doesn't mention Jews at all, only Christians, and no one in his comment thread criticized him for it. Granted, there were only six comments.
You are a gentleman, B Lode.
ReplyDeleteThe big picture is that pretty much all elite, established, organizations support the status quo of mass immigration -- The leadership of the GOP and Dem parties, major churches, etc. (even though 80% of the GOP rank and file is against it). That Jew-haters like n/a or Svigor would single out Jewish organizations for this is understandable. Less so is why Mangan would.
The HBD-o-sphere has no shortage of Jewish bloggers and commenters who agree with Mangan and everyone else here on the immigration issue. Yet there is nothing they can do to keep the n/as and Svigors from criticizing Jews qua Jews on this issue.
Who says I would think that? Your blog post does seem to be singling out Jewish organizations, however. It seems to me that religious organizations from pretty much all religious groups are hypocritical by your definition. So why does your blog post single out Jewish ones?
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Mr. Mangan, but one good reason for doing so is that the AJCommittee has been pushing immigration for 98 years:
A new advocacy group wrote the President of the United States about our nation’s restrictive immigration system. The group challenged our nation’s unfair policies and argued that a person "who comes here prepared to work and build up our resources, is deserving of a hearty welcome and should not be made the subject of adverse legislation.”
The letter was written in 1912 and the advocacy group was the American Jewish Committee.
Nearly 100 years later, as our nation again debates the merits of immigration, a logical question can be asked – is this still a Jewish issue?
AJC Supporting Immigration for 100 Years
The organized Jewish community has been leading the charge against immigration restriction for 100 years:
Jewish involvement in influencing United States immigration policy, 1881-1965: A historical review. Population and Environment, 19, 295-355
The Catholic Church is a late-comer to the issue, and it's reasonable to suppose that the Church's position is due largely to Jewish influence.
"So, all [Jews] have to do is compartmentalize, and they can get away with anything they want as a group."
ReplyDeleteIf I understand what you are saying, then pretty much yes.
The alternative is to hold each Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew.
And in fact that is precisely what orthodox Jewish law holds. As the great Jewish scholar Salo Wittmayer Baron explained, "To this day, orthodox Jewish ethics has remained essentially national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each." Baron, Salo W., A Social and Religious History of the Jews, Volume 1, p. 10. (Emphasis in original.)
See here
Which is not only unfair, but I don't see anyone trying to impose this sort of responsibility on any other group.
ReplyDeleteYou've got to be kidding. Whites are subjected to collective guilt all the time.
Dennis already explained that Jewish groups are much more influential then Protestant ones, both liberal mainline and “conservative” born again. Note also that the Protestant groups are less ethnically cohesive than the Jewish groups. The Protestant groups include all sorts of ethnics, including most blacks as well as some Hispanics and Asians.
ReplyDeleteI’d also note that the polling data listed above tells us that even liberal Protestant mainline rank and file are opposed to amnesty and increased immigration, especially compared to Jews.
Ricardo, look at the the PCUSA home page. The top item is an entry about their new scholarship program for non-whites. Below that is an article about helping Haiti, and below that is a prominent link to "Multicultural Church Sunday."
ReplyDeleteAnd who now heads the ECUSA? A borderline bulldyke (and first woman Archbishop) who is pushing for gay bishops and who refers to Jesus in her sermons as "Mother Jesus." The church now even offers "anti-racism training" and "environmental ministries".
Their support of mass immigration is entirely consistent with all of their other behavior. They've become sick lefty universalists.
But why are ethnocentric Jewish groups so vigorously supporting immigration of non-whites into the U.S.? Especially while the Jewish nation has an immigration policy based on the Jewishness of applicants and is struggling with population problems?
How do jews benefit from the destruction of white society?
ReplyDeleteHow does it advance Jewish ethnic interests to increase the number of Mexican immigrants here?
ReplyDeleteEarl Raab in 1993:
The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible – and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. -- Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 19 February 1993, p. 23.)
The ADL's Earl Raab served for thirty-five years as Executive Director of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council and later served as Director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University.
Funny how non-gentiles try to argue they aren't ethnocentric, by always reflexively defending their own. Part of this includes criticizing Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., who, of course, can never be found defending themselves in these threads. LOL.
ReplyDeleteCui bono is relevant. If Bob and Joe and Avi all support something, but only Avi actually benefits, one gets to thinking. Then one discovers that Avi owns the big PR firm Bob and Joe are afraid of. Then one puts 2 and 2 together and realizes that the "benefit" Bob and Joe are getting is the lack of a negative.
Of course, this hinges on whether one understands that Avi's perception of "benefits" is what matters, not one's own. This makes it easier for shysters to dispute whether Avi is "benefitting" or not, which isn't really relevant because it's Avi's perception of "benefitting," and not our own perceptions of Avi's interests or whether something qualifies as a "benefit," which is germane.
But it's all water off a duck's back to me. I'm not at all interested in convincing Euro-haters like sabril & co. of anything. If people want to know what's going on, they can buy Kevin MacDonald's work, and get to searching the Web, and find everything they need to know, shyster-talk aside.
How do jews benefit from the destruction of white society?
ReplyDeleteMy feeling is that they don't, and hardly any of them feel like they do. What is really going on is that, for many believers especially from elite classes, Judaism and Christianity have been boiled down to a single universalist / progressive nugget that believes "white society" is a misnomer. For them, there is nothing to destroy; America is just a proposition ("Freedom is good" or something like that) and a continent, definitely not a nation.
Jews and Christians give themselves somewhat more credit than they deserve in creating the most attractive elements of US civilization. A collection of deist lawyers expand upon peculiarly Anglo-Saxon notions of law and justice and create the most appealing society in the world, and a host of Mediterranean religions all want credit.
Fine, have some credit, but don't tell me there is something universal about universalism. America was founded on pluralism; mutual respect between separate, largely voluntary groups more intent on staying out of each other's way than proving their superiority or proving the equality of all groups. That is far from universalism, which demands constant mixing of ideas, groups, and blood, so that whoever ends up with credit for anything is generally whoever is most pushy about demanding credit.
Others have written plenty about the status gains involved in adopting universalism. I'll illustrate it with a metaphor - if the 5% of the people who form the richest group all spend their whole lives in luxury dirigible airships, and the other 95% all spend their lives on the ground, what better way is there to illustrate how rich you are then to constantly proclaim "No man can own the Earth. What gives you the right to call a patch of land 'yours'? Nothing! Tear down the fences! Equal land access for all!"
So, not all religions are equally represented in the top 5%. It's an academic fact, not a crucial one.
Then one puts 2 and 2 together and realizes that the "benefit" Bob and Joe are getting is the lack of a negative.
ReplyDeleteAn oversimplification, obviously. At this point, much of the Euro elite willingly drink the Kool-Aid. Avi's firm made it a brand name. But, forgetting that for a moment, consider the balance of power:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1509/
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/1510/
An Indian tribe is split by a power struggle. Half want to fight the whites, and the other half wants to accommodate them. Along come the whites who throw their weight to the side favoring them. The half that wanted to fight might have won, but for the whites. In fact, they might consider the intervention on the part of whites to be the deciding factor. They'd certainly be less sympathetic to the whites than they would to the accommodating Indians. (But go ahead and parse this logic away with shyster tactics guys, I'm sure you'll come up with something).
Also, when considering whether non-gentile interests are served by the policies in question, consider relative susceptibility (e.g., the scene in The Princess Bride where Wesley poisons both cups); like limousine liberals and black crime, non-gentiles are far more insulated from these things than the average white.
sabril said...
ReplyDelete"So, all non-genites have to do is compartmentalize, and they can get away with anything they want as a group."
If I understand what you are saying, then pretty much yes.
The alternative is to hold each Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew.
Which is not only unfair, but I don't see anyone trying to impose this sort of responsibility on any other group."
Oh yeah? All white Americans are discriminated against, as a group, by the various policies known as affirmative action. For no other reason than being racially akin to a few long dead people who held as slaves some other long dead people. In fact, it is illegal not to discriminate against whites for being white in the USA. Jews, blacks, and mestizos love to assign collective guilt to all whites, but they themselves can only be considered as individuals.
Agathon
"So, all [Jews] have to do is compartmentalize, and they can get away with anything they want as a group."
ReplyDeleteIf I understand what you are saying, then pretty much yes.
The alternative is to hold each Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew.
Not so. If I notice that every Martian I meet is a murderer, and decide to divest myself from all Martians (and advise others to do the same) to protect myself, I haven't accused any innocent Martians of murder.
I mean, how could American soldiers have possibly killed German soldiers on sight? That'd be like holding all Germans responsible for the Hitler's behavior.
ReplyDeleteMiddle America was instrumental in defeating the Third Reich. So much for gratitude.
ReplyDeletemiddle Russia was even more instrumental. Guess how much gratitude Jews have been showing towards Vladimir Putin's grandparents lately
In totally unrelated news, Iread somewhere - though I couldn't find the link - that Jewish organizations were instrumental in preventing Assyrian (Iraqi) Christians from migrating to the US
Why would Jews been hating on Iraqi Christians? Well, 25 centuries ago the Assyrians were the mightiest empire on Earth and screwed the Jews. So Jews in XXIst century US still hate them for that
HERE IS A COLUMN BY JONAH GOLDBERG CLAIMING THAT THE USA IS THE RESULT OF ETHNIC CLEANSING AND ISRAEL IS NOT. GOLDBERG CLAIMS THAT AMERICA’S CLAIM TO THE SOUTHWEST IS LESS LEGITIMATE THAN ISRAEL’S CLAIM TO ITS TERRITORIES.
ReplyDeleteJonah Goldberg (archive)
(printer-friendly version)
http://web.archive.org/web/20040606075844/www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20010820.shtml
August 20, 2001
Americans wouldn’t tolerate terrorism at home
A Mexican suicide bomber walked into a pizza restaurant in a Santa Fe, N.M., mall this morning, killing at least 15 people, mostly children. Up to a hundred others were wounded.
The bodies of two young boys who had been playing hooky from school were found in a cave outside of Phoenix. They had been beaten to death, and their bodies mutilated. Authorities are looking for Navajo separatists they believe are responsible.
Militia in Tijuana, Mexico, fired rocket grenades into downtown San Diego, killing 20, wounding 50 and, once again, snarling morning traffic.
It’s more than a little uncomfortable ascribing such barbarous crimes to completely innocent folk. Still, imagine if such things happened here instead of in Israel on an almost daily basis. How do you think the United States would respond?
Indeed, the comparison is less outlandish than you might think. After all, the United States took land from American Indians. It took land from Mexicans. In a sense, “we” even took land from the British. And, no matter how you slice it, America’s claim to Texas and the Southwest is certainly far less morally compelling than Israel’s is to its land.
When the European Jews not already living in Palestine arrived there after World War II, the area was largely empty. What is today called Jordan was the historic home of many “Palestinians.” And, after all, even the most militant Muslim must concede that the Bible places the land as the historic home of the Jews.
Meanwhile, when European colonists came to North America, they had no historical claim to the land whatsoever and, besides, it was occupied.
And, no matter how you slice it, America’s claim to Texas and the Southwest is certainly far less morally compelling than Israel’s is to its land.
ReplyDeleteUnless the way "you slice it" involves time. My dad was born before Israel. My great grandfather was born after the Gadsden Purchase. Surely time means something, right? Or are we going to start judging the Anglo-Saxons' claim to southeastern Britain? Or judge the Indo-Europeans' claim to all that territory (Europe) they stole from the proto-Basques. Actually, I'd start by judging the Bantus' claim to southern Africa, since it would make the leftists feel bad.
Wait a sec ... is Goldberg saying the southwestern US was densely populated by Mexicans before the 1850s, and/or that Mexico proper isn't as much the historical home of the Mexicans as Jordan is of the Palestinians? The analogies between US annexation of the SW and Jewish annexation Cisjordan Palestine seem pretty powerful, except that I can't think of a Palestinian equivalent to the Gadsden Purchase.
To conclude Jonah Goldberg's Southwestern scenario, if a Mexican suicide bomber killed fifteen people at a pizzaria in Sante Fe, the President would immediately board Air Force One and fly to the scene of the carnage. There, he would lament this "tragic" event, but explain in a televised speech that those of Anglo-American descent bore an especial and complex burden in this incident, as our ancestors had undertaken the brutal conquest of Aztlan, followed by nearly two centuries of unrelenting oppresion of its indigenous inhabitants. He would then lay a wreath at the site of the bombing commemorating both the victims of the suiclde bombing and all those Hispanic and Native American victims who had suffered the yoke of Anglo oppression over the intervening centuries.
ReplyDeleteThis ceremony would be followed by a attendance at services at both a Hispanic Catholic and Hispanic Evangelical Church (our president hadto think about the upcoming Congressional elections). At these services, he would deliver brief eulogies (in Espanol) for the bombing victims, but then "broaden the context" to include past sins and their consequent grievances. He would remind the parishoners of the many contributions to American culture that had been made by their people, such as the chimichanga and the adoption hair nets as a fashion accessory (just kidding).
On a sea of applause and adulatory press coverage, he would retun to Air Force One, and that would be the last we would ever hear of this incident from anyone in a position of Federal authority.
"Ricardo said...
ReplyDeleteHow does it advance Jewish ethnic interests to increase the number of Mexican immigrants here?"
That has several possible answers:
1.) It doesn't. But people often end up doing things that are not in their best interest (Consider our present foreign policy, for example). People - even clever people - often turn out to be not very bright. And nobody can predict the future. Do you think that those plantation owners in old Dixie would ever imagine that their "peculiar institution" would someday lead to Snoop Dogg hosting a "Girls Gone Wild" video?
2.) It advances jewish ethnic interests by breaking the power of the white christian majority of this country. Perhaps they fear this majority, for whatever reason.
"....Where are the criticisms of the Presbyterians?
And, hey look -- the Episcopalian Church opposes the AZ immigration law too, and wants comprehensive immigration reform. Any guesses on where the Methodists stand?
When do we get the post criticizing WASP organizations for their positions on immigration?"
First, you do realize, do you not, that "Presbtyrian and Episcopalian" and "WASP" are separate categories. One is a religion, and one is an ethnic group. "Jewish" is both, and primarily an ethnic group.
As to the difference in treatment, I'm sure you know the difference. Jews have an immunity card against criticism, because of thier two millenia long tale of woe, and most especially, because they were recently the target of a campaign of genocide. Blacks get the same deal (in this country at least) because of slavery. Christian religious groups have no such advantage. Argue with an episcopalian, and he may actually have to counter your argument with one of his own. Criticize jews, and you usually just elicit charges of naziism.
The problem is, that tack just doesn't work so well anymore. I know it doesn't work with me. I have realized, as I've gotten older, that just because someone was greviously wronged, it doesn't mean that they're right. The fact that people have suffered a horrible injustice, doesn't necessarily mean that they're good people. The fact that what we americans (and by that, I mean, my ancestors) did to the indians and the blacks was callous, shameful and cruel, does not make the indians or the blacks some kind of holy, beautific people. They aren't. They were often callous and cruel themselves. The fact that the nazis were cruel and evil murderers does not sanctify their victims.
I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Ottoman and British Palestine were more densly populated that the territory we won from Mexico, probably by a factor of 5 or more.
ReplyDeleteUS ownership of the Southwest -- 150 years, Israeli ownership of the Holy land, 60 years. Property rights of Mexican/Spanish citizens of the southwest, preserved. Property rights of Palestinians -- bulldozed, etc.
@Sibril
ReplyDeleteThe linked article at the HAIS website explicitly mentions the organization's connection with Israel -- there is no reason to expect it to pronounce on Ireland, or Chile's immigration policy, because it doesn't have a connection to those countries. It does have a strong connection with Israel, by its own admission.
I suspect that the HAIS is helping set up an 'assylum system' in Israeli as a means of shunting legitimate claimants off to the US. A few of the posts have already provided examples of just that happening.
Actually, the only claim to land is done by conquest and backing your conquest with tanks and guns. There's no such thing as right to a land - I'm really bored of this leftist logic. And from my knowledge, the South of the US wasn't that densely populated either when the Americans conquered it.
ReplyDeleteOh, and if the Jews have a legitimate claim to Israel because the Bible says it's their homeland, then Romanians deserve part of today's Ukraine and Hungary since we are descendants of the people who held those places 2000 years ago. We also should get part of the Roman empire since we are the product of Roman and Dacic... You get where I'm going? Israel's existence is legitimate because it's beating the living crap out of the Arabs. That's the only reason why it's legitimate.
Also, why does it matter what Protestant churches say? The Jewish Association of X is organized around an ethnicity. Find the People of European Descent Association of X and see what they say about it.
Martin B wrote:
ReplyDelete"As to the difference in treatment, I'm sure you know the difference. Jews have an immunity card against criticism, because of thier two millenia long tale of woe, and most especially, because they were recently the target of a campaign of genocide. Blacks get the same deal (in this country at least) because of slavery. Christian religious groups have no such advantage. Argue with an episcopalian, and he may actually have to counter your argument with one of his own. Criticize jews, and you usually just elicit charges of naziism."
Thanks for succinctly explaining the difference, Martin. The immunity from criticism would seem to have a lot to do with influence too. Catholics and other Christians are regularly criticized and mocked in the MSM, Jews not so much.
"Ricardo, look at the the PCUSA home page. The top item is an entry about their new scholarship program for non-whites. Below that is an article about helping Haiti"
ReplyDeleteThe Reform Judaism homepage has a rotating banner on Haiti relief, I suspect for the same reason. Not out of hatred for whites but out of concern for fellow human beings.
"The ADL's Earl Raab served for thirty-five years as Executive Director of the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council..."
Never heard of him, but he sounds like a fool. The only time Jews have been killed in the U.S. by race-motivated whites was when the Jews were working for civil rights for blacks. Jews have never been persecuted as Jews by the white majority here. And the idea that Mexicans -- or any other low-achieving group -- will be friendlier to Jews than whites is retarded.
"Funny how non-gentiles try to argue they aren't ethnocentric, by always reflexively defending their own. Part of this includes criticizing Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., who, of course, can never be found defending themselves in these threads. LOL."
In defense of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, most of them probably have nobler views of their fellow men, regardless of ethnicity, which is why you don't find them on HBD blogs.
"First, you do realize, do you not, that "Presbtyrian and Episcopalian" and "WASP" are separate categories. One is a religion, and one is an ethnic group."
Sure I realize that. But I am unaware of any non-religious WASP organization that defines itself as such. Of course I could also find plenty of prominent WASPs who advocate open borders (e.g., George W. Bush).
"As to the difference in treatment, I'm sure you know the difference. Jews have an immunity card against criticism..."
On the contrary, Jews are getting singled out for criticism in this post, and tend to get singled out by the HBD-right in general -- even though Jews make up a significant percentage of the HBD blog-o-sphere and these Jews agree with you on the issues.
Some of you seem to act as if you're "speaking truth to power" by ragging on Jews, but there really isn't anything new or original in doing that.
How do jews benefit from the destruction of white society?
ReplyDeleteThey live in fear that "white society" will one day murder them all.
Which is completely irrational, but there is no particlar connection between being smart (which most Jews are) and being rational. The defining emotional state of Jewish people is paranoia.
Auster had something on this. In the aftermath of 9/11 a gentile expressed to a Jew the need to kick all Muslims out of the country. "You'll be wanting to get rid of the Jews next', was the demented response.
A general thought on immigration policy:
ReplyDeleteIMO, the majority of any country ought to be able to decide on the immigration policy it wants, and the immigration policy of a country should be of no business to those who aren't citizens of it.
In defense of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, most of them probably have nobler views of their fellow men, regardless of ethnicity, which is why you don't find them on HBD blogs.
ReplyDeleteThen what are you doing here if you think that HBD fosters an ignoble view of humanity?
On the contrary, Jews are getting singled out for criticism in this post, and tend to get singled out by the HBD-right in general
That's a totally unfair complaint. If I wrote a post on Presbyterians and immigration, then by that logic they could complain that they were being "singled out". A blog post is on a topic, and the topic here happens to be Jewish groups and immigration.
You sound as if you have immigration restrictionist views, but instead of saying what can we do to get these organizations to change their tune, you complain about people who notice that these groups promote a non-white majority.
Really, Dennis, you'll have to be a little more controversial if you expect anyone to comment on your postings.
ReplyDelete"As to the difference in treatment, I'm sure you know the difference. Jews have an immunity card against criticism, because of thier two millenia long tale of woe, and most especially, because they were recently the target of a campaign of genocide. Blacks get the same deal (in this country at least) because of slavery."
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, Jews are getting singled out for criticism in this post, and tend to get singled out by the HBD-right in general -- even though Jews make up a significant percentage of the HBD blog-o-sphere and these Jews agree with you on the issues.
I took issue with that as well. Non-gentiles have an immunity card because they give themselves one, and they have so much power, not because of any actual suffering. The idea that non-gentiles have an immunity card because they suffered is like saying GM has an ad campaign because they make great cars.
Some of you seem to act as if you're "speaking truth to power" by ragging on Jews, but there really isn't anything new or original in doing that.
Sloppy attempt at prestidigitation there. Contradiction between speaking truth to power and lack of originality: zero.
"Ricardo said...
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, Jews are getting singled out for criticism in this post, and tend to get singled out by the HBD-right in general -- even though Jews make up a significant percentage of the HBD blog-o-sphere and these Jews agree with you on the issues."
Yeah, and only yesterday this little blog discussion was the subject of an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, and was being discussed on the air by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and George Stephanopoulos. Except that it wasn't.
I knew that someone would bring up this point (actually, I thought it would be Sabril and not you, Ricardo - the arguments you have made have been well thought out and sincere, not tendentious exercises in sophistry, as Sabril's largely have been). Namely: "This isn't criticism? What do you call this? 123 posts in 3 days?"
What I call it, is insignificant. HBD blogs are pretty marginal in terms of their influence on public opinion (no slight intended, Dennis). They may be gaining in influence all the time, but at present, they are a puff of air in a hurricane. The criticism you have encountered here is not the synchronized outrage (sounds like a new olympic event) of a unified partisan media, or of the political and legal establishment. Rather, it is the work of a dozen or so people - people with regular, full-time non-media jobs and who are not paid to advocate positions - whom almost no one has ever heard of.
"Some of you seem to act as if you're "speaking truth to power" by ragging on Jews, but there really isn't anything new or original in doing that."
Nor is there anything new or original in summarily discounting any criticism of jews as anti-semitism or even latent naziism.
"Ricardo said...
A general thought on immigration policy:
IMO, the majority of any country ought to be able to decide on the immigration policy it wants, and the immigration policy of a country should be of no business to those who aren't citizens of it."
I quite agree.
OT, but members of the English Defense League just scaled the site of a planned super-mosque in Dudley while brandishing English and Israeli flags.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what you do with these bozos. Just don't send them here!
ReplyDelete"And, no matter how you slice it, America’s claim to Texas and the Southwest is certainly far less morally compelling than Israel’s is to its land."
ReplyDeleteThis is bullcrap. Deliberate lies.
Americans were invited by the Mexican government to settle Texas. Once there, disagreements with Mexican governance arose - ineffective defense against Indian attacks was a paticular issue. So the Texans took matters into their own hands. Once independence was won, their inherent sympathies inclined them toward the country they had come from. The USA and Texas held off for 9 years on that out of a desire to not antagonize Mexico, but the Mexicans never did reconcile themselves to the reality that they had lost Texas. The Mexicans tried to enforce a border that was entirely beyond their power to maintain, and tried this enforcement by means of attacking and killing American troops. So there was a war. The Mexicans lost it, completely and totally. The territory they ceded was largely uninhabited except by Navajo and Pueblo Indians - who still live there and never really lost anything - they came out much better than most other Indian tribes in North America.
In the century after that, Americans built the Southwest. Before it had been a subsistence farming and small-time prospecting area. Northern Mexico still is. California became the powerhouse economy it was for most of the 20th century. I've seen Arizona described as a "paradise". This wasn't the work of Mexicans. The Mexicans came back in when Americans lost their nerve, and started piggy-backing and parasiting off of what Americans had built.
The Israeli claim to Palestine is based on force of arms exercised within living memory. It's a worthy justification, but it is not by any possible stretch of the imagination more morally compelling than the American claim to the Southwest.
Rollory, you have summarized the American-Mexican war far better than any history book I’ve read in Spanish (mostly Mex propaganda).
ReplyDelete@ “You sound as if you have immigration restrictionist views, but instead of saying what can we do to get these organizations to change their tune, you complain about people who notice that these groups promote a non-white majority.” --D.M.
This is Auster’s corollary in action used against himself: “The more egregiously any [non-gentile] behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about [non-gentiles’] bad behavior.”
"Then what are you doing here if you think that HBD fosters an ignoble view of humanity?"
ReplyDeleteI already have an ignoble view of humanity. I envy those who see Haitians and Mexicans as brothers in Christ.
"That's a totally unfair complaint. If I wrote a post on Presbyterians and immigration, then by that logic they could complain that they were being "singled out". A blog post is on a topic, and the topic here happens to be Jewish groups and immigration."
My comment was directed more toward the comments in this thread than to your post.
"You sound as if you have immigration restrictionist views, but instead of saying what can we do to get these organizations to change their tune, you complain about people who notice that these groups promote a non-white majority."
Attacking someone usually isn't the best way to get them to change their tune. It makes them dig in their heels instead.
"Isn't it safe to assume that an explicitly Jewish org is pro-Israel unless it's explicitly anti-Israel? "
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think so. It's very common that an organization's views don't reflect those of the majority of its supposed constituents.
"No. The claim is actually that Jewish people act in a single consistent manner: ethnocentricly. The hypocrisy is a minor side effect."
ReplyDeleteSvigor, is that your claim?
"I can't speak for Mr. Mangan, but one good reason for doing so is that the AJCommittee has been pushing immigration for 98 years:"
ReplyDeleteWell do you agree that back then, the American Jewish Committee was clearly anti-Zionist?
"And in fact that is precisely what orthodox Jewish law holds."
Well, if you accept Jewish religious law for purposes of the debate, then the debate can be disposed of pretty easily. After all, the Bible pretty clearly makes the Jews a privileged people, particularly with respect to the land underneath modern Israel. The Bible says nothing about America.
"You've got to be kidding. Whites are subjected to collective guilt all the time."
Lol, I was talking about this discussion.
"Oh yeah? All white Americans are discriminated against, as a group, by the various policies known as affirmative action"
ReplyDeleteLol, I was talking about this discussion. But yes, affirmative action is unfair for exactly this reason, among others.
"Jew, blacks, and mestizos love to assign collective guilt to all whites"
Do you realize the irony of this statement?
"Not so. If I notice that every Martian I meet is a murderer, and decide to divest myself from all Martians (and advise others to do the same) to protect myself, I haven't accused any innocent Martians of murder"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand your analogy, but it seems to me that the equivalent to divesting yourself from Martians would be to stop making statements about Jews in general. And I agree that this is an option.
"I mean, how could American soldiers have possibly killed German soldiers on sight? That'd be like holding all Germans responsible for the Hitler's behavior."
ReplyDeleteUmm . . . would that include German soldiers who have surrendered and are in POW camps?
"The linked article at the HAIS website explicitly mentions the organization's connection with Israel "
ReplyDeleteWould you mind quoting the part you are referring to?
sabril said...
ReplyDelete'"Jew, blacks, and mestizos love to assign collective guilt to all whites"
Do you realize the irony of this statement?'
No, I do not. Why don't you enlighten me with some of your pretzel-twisted logic.
Agathon
Ricardo
ReplyDeleteThe only time Jews have been killed in the U.S. by race-motivated whites was when the Jews were working for civil rights for blacks. Jews have never been persecuted as Jews by the white majority here. And the idea that Mexicans -- or any other low-achieving group -- will be friendlier to Jews than whites is retarded.
Yes, it is retarded. But aren't you "ragging on Jews" in pointing that out?
@ "And the idea that Mexicans--or any other low-achieving group--will be friendlier to Jews than whites is retarded"
ReplyDeleteAs someone who (alas) has lived most of his life in Mexico, I can ascertain that the above statement is accurate.
"No, I do not. Why don't you enlighten me"
ReplyDeleteHehe, because you are collectively tarring Jews, blacks, and mestizos. Duh.
"your pretzel-twisted logic."
If you can't see the irony in that statement, then perhaps it is your brain that's pretzel-twisted.
sabril says:"If you can't see the irony in that statement, then perhaps it is your brain that's pretzel-twisted."
ReplyDeleteYou know, sabril, irony or the lack thereof introduces no logical fallacy into an argument. Failing to address an opponent's real argument certainly does. I am not much interested in the question of whether or not it is ironical, I am interested in whether or not it is true.
Be that as it may, Jews, blacks, and mestizos does not necessarily mean all of them. If I had eggs for breakfast, does that mean I had some eggs, or does it mean I consumed every egg in existence? A mildly clever person such as you no doubt noticed that I said all whites when I meant all whites. I did not say all the others.
A further clue in understanding what is up with this touchy topic -
ReplyDeleteThou Shalt Not Be A Freier
http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2226
"You know, sabril, irony or the lack thereof introduces no logical fallacy into an argument."
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking, you are correct.
"Failing to address an opponent's real argument certainly does."
Not necessarily, but in any event, I did address the argument. Did you even bother to read my post?
"Be that as it may, Jews, blacks, and mestizos does not necessarily mean all of them."
Agreed. Nevertheless, a reasonable reading of the sentence indicates that it refers to Jews, blacks, and mestizos collectively.
"I had eggs for breakfast, does that mean I had some eggs, or does it mean I consumed every egg in existence?"
A reasonable reading of this sentence is that you had some eggs. So what? If you had sad that eggs contain a lot of cholesterol, the reasonable reading is different.
Anyway, none of this changes the bottom line. It's unfair to assign the words and actions of each Jew to all other jews and use this as a basis to conclude that jews in general are hypocritical.
Similarly, it's unfair to use the past bad conduct of some whites as a basis to discriminate against other whites through affirmative action.
sabril on a recent thread -
ReplyDeletethe fact is that the Jews are special and everyone knows it
sabril on this thread - people are all individuals and it is just wrong to act as if they are members of a group and have shared characteristics. Why, the very term "Jews" is suspect!
"people are all individuals and it is just wrong to act as if they are members of a group and have shared characteristics. Why, the very term 'Jews' is suspect!"
ReplyDeleteLol, nice strawman.
Attacking someone usually isn't the best way to get them to change their tune. It makes them dig in their heels instead.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to get non-gentiles to change their behavior is to ruin their reputation. But changing non-gentile behavior isn't my priority. Convincing Euros that they're battered spouses in need of a divorce is my priority. Non-gentiles are already aware of and working toward their interests; Euros are the ones acting in contradiction of their interests (to the point of being pathologized against even acknowledging they have interests) and are therefore much easier to move.
Well, if you accept Jewish religious law for purposes of the debate, then the debate can be disposed of pretty easily. After all, the Bible pretty clearly makes the Jews a privileged people, particularly with respect to the land underneath modern Israel. The Bible says nothing about America.
Accepting that non-gentiles are influenced by non-gentile religion isn't even close to accepting non-gentile religion.
"Not so. If I notice that every Martian I meet is a murderer, and decide to divest myself from all Martians (and advise others to do the same) to protect myself, I haven't accused any innocent Martians of murder"
I'm not sure I understand your analogy, but it seems to me that the equivalent to divesting yourself from Martians would be to stop making statements about Jews in general. And I agree that this is an option.
I don't doubt you misunderstood my very simple illustration, you seem to have a knack. As for the terms of my divestment, I'll handle that without your help, but thanks anyway.
Umm . . . would that include German soldiers who have surrendered and are in POW camps?
Oh brother. Why not just acknowledge I eviscerated your point, and move on?
"No, I do not. Why don't you enlighten me"
Hehe, because you are collectively tarring Jews, blacks, and mestizos. Duh.
Even the simplest concepts seem to confuse you.
It's unfair to assign the words and actions of each Jew to all other jews and use this as a basis to conclude that jews in general are hypocritical.
Straw man, and self-contradictory; do you even know what "in general" means? Furthermore, it's stupid to treat your adversary "fairly" when he doesn't reciprocate. Chivalry is for knights, not villains. What non-gentiles have been doing to us throughout living memory is "unfair," a nuclear attack compared to your signal flare. What you're doing here, covering for them with freshman semantics, is "unfair." Your particularism is a poor cover for general non-gentile particularism.
Svigor, I think it goes without saying that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, the polling data showing most Jews are against mass immigration means quite a bit. Kelsey, West, and Mercer mean a lot.
ReplyDeleteI don't need everyone to agree with me, I'm perfectly content to agree to disagree. Where I draw the line is when someone tells me Euros have no right to divorce from the battering spouse (which I don't think you're doing).
I can't add up all the talk about religion and come to any conclusions. Mencius Moldbug makes a case that the Puritans are to blame for leftism. TANSTAAFL and Svigor blame the Jews. Flyover Libertarian excoriates the Roman Catholics. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn implicates the Hussites. (As far as I know Shintoism smells like a rose.)
I don't simply blame the non-gentiles. I have lots of blame to spread around. But nobody defends the other characters I blame, so I don't go on about it much; there's what seems like an entire industry built around defending non-gentiles, however. And as I pointed out above (Indian tribal warfare analogy), I consider non-gentiles a necessary factor in our ongoing destruction.
I'll leave it with a quote:
Shiksa: Biblical Roots of Racism
by John Hartung
In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely sympathetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them. It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.
Lol, nice loling.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, it remains true that you've been complaining about treating people as members of a group on this thread. For instance:
It's unfair to assign the words and actions of each Jew to all other jews and use this as a basis to conclude that jews in general are hypocritical.
And several other instances.
But it seems that it is not unfair to claim that Jews in general are "special". How does that work?
@ buy Kevin MacDonald's work, and get to searching the Web, and find everything they need to know, shyster-talk aside.” –Svigor, way above
ReplyDeleteIf you can’t buy MacDonald’s work, at least read his Preface to the most important book of his trilogy.
"Accepting that non-gentiles are influenced by non-gentile religion "
ReplyDeleteUmm, that's not the point which I was responding to. Nice strawmanning though.
"I don't doubt you misunderstood my very simple illustration, you seem to have a knack."
If the best you can do is ad homenims, maybe it's time to fold up your tent.
"Oh brother. Why not just acknowledge I eviscerated your point, and move on?"
Lol, I guess that means you have no good answer for my question.
"Furthermore, it's stupid to treat your adversary 'fairly' when he doesn't reciprocate."
So feel free to go ahead and make unfair arguments for pragmatic reasons. And I will feel free to point it out. Unless you admit it first, which you are apparently doing.
"But it seems that it is not unfair to claim that Jews in general are 'special'."
ReplyDeleteWhy would you think that? Perhaps it's completely unfair.
But if we assume for the sake of argument that Jews are special -- and unfairly so -- it doesn't change the fact that it's unfair to hold each and every Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew.
Why would you think that? Perhaps it's completely unfair
ReplyDeleteIs your counter-argument really "Yes, I'm being unfair to Jews myself when I say that they are special"?
it's unfair to hold each and every Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew.
You're still beating that strawman to death? Cite the person on this thread saying "it's fair to hold each and every Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew". Or else stop repeating that particular bit of nonsense.
"Is your counter-argument really "Yes, I'm being unfair to Jews myself when I say that they are special"?"
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't. My argument is what I said, nothing more and nothing less.
"Cite the person on this thread saying 'it's fair to hold each and every Jew responsible for the actions and views of every other Jew'."
Are you demanding that exact quote? Or will it suffice to show that people implied it?
P.S. Here are a couple quotes:
ReplyDelete"And in fact that is precisely what orthodox Jewish law holds."
"So, all non-genites have to do is compartmentalize, and they can get away with anything they want as a group"
"Oh yeah? All white Americans are discriminated against, as a group, by the various policies known as affirmative action. For no other reason than being racially akin to a few long dead people who held as slaves some other long dead people. In fact, it is illegal not to discriminate against whites for being white in the USA. Jews, blacks, and mestizos love to assign collective guilt to all whites, but they themselves can only be considered as individuals."
Jews tend to see most of the religious right (meaning Christian right) as potential Nazi brownshirts. This is a widespread feeling the primary source of their visceral hate, most of them, for the Christian right. Neocons distance themselves as well.
Jews remember the Klu Klux Klan marching against blacks, Catholics and Jews in the 1920s, culminating in the massive Klan march on Washington in 1924. The remember the Klan and protestant religious white push in the 1920s to limit immigration and make it proportional to the groups already citizens. They feel the failure of the US to take in vast numbers of Jewish émigrés in the 1930s was a vast moral failing of the US. I’m not Jewish but I’ve swum in lots of heavily Jewish circles since high school.
I think it’s very real that many Jewish leaders want to further dilute the white (non Jewish) majority in the US into a minority, yes. Yes indeed. In the media, hysterically opposed to the moderate Arizona law, Jews are very heavily represented and it’s often unwise to cross Jewish colleagues on an issue they feel passionately about, such as nearly open immigration. Charges of racism are thrown about at the drop of a hat over perfectly legitimate concerns, such as that of white cultural and political dilution, or the uneducated low IQ nature of most of our illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants, unto the third and fourth generation and beyond. Latinos graduate high school at a lower rate than blacks in the third and later generation here.
One of the main problems with this, and part of why Jews have this enormously outsized influence on issues they’re passionate about (given that they’re 3% of the population), is that it’s utterly taboo to criticize Jews when the act or opine in their own group self interest, relative to others, particularly that of non Jewish whites. That’s screamed at as making the criticizer a vile anti-Semite.