The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Filial Piety
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Foreign Policy:

The Trump Administration Wants Refugees to Fit In or Stay Out

An obscure new policy would give priority to refugees who seem like they might “assimilate.”

BY LAUREN WOLFE OCTOBER 12, 2017

Out in New York Harbor in 1903, the bronze plaque with Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus” was affixed to the Statue of Liberty. It’s the one that begins: “Give me your tired, your poor…” Her poem went on to welcome 5,000 to 10,000 immigrants every day between 1900 and 1914. About 40 percent of Americans are now descended from someone who came through Ellis Island. My great-grandfather was one of them.

His name was Avram. The year the plaque was being installed inside the Statue of Liberty, Avram was living in a place called Bessarabia, then part of tsarist Russia, now mostly in Moldova. Pogroms were ravaging cities across the region. That year, Avram and his wife, Dora, set sail with their son, my grandfather Joseph, aged four.

The family settled on New York’s Lower East Side, where Avram learned English but spoke his native Yiddish at home, reading a Yiddish-language newspaper each night. He didn’t arrive with much money; he did piecework making zippers for a while and went on to become very active in the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union — a feminist labor organizer ahead of his time. He spent the rest of his life in America, dying in Brooklyn in 1954.

Yet under a new presidential determination from the White House, future Avrams may never have the chance to come to the United States. According to both international and U.S. refugee law, people like my great-grandfather have for decades been candidates for refugee resettlement based solely on their well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries. Their ability to “assimilate” — learn English and embrace the customs of the United States — had no bearing on their asylum applications. That, however, may be about to change: Buried inside the 65-page Sept. 27 directive that also capped the number of refugees to be resettled in the United States next year at 45,000, the lowest since the White House began setting a limit in 1980, there is vague, disconcerting language that lawyers and immigration experts say they have never seen before in reference to refugees in this country.

The Trump administration may now consider “certain criteria that enhance a refugee’s likelihood of successful assimilation and contribution in the United States” in addition to the humanitarian criteria that have long been the standard for refugee claims, according to the determination, which is similar to an executive order in that it has the force of law. That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. …

Lauren Wolfe is a journalist and director of Women Under Siege, a journalism project on sexualized violence based at the Women’s Media Center in New York.

 
Hide 186 CommentsLeave a Comment
186 Comments to "Filial Piety"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram, give or take 30 IQ points. Oh, and Alejandro and Abdul like Jews a whole lot less than Avram did. Other than that, they are EXACTLY the same thing so we should let in a lot of them in order to make up for not letting in more Avrams after 1924 and especially after 1933.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    The Jews are punching far above their weight in California politics, which is seen as the path the rest of our country will be forced into following. I don't think they worry about a future Latin-Muslim government introducing quotas or putting an embargo on Israel.

    Avram appears to have been a leftist, which this country never needed. He and his descendants would have been better off in Ottoman Palestine.
    , @International Jew
    Also, Alejandro and Abdul already likely live in a country run by their co-ethnics. And if not, or if somehow they fall out with their local co-ethnics, they can choose from over a dozen other countries also run by their co-ethnics.

    Avram had zero such countries to choose from; the State of Israel was still forty years in the future.
    , @res
    Jack, I appreciate your biting humor here (and agree), but the post-1933 narrative really needs some scrutiny.

    The US pulled its weight for allowing Jewish immigration post-1933. From https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468

    By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.
     
    1939 was the first year the allowed quota was actually filled:

    1939 also marked the first time the United States filled its combined German-Austrian quota (which now included annexed Czechoslovakia). However, this limit did not come close to meeting the demand; by the end of June 1939, 309,000 German, Austrian, and Czech Jews had applied for the 27,000 places available under the quota.
     
    Clearly there was a problem in 1939, but lumping in 1933-1938 seems unfair. It is not the fault of the US that so many Jews chose to wait until 1939. In hindsight I would have handled 1939 differently, but hindsight is 20/20.

    And this was not just about Jews. Post-1931 immigration was low across the board (the US was in or attempting to emerge from the Great Depression): https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents

    More detail at https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008297
    The "Key Facts" seem very biased to me, but the rest of it is more balanced.

    Still more at https://www.ushmm.org/exhibition/st-louis/teach/supread2.htm
    There is much discussion of how restrictive the requirement of immigrants being able to support themselves was, but I see no data for the number of immigration applications which would help clarify how important that was in reality (it is the only thing that seems to matter in the rhetoric though).

    I would appreciate more data on 1933-1938 applications/immigrants. The 1939 numbers are always mentioned, but I have had little luck finding good numbers for the earlier period (which fills me with skepticism about the narrative).
    , @AnotherDad

    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram ...
     
    Actually it's quite clear from Ms. Wolfe's screed that even taking in Avram was mistake.

    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group--much less a nation--loyalty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The poem was completely ignored for decades. According to Google’s ngram book archive, 1951 is the first year the phrase “give me your tired” is found in book form. The poem took off in popularity after Ellis Island closed in 1954.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Russia was behind the "Give me your tired, your poor."

    Emma Lazarus initially was not interested in the project of collecting money for the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty or with the Statue of Liberty. Somebody got to her and pointed out that it might be good a thing for the Jews in Russia and their emigration form Russia which was her pet project at that time. So she submitted the poem.
    , @Cucksworth
    Its amazing that so many people treat that poem as if it is a piece of legislation that elected officials wrote and ratified.
    , @Lurker
    "Give me your Triad."

    Of course we don't hear much about Chinese gangsters these days.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Why were the Pogrom’s ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Interesting that Avram’s great-granddaughter is agitating to destroy the very country that took her ancestors in. Her lack of self-awareness is quite ironic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It reminds me of how (((Rachel Shabi))) and (((Barbara Roche))) glossed over the Roman, Norman, etc. invasions as part of Britain's "migration" history. So are we supposed to see Pakistani immigration as like an invasion?

    When Wolfe writes


    “Improved assimilation of refugees and asylees will not only boost their ability to be successful in the United States, but will also secure our communities by fostering a cohesive society based upon shared civic ideals, and appreciation of our history, and an understanding of the English language,” reads one particularly troubling sentence.
     
    she's bristling at the idea that "future Avrams" be expected not to muddle "shared civic ideals", and split apart "our history".

    Are we therefore supposed to think that Grandpa Avram and his progeny flouted expectations that they share our ideas and history?

    , @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?
    , @Samuel Skinner
    The Czar was big on Russification and Jews were one of the subject nationalities that stuck up like sore thumbs. To a hammer, everything looks like nails.

    They weren't the only ones who had issues. Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire and Nicholas the 2nd started eliminating their freedom. Look up Years of Oppression (sortovuodet) if you want to know the details.

    There was also clamp downs on ethnicities in other parts of the empire; for example, the Caucasus Viceroyalty was eliminated and other measures (such as banning the use of the word Georgia in newspapers) were enacted.

    The United States has many Poles; you can ask them about how people remembered the Russian Empire. It was the kind of empire where the only thing worse then its rule was its absence.
    , @biz

    Why were the Pogrom’s (sic) ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.
     
    Because the Cossacks liked to kill Jews and other minority populations?

    Or why don't you tell me your explanation.
    , @Frau Katze
    I still can't figure out how these people continue to think that mass immigration with few checks can yield a positive outcome. It's certainly not just Jews either.

    Yesterday, there was a story of an idiotic Canadian who decided to move himself and his family to Afghanistan.

    Of course that was a disaster, with him saying the Taliban raped his wife and killed his youngest daughter.

    An Afghan government spokesman stated that while they could not confirm his story it was perfectly plausible. The Taliban are vicious.

    I looked at travel advisories offered by the Canadian government. A sortable list was quite interesting.

    Afghanistan was "Avoid completely." I suspect it's been that way for years.

    But what I noticed was that certain European countries were not in the most safe category ("use reasonable precautions") .

    Belgium, for example, was deemed more dangerous than Belarus, which is governed by a dictator. The UK and France were in same category as Belgium.

    I can only assume this is due to the numerous attacks of Islamic terrorists in these countries.

    It's staggering to me that with all this information available (I just mention examples) some people are still pushing for more Muslims. Don't they at least read the news headlines?

    They are ignorant or stupid or what?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Out in New York Harbor in 1903, the bronze plaque with Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus” was affixed to the Statue of Liberty.

    What is she talking about? The poem isn’t affixed to any stupid statue, its affixed (more technical term is amended) to the U.S. Consti-freaking-tution. I know, I visited Washington for the Pussy March, it’s in a hermetically sealed case right next to the Reverend Dr. King’s I-have-a-dream Affirmative Action Amendment.

    Her poem went on to welcome 5,000 to 10,000 immigrants every day between 1900 and 1914.

    But Emma’s poem didn’t greet Avram, it was exclusionary and not inclusive … he couldn’t read English. Lauren should learn herself some herstory.

    Also, unless Lady Liberty is a lesbian, shouldn’t a white Becky statue be torn down? I mean she has a profile like (back in the day) Candice Bergen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Jews tend to congregate where there is money to be made and that is not a fault. It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.

    Jews did not rush into America when it was still a largely agrarian nation and land was cheap or even, after 1862, free to those willing to settle on a plot under the Homestead Act. Being a ‘sodbuster’ on the prairie and facing the danger of Indian attack ( quite a bit more vicious than a pogrom I might add) was not going to entice Avram from his Bessarabian village.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.
     
    Actually, it is very much a coincidence that that is when large-scale Jewish emigration out of Russia began. Things turned bad in Russia, for the Jews, starting in 1881. That was the year Czar Alexander II was assassinated. It was also the year in which the Zionist movement (not yet called that) began.

    Of course it's not a coincidence those Jews chose to come to America, rather than, say, to west Africa. America was a more promising place. But it was that for the (non-Jewish) Italians, Poles, Serbs, Hungarians and all the others too.

    , @unpc downunder
    True, not many Jews in small western countries where there are few big cities and it is difficult to make money by setting up a small business. Jews and East Asians tend to be a lot richer in the US where there are more opportunities for the small businessmen. In Australia and New Zealand, the unemployment for East Asians is actually higher than it is for whites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. What is this “assimilation” of which you speak? You’re being positively *obscure*.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. I don’t recall, when I studied law, poems being persuasive authority, much less binding authority. Someone needs to take an angle grinder to that damned plaque.

    Read More
    • Agree: Corn
    • Replies: @Steve from Detroit
    You must have slept through Con Law II (or First Amendment). We studied the Poem Doctrine after Penumbras but before Preemption. The quaint doctrine of precedent or binding authority is clearly an anachronism.

    I have come to the conclusion that whatever the judge (or more likely his clerk) says, is law, and it's best to simply move on to your next case.

    OK, back to trial prep.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Improved assimilation of refugees and asylees will not only boost their ability to be successful in the United States, but will also secure our communities by fostering a cohesive society based upon shared civic ideals, and appreciation of our history, and an understanding of the English language,” reads one particularly troubling sentence.

    Are Wolfe et al. trying to **** us up or something?

    If only there was a term for what they’re doing…

    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. “Assimilation,” in contrast, “is kind of the erasure of cultural markers,”

    There is! “Cultural erasure”!

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. 'Assimilation,' in contrast, 'is kind of the erasure of cultural markers"

    Here's the simple Who/Whom. They want to drown out the culture of Legacy America. If we can't send people back or stop them from coming in, we'll settle for making them neo-Americans, which means erasing their old culture in part or wholly. It's Us or Them. Barring the break-up of the U.S. and a new system of segregation, there can only be one winner.


    By the way, "erasure of cultural markers?" Is there a boringer way to put what is an inherently dramatic undertaking?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees

    Also relatively ‘new’ — and now very obvious –is the fact the refugee and asylum programs have turned into huge institutional scams that are flooding the first world with a never-ending stream of 3rd world flotsam from countries and regions that will always be poor and unstable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jjbees
    Why were the Pogrom's ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Interesting that Avram's great-granddaughter is agitating to destroy the very country that took her ancestors in. Her lack of self-awareness is quite ironic.

    It reminds me of how (((Rachel Shabi))) and (((Barbara Roche))) glossed over the Roman, Norman, etc. invasions as part of Britain’s “migration” history. So are we supposed to see Pakistani immigration as like an invasion?

    When Wolfe writes

    “Improved assimilation of refugees and asylees will not only boost their ability to be successful in the United States, but will also secure our communities by fostering a cohesive society based upon shared civic ideals, and appreciation of our history, and an understanding of the English language,” reads one particularly troubling sentence.

    she’s bristling at the idea that “future Avrams” be expected not to muddle “shared civic ideals”, and split apart “our history”.

    Are we therefore supposed to think that Grandpa Avram and his progeny flouted expectations that they share our ideas and history?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Anonymous

    “Improved assimilation of refugees and asylees will not only boost their ability to be successful in the United States, but will also secure our communities by fostering a cohesive society based upon shared civic ideals, and appreciation of our history, and an understanding of the English language,” reads one particularly troubling sentence.
     
    Are Wolfe et al. trying to **** us up or something?

    If only there was a term for what they're doing...

    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. “Assimilation,” in contrast, “is kind of the erasure of cultural markers,”
     
    There is! "Cultural erasure"!

    “implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. ‘Assimilation,’ in contrast, ‘is kind of the erasure of cultural markers”

    Here’s the simple Who/Whom. They want to drown out the culture of Legacy America. If we can’t send people back or stop them from coming in, we’ll settle for making them neo-Americans, which means erasing their old culture in part or wholly. It’s Us or Them. Barring the break-up of the U.S. and a new system of segregation, there can only be one winner.

    By the way, “erasure of cultural markers?” Is there a boringer way to put what is an inherently dramatic undertaking?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    My take exactly, guest.

    The whole paragraph raised my "hackles", particularly the final sentence you quote.

    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.
     
    "Assimilation" might be "new"--different than the last 20 years worth of refugee documentation--in refugee paperwork. The whole refugee scam is a post-War creation. But "assimilation" was pretty much the guiding principle and expectation of all pre-1965 immigration to the US--including for folks like Grandpa Avram. The US was societally committed--governmentally, culturally, socially--including institutions now in open rebellion, like the schools--to beating immigrants into Americans. You speak English--explicitly get your children to speak like natives--pledge allegiance and think of yourself as an American. If you didn't ... Americans were rightly suspicious of you and your foreignness.

    And that last sentence really sums it up. (For the Jews are here who complain that Sailer just keeps picking on these Jewish commentators who are just random examples spouting contemporary elite dogma who happen to be Jewish ... just roll it around in your mouth and contemplate how it tastes.)

    Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.
     
    Sorry, but "no". Our society--any society--bears absolutely *no* responsibly either to take anyone else in, nor especially to make any sort of change to accommodate them. If you want to go live someplace else--and are lucky enough to find someone to accept you--you, not the natives are the person who must change, adapt and assimilate to whatever extent the natives demand. It is theirnation, not yours.

    Wolfe's idea that random people are entitled to come to the US and we must change to accommodate them is essentially the ideology of Jewish minoritarianism. Minorities are entitled to go anywhere and be accepted, natives and majorities must accommodate them. It is a fundamentally looney ideology with no basis in either any plausible moral framework nor in the actual normal behavior of humans throughout history.

    Whiny, hostile and disloyal. A marvelous package.
    , @MBlanc46
    Break-up of the US. It’s the only hope for “legacy Americans”.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Jack D
    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram, give or take 30 IQ points. Oh, and Alejandro and Abdul like Jews a whole lot less than Avram did. Other than that, they are EXACTLY the same thing so we should let in a lot of them in order to make up for not letting in more Avrams after 1924 and especially after 1933.

    The Jews are punching far above their weight in California politics, which is seen as the path the rest of our country will be forced into following. I don’t think they worry about a future Latin-Muslim government introducing quotas or putting an embargo on Israel.

    Avram appears to have been a leftist, which this country never needed. He and his descendants would have been better off in Ottoman Palestine.

    Read More
    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Alden
    Read Super Mob by Gus Russo to find out how they did it.
    , @Alden
    Here is an excellent account of how mostly jumped up Chicago West Side Jews turned the State of CAlifornia from reliable Republican to Democrat. The Father of the present looney left old codger Governor was one of their proteges.

    "Super Mob" by Gus Russo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The whole point of Ellis Island was to prevent people from reaching the mainland BEFORE the government determined whether or not they were wanted. Not everyone who reached Ellis Island made it to the mainland. Some were actually sent back. Maybe the immigration officers were not confident in their abilities to assimilate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Don’t send us your strong, capable or promising. We don’t want any more Einsteins, Kandinskys or Solzhenytsyns… not even any googley Sergei Brins…

    Not wretched enough.

    Just like the statue says, it’s your tired, your lame, your imbeciles that we’d prefer instead…

    Send us your sick, your cripples and your mentally ill whose evil spirits weren’t successfully exorcised by your traditional hyena therapy. Sure we don’t have enough resources to care adequately for the health of all our fellow American citizens, but it would be discriminatory… downright racist if we were to strive to provide care for them before finishing healing the world and all its sickness and misery.

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don’t want any of them. Too much promise and potential. Send instead your failed pirates, aspiring junior terrorists, war criminals and soldiers fleeing conscription or the battlefield. They can be Uber drivers until the bots take their jobs next year. Also please give us your ordinary career criminals and schemers fleeing prosecution by the cruel justice of your backward cultures. They should be entrepreneurial enough to keep themselves busy and make their own opportunities… We also especially want your America hating revolutionary activists and agitators, religious extremists, assorted trouble-makers, rabble rousers and other loud-mouthed ne’er-do-wells whom we need to remind us what an awful oppressive racist people our nation is and to help bring the change to finally replace the racist whitemale hegemony and purge their memory and culture. Finally send all your spongers, moochers and layabouts. They can look forward to a comfortable retirement no matter how young or old they are with free housing, food and health care. And after each time they’ve trashed or otherwise torn apart the home they’ve been provided with their squalid third world lifestyles, they’ll be furnished with new accommodations worthy of their privileged position in American society. All they need to do is be loyal voting clientele for the party in perpetual power… and the goodies will keep flowing.

    Some Americans say we aren’t allowed to exercise discretion or discriminate in favor of what might benefit our nation and people. On the contrary, we do discriminate. The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I honestly don't want more Kandinskies. They can send their "art" over for us to gawk at if they feel like it. Nothing stopping them.
    , @Joe Walker
    The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it

    Actually the more wretched the refuse, the more the Jews want it.
    , @MBlanc46
    Ah, the “New New Collossus”.
    , @Intelligent Dasein

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don’t want any of them.
     
    Damn straight, I don't. It needs to be said over and over again that we do not need high-skilled/high-wage immigrants any more than we need the wretched refuse. We do not need cunning jackals and fraudsters from the Third World putting downward wage pressure on our own professional class. America needs to exist solely for the benefit of the White race. It is not some gigantic vo-tech academy where we invite the talented tenth from around the world to come achieve their "promise and potential." Immigration needs to stop, period. No exemptions, no exceptions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Everyone on earth is potentially someone’s great-grandfather (or -mother). For the sake of their potential great-granddaughters, we must get everyone on Earth into the United States. And quick, too–while there’s still time!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. I was kinda curious about the author- she’s Lauren Wolfe of Wesleyan ’97, not Lauren Wolfe of Smith ’05 (Michigan Superdelegate 08, President of College Democrats 06-08).

    She necessarily reports a lot about people from all sorts of fascinating, diverse cultures as she heads up Women Under Siege. People who do things like this:

    About a week before we spoke Lauren wrote about a Congolese militia that terrorized a small town in the eastern part of the country by systematically raping babies and toddlers.

    I should hope everyone would agree that neither deportation nor assimilation would be the correct way of dealing with this cultural tradition, but certain Europeans have responded to this sort of thing with inaction instead of the obvious and healthy response.

    Wolfe is the head of Women Under Siege Project, which is a branch of the Women’s Media Center, founded by Jane Fonda (Gentile?), Robin Morgan (Wicca practicing anti-Judaism Jew) and Gloria Steinhem (Jew) if we want to continue the discussion on the transition of WASP Feminism to Jewish Feminism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tyrone
    let's just say there are packs of lauren wolves, weiners and weinsteins , god help us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. The “scare quote” surrounding “assimilate” are “precious” – as though the word and the very concept are some strange, dubious idea akin to phlogiston or bilious humours, and familiar spirits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Steve, here’s a question for you and your readers.

    Do you think that the “filial piety” reason for justifying immigration might be essentially fake? A rationalization for what is at its core a kind of fetish for cosmopolitanism?

    Does elite journalist Lauren Wolfe really care about great-grandfather Avram, his ways and his mores? Or is this just a way to sell open borders to non-elites who feel genuine filial piety?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Most people in human history have taken pride in their ancestors. In a variety of ways, we seem to be going back to older ways of doing things. Valorizing one's ancestors and wishing to avenge their slights seems a pretty normal human thing to do.
    , @Cagey Beast
    For many or most of them, destroying the work of our forefathers is being loyal to their forefathers. This same cultural instinct showed up in the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago:

    Aug. 11, 2003
    Gay gesunderheit

    Canadian gay crusaders win the right for same sex marriages
    [...]
    "From a Jewish perspective, being the grandchildren of penniless [Eastern European] immigrants, I think Michael and I were immigrants at a time when being gay was symbolically crossing an ocean," Leshner observed. "My grandparents taught me never to run with Cossacks, and this was a modern day Cossack story."

    Calling homophobia a "post-modern anti-Semitism," Leshner noted Jews weren't innocent from this irrational pathology. "But to their credit they weren't the obstacle that the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant churches proved to be. By and large, Jews didn't have the stomach for a cultural war against gays and lesbians."

    Leshner termed his union with Stark just another form of intermarriage. His own mother, today 90, was present at the nuptials and sang Canada's national anthem at the ceremony, he added. By contrast, four decades ago she had bitterly fought her eldest son from marrying a non-Jewish woman.

    "She learned that love trumps religion in almost every case," Leshner smiled.
     

    http://www.gilzohar.ca/articles/canada/c2003-1.html

    Added to the usual Old World hatreds is the religious obligation laid out in their Alienu prayer:


    We must praise the master of all,
    and render greatness to the creator of the universe,
    Who did not make us like the nations of the lands,
    and did not place us like the families of the earth,
    Who did not make our lot like theirs,
    or our destiny like all of them,
    For they bow down to nothingness and emptiness,
    and pray to a god that will not save
    ,
     
    https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Aleynu.htm or:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleinu

    The section I italicised is "problematic". What the heirs of this Ashkenazi Jewish tradition choose to do with it is their business, not mine. There are hopeful signs they're becoming less hostile and toxic as the Jewish Century comes to a close but I honestly don't know what the future holds for them and us. I just advise my fellow Gentiles to practice Jew-diligence going forward.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. I can scarcely describe my disgust towards leftists, especially of the tribal variety. Why should society be required to change for immigrants? Why shouldn’t the burden be entirely on immigrants to assimilate, not counting the effort that should be made by society to help immigrants assimilate successfully? Or are we just quibbling over terminology? Do efforts to help immigrants assimilate count as the “change on the part of society” that skypes like Wolfe desire?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    See, it's comments such as this that put you on the review list.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I agree. Immigrants are attracted to a particular country for a reason but then they want to change the host country to suit themselves. Seems to be defeating the purposes of moving there in the first place.

    If I moved to, say, Thailand, it would never dawn on me to complain about public expressions of Theraveda Buddhism, the dominant faith of Thailand. Most of the population is Theraveda Buddhist and it's their country. In fact, I would be grateful that they allowed me to reside there. But that's just me.

    Conservatives complain about atheists driving out public expressions of Christianity, ranging from saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to creches on public property, etc. The atheists were/are following a path first trodden by the Jews.
    , @Dube
    The admired lines by Emma Lazarus do not stand as high as this elevated prose: "...this government of the people, by the people, and for the people...," expressing the principle that the people ARE the government. We forget this too often, and speak of the delegated administration as "the government." And so, if the people are the government, and the government is expected to act judiciously, then more than refugee status is necessary for participation, and there is a burden on the part of the arrivals to prepare for participation. If the government of, by, and for the people chooses to reach out to assist the arrivals for participation, that may be a wise choice. But it is a choice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @IHTG
    Steve, here's a question for you and your readers.

    Do you think that the "filial piety" reason for justifying immigration might be essentially fake? A rationalization for what is at its core a kind of fetish for cosmopolitanism?

    Does elite journalist Lauren Wolfe really care about great-grandfather Avram, his ways and his mores? Or is this just a way to sell open borders to non-elites who feel genuine filial piety?

    Most people in human history have taken pride in their ancestors. In a variety of ways, we seem to be going back to older ways of doing things. Valorizing one’s ancestors and wishing to avenge their slights seems a pretty normal human thing to do.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @IHTG
    I question the normality of these people.
    , @Joe Walker
    But when white gentiles do it we get labeled as "racists" and "anti-Semites".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Jack D
    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram, give or take 30 IQ points. Oh, and Alejandro and Abdul like Jews a whole lot less than Avram did. Other than that, they are EXACTLY the same thing so we should let in a lot of them in order to make up for not letting in more Avrams after 1924 and especially after 1933.

    Also, Alejandro and Abdul already likely live in a country run by their co-ethnics. And if not, or if somehow they fall out with their local co-ethnics, they can choose from over a dozen other countries also run by their co-ethnics.

    Avram had zero such countries to choose from; the State of Israel was still forty years in the future.

    Read More
    • Agree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Living in the Ottoman Empire would have been ethnically closer than living in New York. But the turn-of-the century US was too gullible in allowing in ungrateful subversives. Sharia suffers fewer fools.
    , @biz
    Yes, this is really the crux of the matter when comparing any supposed refugee population today to the Jews who fled either the Russian Empire, the Nazis, or even the Arab Nationalists and Islamists.

    Jews were a small, vulnerable minority with no political power in all of those cases. They had literally nowhere to go to be safe, other than to immigrate to a distant place. The same cannot be said for, for example, a present day Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, etc, Syrian who, no matter how dire his circumstances may be, only has to go a few hundred miles at most to find a relatively safe place where his sect is the dominant majority and in control.

    In Hondouras and El Salvador with their incredible levels of street violence, it is a tragedy for the people there, but again, almost everyone is part of the same ethno-cultural group and they are not targeted because of their minority status.

    These people's situations are just different than that of Jews in the first half of the 20th century.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @unit472
    Jews tend to congregate where there is money to be made and that is not a fault. It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.

    Jews did not rush into America when it was still a largely agrarian nation and land was cheap or even, after 1862, free to those willing to settle on a plot under the Homestead Act. Being a 'sodbuster' on the prairie and facing the danger of Indian attack ( quite a bit more vicious than a pogrom I might add) was not going to entice Avram from his Bessarabian village.

    It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.

    Actually, it is very much a coincidence that that is when large-scale Jewish emigration out of Russia began. Things turned bad in Russia, for the Jews, starting in 1881. That was the year Czar Alexander II was assassinated. It was also the year in which the Zionist movement (not yet called that) began.

    Of course it’s not a coincidence those Jews chose to come to America, rather than, say, to west Africa. America was a more promising place. But it was that for the (non-Jewish) Italians, Poles, Serbs, Hungarians and all the others too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    Of course it’s not a coincidence those Jews chose to come to America, rather than, say, to west Africa

    Ironically, many Jews today want to make the United States look like west Africa and South America.
    , @Art
    Lauren Wolfe is a journalist and director of Women Under Siege, a journalism project on sexualized violence based at the Women’s Media Center in New York

    Oh’ the irony – this Jewess is attacking Trump for trying to remake America into the same free country that her relatives gladly fled to.

    Meanwhile her culture has protected, with their silence, the epitome of tribal male Jewness - Harvey Weinstein who shows ZERO respect for women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Don't send us your strong, capable or promising. We don't want any more Einsteins, Kandinskys or Solzhenytsyns... not even any googley Sergei Brins...

    Not wretched enough.

    Just like the statue says, it's your tired, your lame, your imbeciles that we'd prefer instead...

    Send us your sick, your cripples and your mentally ill whose evil spirits weren't successfully exorcised by your traditional hyena therapy. Sure we don't have enough resources to care adequately for the health of all our fellow American citizens, but it would be discriminatory... downright racist if we were to strive to provide care for them before finishing healing the world and all its sickness and misery.

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don't want any of them. Too much promise and potential. Send instead your failed pirates, aspiring junior terrorists, war criminals and soldiers fleeing conscription or the battlefield. They can be Uber drivers until the bots take their jobs next year. Also please give us your ordinary career criminals and schemers fleeing prosecution by the cruel justice of your backward cultures. They should be entrepreneurial enough to keep themselves busy and make their own opportunities... We also especially want your America hating revolutionary activists and agitators, religious extremists, assorted trouble-makers, rabble rousers and other loud-mouthed ne'er-do-wells whom we need to remind us what an awful oppressive racist people our nation is and to help bring the change to finally replace the racist whitemale hegemony and purge their memory and culture. Finally send all your spongers, moochers and layabouts. They can look forward to a comfortable retirement no matter how young or old they are with free housing, food and health care. And after each time they've trashed or otherwise torn apart the home they've been provided with their squalid third world lifestyles, they'll be furnished with new accommodations worthy of their privileged position in American society. All they need to do is be loyal voting clientele for the party in perpetual power... and the goodies will keep flowing.

    Some Americans say we aren't allowed to exercise discretion or discriminate in favor of what might benefit our nation and people. On the contrary, we do discriminate. The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it.

    I honestly don’t want more Kandinskies. They can send their “art” over for us to gawk at if they feel like it. Nothing stopping them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @jjbees
    Why were the Pogrom's ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Interesting that Avram's great-granddaughter is agitating to destroy the very country that took her ancestors in. Her lack of self-awareness is quite ironic.

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Are you trying to justify the very real subversion that your people were doing in the Russian Empire?

    Does the name Jacob Schiff ring a bell?
    , @nigel
    "Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?"

    Thank you for braving the anti-Semitism on these boards to provide a voice of reason. I don't understand why more people can't just accept the simple, one-sided explanations taught in history class and move on.
    , @Chris Mallory

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    The first is smart politics. The second is the truth.
    , @Joe Walker
    Wrong. The Jews were hated because (a) they were a Middle Eastern population that had no business being in Europe and (b) they often engaged in anti-social behaviors such as swindling native Europeans.
    , @Luke Lea

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?
     

    It is useful to keep in mind something that surprised me at least: pogroms were a more limited phenomenon than is generally reported. There were only a few hundred fatalities in total according to Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism. Most Ashkenazis emigrated to the United States in search of economic opportunity; they were fleeing poverty not religious persecution, which made a lot of sense in view of the enormous Jewish population explosion that took place in Eastern Europe during the 19th century. Traditional Jewish occupational opportunities were far too few to accommodate everyone who needed a job. The foundations of American prosperity had already been laid, making it truly a land of opportunity.

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!

    , @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Steve Sailer
    Most people in human history have taken pride in their ancestors. In a variety of ways, we seem to be going back to older ways of doing things. Valorizing one's ancestors and wishing to avenge their slights seems a pretty normal human thing to do.

    I question the normality of these people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    I question the normality of these people.
     
    Which people? The ones who hate their relatives or the ones who have some pride in them?

    Both attitudes have horrible extremes and one can lean in one direction or the other and be healthy.

    However, as a cultural practice, assuming your ancestors were pond scum is clearly suicidal.

    There are connections between the dead and the infants yet to be born. The attempt to sever the connection because your relatives are embarrassing, insane, or criminal (or all three), is both futile and damaging.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @AndrewR
    I can scarcely describe my disgust towards leftists, especially of the tribal variety. Why should society be required to change for immigrants? Why shouldn't the burden be entirely on immigrants to assimilate, not counting the effort that should be made by society to help immigrants assimilate successfully? Or are we just quibbling over terminology? Do efforts to help immigrants assimilate count as the "change on the part of society" that skypes like Wolfe desire?

    See, it’s comments such as this that put you on the review list.

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I was never off it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    Are you trying to justify the very real subversion that your people were doing in the Russian Empire?

    Does the name Jacob Schiff ring a bell?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @International Jew
    Also, Alejandro and Abdul already likely live in a country run by their co-ethnics. And if not, or if somehow they fall out with their local co-ethnics, they can choose from over a dozen other countries also run by their co-ethnics.

    Avram had zero such countries to choose from; the State of Israel was still forty years in the future.

    Living in the Ottoman Empire would have been ethnically closer than living in New York. But the turn-of-the century US was too gullible in allowing in ungrateful subversives. Sharia suffers fewer fools.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @anonymous
    The poem was completely ignored for decades. According to Google's ngram book archive, 1951 is the first year the phrase "give me your tired" is found in book form. The poem took off in popularity after Ellis Island closed in 1954.

    Russia was behind the “Give me your tired, your poor.”

    Emma Lazarus initially was not interested in the project of collecting money for the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty or with the Statue of Liberty. Somebody got to her and pointed out that it might be good a thing for the Jews in Russia and their emigration form Russia which was her pet project at that time. So she submitted the poem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @eah
    brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees

    Also relatively 'new' -- and now very obvious --is the fact the refugee and asylum programs have turned into huge institutional scams that are flooding the first world with a never-ending stream of 3rd world flotsam from countries and regions that will always be poor and unstable.
    Read More
    • Replies: @AM
    That picture is the reason why Germans are best as toy makers, clock makers, engineers and chemists and really should stay away from theology and world domination schemes.

    They must develop the patience of saints just to live with themselves.
    , @eah
    They lost (at home) 0 - 2 -- "LOL"

    Hertha Berlin's players and officials "took a knee" to show their support for "an open-minded world" before their 2-0 loss against Schalke on Saturday.

    http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/1793B/production/_98317569_hertha_epa.jpg
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    I also get the point. Germans (and Westerners generally) need to start making their own stuff again.

    First the elites sell all our industries abroad, and then they say, "See, without globalism you wouldn't have anything." Then they use the supposed economic indispensability of foreigners as an argument for letting in as many of them as possible.
    , @Romanian
    It would be funny to see this comparison taken to its logical conclusion. Which kind of goods end up in the store? The kind which are useful or desirable and which sell. The ones that do not sell do not get future orders, the unsold stock is destroyed or returned for destruction, displeased buyers have plenty of recourse against the store or the manufacturer. Heaven! Maybe immigrants would be in the cigarette sections with the big European-style warning pictures on the packets with all the horribleness resulting from immigration, like terror, poverty and conflict.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Avram, escapes “persecution” merited or otherwise, then ends up shit-stirring and “organising” left-wing union activities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    “Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?”

    Thank you for braving the anti-Semitism on these boards to provide a voice of reason. I don’t understand why more people can’t just accept the simple, one-sided explanations taught in history class and move on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Cutting the US population by 40% would be a good thing. We were a better nation with 100 million people than we are today. They all have to go back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    The first is smart politics. The second is the truth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @IHTG
    Steve, here's a question for you and your readers.

    Do you think that the "filial piety" reason for justifying immigration might be essentially fake? A rationalization for what is at its core a kind of fetish for cosmopolitanism?

    Does elite journalist Lauren Wolfe really care about great-grandfather Avram, his ways and his mores? Or is this just a way to sell open borders to non-elites who feel genuine filial piety?

    For many or most of them, destroying the work of our forefathers is being loyal to their forefathers. This same cultural instinct showed up in the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago:

    Aug. 11, 2003
    Gay gesunderheit

    Canadian gay crusaders win the right for same sex marriages
    [...]
    “From a Jewish perspective, being the grandchildren of penniless [Eastern European] immigrants, I think Michael and I were immigrants at a time when being gay was symbolically crossing an ocean,” Leshner observed. “My grandparents taught me never to run with Cossacks, and this was a modern day Cossack story.”

    Calling homophobia a “post-modern anti-Semitism,” Leshner noted Jews weren’t innocent from this irrational pathology. “But to their credit they weren’t the obstacle that the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant churches proved to be. By and large, Jews didn’t have the stomach for a cultural war against gays and lesbians.”

    Leshner termed his union with Stark just another form of intermarriage. His own mother, today 90, was present at the nuptials and sang Canada’s national anthem at the ceremony, he added. By contrast, four decades ago she had bitterly fought her eldest son from marrying a non-Jewish woman.

    “She learned that love trumps religion in almost every case,” Leshner smiled.

    http://www.gilzohar.ca/articles/canada/c2003-1.html

    Added to the usual Old World hatreds is the religious obligation laid out in their Alienu prayer:

    We must praise the master of all,
    and render greatness to the creator of the universe,
    Who did not make us like the nations of the lands,
    and did not place us like the families of the earth,
    Who did not make our lot like theirs,
    or our destiny like all of them,
    For they bow down to nothingness and emptiness,
    and pray to a god that will not save
    ,

    https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Aleynu.htm or:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleinu

    The section I italicised is “problematic”. What the heirs of this Ashkenazi Jewish tradition choose to do with it is their business, not mine. There are hopeful signs they’re becoming less hostile and toxic as the Jewish Century comes to a close but I honestly don’t know what the future holds for them and us. I just advise my fellow Gentiles to practice Jew-diligence going forward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG

    I honestly don’t know what the future holds for them and us
     
    Probably not much. If mass antisemitism couldn't take off in the 1960s, when Jews were pushing New Left radicalism and sympathizing with the Soviet Union while still marrying each other at 90% rates, it sure as hell isn't going to take off now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @AndrewR
    I can scarcely describe my disgust towards leftists, especially of the tribal variety. Why should society be required to change for immigrants? Why shouldn't the burden be entirely on immigrants to assimilate, not counting the effort that should be made by society to help immigrants assimilate successfully? Or are we just quibbling over terminology? Do efforts to help immigrants assimilate count as the "change on the part of society" that skypes like Wolfe desire?

    I agree. Immigrants are attracted to a particular country for a reason but then they want to change the host country to suit themselves. Seems to be defeating the purposes of moving there in the first place.

    If I moved to, say, Thailand, it would never dawn on me to complain about public expressions of Theraveda Buddhism, the dominant faith of Thailand. Most of the population is Theraveda Buddhist and it’s their country. In fact, I would be grateful that they allowed me to reside there. But that’s just me.

    Conservatives complain about atheists driving out public expressions of Christianity, ranging from saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” to creches on public property, etc. The atheists were/are following a path first trodden by the Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @The Alarmist
    I don't recall, when I studied law, poems being persuasive authority, much less binding authority. Someone needs to take an angle grinder to that damned plaque.

    You must have slept through Con Law II (or First Amendment). We studied the Poem Doctrine after Penumbras but before Preemption. The quaint doctrine of precedent or binding authority is clearly an anachronism.

    I have come to the conclusion that whatever the judge (or more likely his clerk) says, is law, and it’s best to simply move on to your next case.

    OK, back to trial prep.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    I studied in the UK ... they made a lot about having a Constitution without having a written Constitution. I just assumed that since they didn't include poetry in their common law tradition that that also applied to other common law systems. Now that I think of it, that Emma Lazarus monstrosity is barely poetry, if at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @anonymous
    The poem was completely ignored for decades. According to Google's ngram book archive, 1951 is the first year the phrase "give me your tired" is found in book form. The poem took off in popularity after Ellis Island closed in 1954.

    Its amazing that so many people treat that poem as if it is a piece of legislation that elected officials wrote and ratified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Its amazing that so many people treat that poem as if it is a piece of legislation that elected officials wrote and ratified.
     
    Wish I would have thought of that! You are an insight machine Watson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Assimilation is racism and has no place in the new diverse America.

    The old America of white norms and culture was a shitty place full of shitty people and needs to be destroyed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. “That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again.”

    And…your point is what Lauren? Lots of things are “brand-new” (but not “brand new”). Some are good, some are bad, some are neither good nor bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. The refugee resettlement racket must be stopped immediately. Refugees currently in the United States must be repatriated immediately.

    REFUGEE OVERLOAD is destroying the United States.

    REFUGEE OVERLOAD increases housing costs, lowers wages, swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals and causes sprawl.

    REFUGEE OVERLOAD brings infectious diseases to the United States, brings Islamic Terrorism to the United States, brings multicultural mayhem to the United States and brings Third World conflicts to the United States.

    REMOVE ALL REFUGEES FROM THE USA NOW!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @jjbees
    Why were the Pogrom's ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Interesting that Avram's great-granddaughter is agitating to destroy the very country that took her ancestors in. Her lack of self-awareness is quite ironic.

    The Czar was big on Russification and Jews were one of the subject nationalities that stuck up like sore thumbs. To a hammer, everything looks like nails.

    They weren’t the only ones who had issues. Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire and Nicholas the 2nd started eliminating their freedom. Look up Years of Oppression (sortovuodet) if you want to know the details.

    There was also clamp downs on ethnicities in other parts of the empire; for example, the Caucasus Viceroyalty was eliminated and other measures (such as banning the use of the word Georgia in newspapers) were enacted.

    The United States has many Poles; you can ask them about how people remembered the Russian Empire. It was the kind of empire where the only thing worse then its rule was its absence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. America has always been about letting in people who hate America, so they can be angry that America hasn’t let in more people who hate America.

    Read More
    • LOL: Hibernian, Alden
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. Someone should work out what the procedure would be to take that fucking plaque down, melt it down and make it into a urinal bowl. See if Stephen Miller can slip it to Trump. It would have quite the salutary effect on the national consciousness at a low cost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Jack D
    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram, give or take 30 IQ points. Oh, and Alejandro and Abdul like Jews a whole lot less than Avram did. Other than that, they are EXACTLY the same thing so we should let in a lot of them in order to make up for not letting in more Avrams after 1924 and especially after 1933.

    Jack, I appreciate your biting humor here (and agree), but the post-1933 narrative really needs some scrutiny.

    The US pulled its weight for allowing Jewish immigration post-1933. From https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468

    By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.

    1939 was the first year the allowed quota was actually filled:

    1939 also marked the first time the United States filled its combined German-Austrian quota (which now included annexed Czechoslovakia). However, this limit did not come close to meeting the demand; by the end of June 1939, 309,000 German, Austrian, and Czech Jews had applied for the 27,000 places available under the quota.

    Clearly there was a problem in 1939, but lumping in 1933-1938 seems unfair. It is not the fault of the US that so many Jews chose to wait until 1939. In hindsight I would have handled 1939 differently, but hindsight is 20/20.

    And this was not just about Jews. Post-1931 immigration was low across the board (the US was in or attempting to emerge from the Great Depression): https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents

    More detail at https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008297
    The “Key Facts” seem very biased to me, but the rest of it is more balanced.

    Still more at https://www.ushmm.org/exhibition/st-louis/teach/supread2.htm
    There is much discussion of how restrictive the requirement of immigrants being able to support themselves was, but I see no data for the number of immigration applications which would help clarify how important that was in reality (it is the only thing that seems to matter in the rhetoric though).

    I would appreciate more data on 1933-1938 applications/immigrants. The 1939 numbers are always mentioned, but I have had little luck finding good numbers for the earlier period (which fills me with skepticism about the narrative).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Hindsight is 20/20. No one knew until it was too late that Hitler actually intended to murder every single Jew in Europe. Expel them maybe, but not kill them all. Even when people found out that this was actually happening, people STILL could not believe it because it was so without precedent. Nothing like the killing factories of Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. had ever existed anywhere let alone in a civilized European country - they were literally unimaginable. (Stalin was doing horrible stuff too but few in the West knew about that at the time). Later even when it was already known to be happening, people still didn't want to believe it because they were in denial.

    Of course the big problem in the end was not the 1/2 million German Jews but the millions and millions of Jews who lived further east. Many were trapped in the Soviet Union and could not have left even if they wanted to. For Polish Jews, there was essentially no quota so immigration to the US was more or less out of the question - everyone knew it was not an available option anymore. Growing up in Poland in the '30s, a some of my father's friends and relatives left Poland but they left for France and Belgium where the Germans caught up with them later (a few went to Palestine ). Poland itself experienced some anti-Semitic activity in the '30s but it was relatively minor -you could count the total # of victims on the fingers of your hands. You didn't have to be Nostradamus to predict that there might be another war between Germany and Russia someday with Poland caught in the middle but no one expected a campaign of total annihilation or that it would come so soon. Compared to Czarist times the political (if not economic) situation of Jews in Poland was relatively good at least until the death of Pilsudski in '35 so there was no big pressure to flee. If American immigration was still an option many would have gone for economic reasons but not because they thought that they were in imminent danger. Things changed with incredible suddenness - the war started on the 1st of Sept. and within 2 weeks the Polish defenses crumbled and Germans were in my father's town (which was well away from the border). On the 1st day they set fire to the synagogue so instantly it became clear that things were not going to be good but by then it was too late.

    As for the German Jews themselves, they were among the best integrated and most prosperous Jews in the world - their position was not unlike that of American Jews today. People had businesses, homes, connections to the community, non-Jewish spouses, etc. - they were not going to give up everything just because some crazy guy was elected. Yes, starting in 1933, Hitler made their lives miserable but he wasn't actually killing a lot of Jews. Prior to Kristallnacht in late '38, it was more like the situation of say American blacks in the Jim Crow South (few of them ever left for another country). Rather than leaving, many Jews just retreated into their own community - they had their own schools, doctors, etc. - somehow they were going to muddle thru. Maybe it will blow over? Hitler might be deposed or might mellow somehow. After Kristallnacht and the mass arrests that followed, German Jews began to see the actual seriousness of their situation - they were not just going to be 2nd class citizens but their very lives were at risk, but by then there was less than a year before the war began and the doors virtually all closed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. The US had less trouble at least partially assimilating immigrants from the wealthier, more advanced parts of Europe than the poorer, more backwards areas: Germans vs. Poles, northern Italians vs. southern Italians. Eastern and southern Europeans were more resistant to assimilation and less ethical than the original northern/northwestern Protestant core population, but, at least they didn’t hate America.

    The first group to migrate to the US with grudge were the Jews, especially the eastern European ones. They were the first group to demand that America had to change in order to suit them. First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere, then a general political and cultural radicalism.

    Now, there are Mexicans, Moslems, and a long list of other aggrieved minorities who blame their personal and homeland’s misery on the machinations of evil white people.

    There are some whites who agree with them. They love to denigrate their fellow whites because they can say to themselves, “I’M NOT LIKE THAT”! Makes them feel all moral and superior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,
     
    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call "the leading role") over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @jjbees
    Why were the Pogrom's ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Interesting that Avram's great-granddaughter is agitating to destroy the very country that took her ancestors in. Her lack of self-awareness is quite ironic.

    Why were the Pogrom’s (sic) ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Because the Cossacks liked to kill Jews and other minority populations?

    Or why don’t you tell me your explanation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees

    Maybe not with regard to refugees, per se, but certainly with regard to immigration. For the overwhelming majority of our history our immigration policies haven’t exactly been aligned with politically correct thought. From the 1795 law restricting naturalization to ‘free whites’ to the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed just one year before Lazarus wrote “The New Colossus” (and which stayed on the books for ca. 60 years) to the 1924 immigration law to keep immigration flows better in line with our ethnic balance. So for 170 years, 1795-1965, our immigration laws were “not what we are.” And it’s not as if immigration law was SJW policy after 1965, either. All told for less than 20% of our history as a nation have our immigration laws been close to what they are today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This 2013 iSteve article is relevant: http://www.unz.com/isteve/peter-schaeffer-history-of-immigration/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @AstolfvonAlabama
    I was kinda curious about the author- she's Lauren Wolfe of Wesleyan '97, not Lauren Wolfe of Smith '05 (Michigan Superdelegate 08, President of College Democrats 06-08).

    She necessarily reports a lot about people from all sorts of fascinating, diverse cultures as she heads up Women Under Siege. People who do things like this:

    About a week before we spoke Lauren wrote about a Congolese militia that terrorized a small town in the eastern part of the country by systematically raping babies and toddlers.
     
    I should hope everyone would agree that neither deportation nor assimilation would be the correct way of dealing with this cultural tradition, but certain Europeans have responded to this sort of thing with inaction instead of the obvious and healthy response.

    Wolfe is the head of Women Under Siege Project, which is a branch of the Women's Media Center, founded by Jane Fonda (Gentile?), Robin Morgan (Wicca practicing anti-Judaism Jew) and Gloria Steinhem (Jew) if we want to continue the discussion on the transition of WASP Feminism to Jewish Feminism.

    let’s just say there are packs of lauren wolves, weiners and weinsteins , god help us.

    Read More
    • Agree: Druid
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. In 1901 they didn’t have Internet, Globalized English, or Rosetta Stone. Now they do. So now people who have pre-assimilated in their home countries should get priority. If you don’t know a word of English in the current year, but seriously, you have no call to live in America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    Wrong. The Jews were hated because (a) they were a Middle Eastern population that had no business being in Europe and (b) they often engaged in anti-social behaviors such as swindling native Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @International Jew

    It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.
     
    Actually, it is very much a coincidence that that is when large-scale Jewish emigration out of Russia began. Things turned bad in Russia, for the Jews, starting in 1881. That was the year Czar Alexander II was assassinated. It was also the year in which the Zionist movement (not yet called that) began.

    Of course it's not a coincidence those Jews chose to come to America, rather than, say, to west Africa. America was a more promising place. But it was that for the (non-Jewish) Italians, Poles, Serbs, Hungarians and all the others too.

    Of course it’s not a coincidence those Jews chose to come to America, rather than, say, to west Africa

    Ironically, many Jews today want to make the United States look like west Africa and South America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Steve Sailer
    Most people in human history have taken pride in their ancestors. In a variety of ways, we seem to be going back to older ways of doing things. Valorizing one's ancestors and wishing to avenge their slights seems a pretty normal human thing to do.

    But when white gentiles do it we get labeled as “racists” and “anti-Semites”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Don't send us your strong, capable or promising. We don't want any more Einsteins, Kandinskys or Solzhenytsyns... not even any googley Sergei Brins...

    Not wretched enough.

    Just like the statue says, it's your tired, your lame, your imbeciles that we'd prefer instead...

    Send us your sick, your cripples and your mentally ill whose evil spirits weren't successfully exorcised by your traditional hyena therapy. Sure we don't have enough resources to care adequately for the health of all our fellow American citizens, but it would be discriminatory... downright racist if we were to strive to provide care for them before finishing healing the world and all its sickness and misery.

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don't want any of them. Too much promise and potential. Send instead your failed pirates, aspiring junior terrorists, war criminals and soldiers fleeing conscription or the battlefield. They can be Uber drivers until the bots take their jobs next year. Also please give us your ordinary career criminals and schemers fleeing prosecution by the cruel justice of your backward cultures. They should be entrepreneurial enough to keep themselves busy and make their own opportunities... We also especially want your America hating revolutionary activists and agitators, religious extremists, assorted trouble-makers, rabble rousers and other loud-mouthed ne'er-do-wells whom we need to remind us what an awful oppressive racist people our nation is and to help bring the change to finally replace the racist whitemale hegemony and purge their memory and culture. Finally send all your spongers, moochers and layabouts. They can look forward to a comfortable retirement no matter how young or old they are with free housing, food and health care. And after each time they've trashed or otherwise torn apart the home they've been provided with their squalid third world lifestyles, they'll be furnished with new accommodations worthy of their privileged position in American society. All they need to do is be loyal voting clientele for the party in perpetual power... and the goodies will keep flowing.

    Some Americans say we aren't allowed to exercise discretion or discriminate in favor of what might benefit our nation and people. On the contrary, we do discriminate. The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it.

    The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it

    Actually the more wretched the refuse, the more the Jews want it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Time to tear out that Emma Lazarus plague and chuck it into the Hudson River, or just send it to Lazarus’ ancestral homeland Israel. That dumb poem has desecrated the Statue of Liberty long enough. These days her descendants are so dumb they are taking the term “wretched refuse” literally rather than figuratively as intended. What kind of dumb country accepts the world’s worst criminals, rapists, terrorists and welfare seekers other than those who want to commit suicide?

    If we hadn’t accepted the millions of Jews back then, we wouldn’t be in this predicament today with Jewish libtards dominating all of our most important institutions from the media to academia, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Capitol Hill, and running the country to the ground with their retarded liberal ideology. The Spaniards famously put all the Jews on a ship and told them to get lost after they conspired with Muslims to invade Spain. Now the Jews in the US are doing the same with their constant cry of discrimination for not accepting enough Muslim refugees, too dumb to even realize Jews are the #1 targets of Muslims everywhere, not just because of their history and religion but for all the libtard ideology they try to inflict on the western world, from feminism to sexual promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, pop music, homosexuality, narcissism, greed, utter lack of self control.

    Liberals are people who have evolved to a point where they’ve lost all instincts for self-preservation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    Jews ...., too dumb to even realize Jews are the #1 targets of Muslims everywhere.

     

    Anywhere there are jews and a muslim majority, jews have Government protection.
    Woe betide any muslim who dares to lay hands on a jew, whether in Iran, Indonesia, India, Australia or wherever
    To the jew, all others are cattle to be exploited.
    White Christians in general just happen to be a whole lot harder to exploit, so they're marked for destruction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    It is useful to keep in mind something that surprised me at least: pogroms were a more limited phenomenon than is generally reported. There were only a few hundred fatalities in total according to Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism. Most Ashkenazis emigrated to the United States in search of economic opportunity; they were fleeing poverty not religious persecution, which made a lot of sense in view of the enormous Jewish population explosion that took place in Eastern Europe during the 19th century. Traditional Jewish occupational opportunities were far too few to accommodate everyone who needed a job. The foundations of American prosperity had already been laid, making it truly a land of opportunity.

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It depends what period you are referring to. In the 1881 wave of pogroms, not many were killed but property damage was very extensive. Thousands of white people didn't have to get killed in Detroit for whites to get the message that it was time for them to leave the city. A mob comes and loots your business and burns down your house - they don't have to kill you for you to get the message that it's time to go.


    In the later (1903-1906) wave, deaths were in the thousands. In the chaos after WWI, tens of thousands. Not the millions that would follow (or the 20% of the Jewish population that were killed in the Khmelnytsky pogroms of the 17th century) but still very serious.

    , @Anon

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!
     
    That's history. In our day, almost 40% of the richest Americans (according to Forbes and the JTA) are Jewish, while Jews are less than 2% of the nation's population. When 'proportional representation' is demanded, this fact never seems to get mentioned.
    , @anonymous
    Jewish population explosion and influence has logical explanations.
    Combine effects of 1861 freedom of serfs and decline of haskalah influence.
    Economic opportunity up, self thought opportunity up, creative minds no longer bound to torah study all year, recipe for many changes.
    Too much change too soon in rigid old serfdom society trying to modernize is trouble.
    Any group free from life of bondage physical or mental will have growing pains.
    Smart societies channel those growing pains to productive ends.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @International Jew

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?
     
    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It’s always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout–as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda–a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and “oppression”.

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized–converted en masse–at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors–socially, culturally, genetically–and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving “I have a dream” speech and just wishing that every man should be judged “by the content of his character” and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya … absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists–live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors … and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people–English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn’t “Christ killers!”, it would be “we are God’s Chosen People”.

    Read More
    • Agree: AM
    • Replies: @AM
    I wish I had more than an agree. Another excellent post.
    , @biz

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn’t “Christ killers!”, it would be “we are God’s Chosen People”.
     
    In Judaism, the concept of the "Chosen People" means chosen for a burden, that of maintaining the Covenant and behaving a certain way, not chosen for special favors. So strike one there.

    As for the rest, Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2, where they were among the proudest Germans and contributed immensely to Germany's science and industry (e.g. Haber-Bosch process), and also music and culture (e.g. Mendelsohn), but nonetheless it didn't save them.

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations. I challenge you to name an immigrant group who more thoroughly assimilated to these norms. Jews assimilate and thrive when given the chance.

    , @IHTG

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    Which people? International Jew mentioned the Czar, meaning Russians. But before the Russians, there were the Polish-Lithuanians, who seem to have handled their Jewish population better.

    The Russian elites fucked up - they mishandled and mismanaged their Jewish population, which resulted in a lot of grief. Both the leftist Jews who cry about peasant pogroms and the alt-righters who go "Actually, it was the Jews' fault!" get this wrong.

    , @Clyde

    The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)
     
    Then you should be pleased with today's Jews living in America with such high intermarriage rates of 50%. Yes? No?
    , @Jack D

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn't even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power - how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn't? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America - as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren't enough of them.
    , @Druid
    As proven by they behavior in Palestine!
    , @Alden
    International Jew and Jack D are just reciting the fraudulent tale of European oppression which is not true at all. The archives of every State Foreign Affairs department in W. Europe and the Americas has reports going back to the 1880's by diplomats right there who wrote reports that the tales of the pogroms were just lies to facilitate immigration to prosperous countries.

    At the same time the Jews were invading the Americas back in 1900, they were invading South AFrica.
    When they got to S. Africa, they did the same thing, founded a communist party, sent sob story propaganda to the rest of the world and look ow South Africa ended up thanks to the commuists like Joe Schlomo and the rest of them.

    It's all in those state /foreign department archives.
    , @Anonymous

    marry one of your neighbors
     
    Like Harvey Weinstein did?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @IHTG
    I question the normality of these people.

    I question the normality of these people.

    Which people? The ones who hate their relatives or the ones who have some pride in them?

    Both attitudes have horrible extremes and one can lean in one direction or the other and be healthy.

    However, as a cultural practice, assuming your ancestors were pond scum is clearly suicidal.

    There are connections between the dead and the infants yet to be born. The attempt to sever the connection because your relatives are embarrassing, insane, or criminal (or all three), is both futile and damaging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    I wish I had more than an agree. Another excellent post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Wilkey
    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees

    Maybe not with regard to refugees, per se, but certainly with regard to immigration. For the overwhelming majority of our history our immigration policies haven't exactly been aligned with politically correct thought. From the 1795 law restricting naturalization to 'free whites' to the Chinese Exclusion Act, passed just one year before Lazarus wrote "The New Colossus" (and which stayed on the books for ca. 60 years) to the 1924 immigration law to keep immigration flows better in line with our ethnic balance. So for 170 years, 1795-1965, our immigration laws were "not what we are." And it's not as if immigration law was SJW policy after 1965, either. All told for less than 20% of our history as a nation have our immigration laws been close to what they are today.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. “… Avram learned English…”. You don’t say? He also worked a good union job in the then growing garment industry. And made sure his kids became educated Americans. Entirely plausible he was neighbors with my Irish maternal grandparents, or my Irish/English paternal great grandparents, all also in Brooklyn. Same idea-work you ass off, get your kids in school, assimilate and become American. If you want to preserve your heritage, do so, but not at the expense of becoming American.

    And as Tucker Carlson never fails to ask immigration expansionists; HOW MANY?

    What Ms. Wolfe and her ilk really propose is no rules at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  62. @International Jew
    Also, Alejandro and Abdul already likely live in a country run by their co-ethnics. And if not, or if somehow they fall out with their local co-ethnics, they can choose from over a dozen other countries also run by their co-ethnics.

    Avram had zero such countries to choose from; the State of Israel was still forty years in the future.

    Yes, this is really the crux of the matter when comparing any supposed refugee population today to the Jews who fled either the Russian Empire, the Nazis, or even the Arab Nationalists and Islamists.

    Jews were a small, vulnerable minority with no political power in all of those cases. They had literally nowhere to go to be safe, other than to immigrate to a distant place. The same cannot be said for, for example, a present day Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, etc, Syrian who, no matter how dire his circumstances may be, only has to go a few hundred miles at most to find a relatively safe place where his sect is the dominant majority and in control.

    In Hondouras and El Salvador with their incredible levels of street violence, it is a tragedy for the people there, but again, almost everyone is part of the same ethno-cultural group and they are not targeted because of their minority status.

    These people’s situations are just different than that of Jews in the first half of the 20th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    Not true. They accumulated a lot of power through finances, then abused said power, thus locals turning on them. Same thing happening in US today!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn’t “Christ killers!”, it would be “we are God’s Chosen People”.

    In Judaism, the concept of the “Chosen People” means chosen for a burden, that of maintaining the Covenant and behaving a certain way, not chosen for special favors. So strike one there.

    As for the rest, Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2, where they were among the proudest Germans and contributed immensely to Germany’s science and industry (e.g. Haber-Bosch process), and also music and culture (e.g. Mendelsohn), but nonetheless it didn’t save them.

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations. I challenge you to name an immigrant group who more thoroughly assimilated to these norms. Jews assimilate and thrive when given the chance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations.
     
    LOL! This is because WASPs by culture and behavior are far more like secular Jews than perhaps any other culture on Earth. It's pretty obvious that upper class Protestants generally go through the motions of church life, until the modern era where they dropped the pretense altogether. (Bad thing for the rest of us, by the way.)

    Comfortable and without the Catholic emphasis on obedience and poverty (that's good and bad by the way), it was more ritual and vague agnosticism in those WASPs for generations, although clinging to respectability and hard work brought out good results.

    That's why there's someone here talking about WASP/Jew elite culture. They blend quite a bit.
    , @Curle
    “Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2,”

    Like this fellow, Werner Scholem? Was all that Commie street fighting and suppression of speech ‘defensive’ as Werner’s political heirs the Antifa like to claim today? And what explains the appearance of so many sons of such a small minority but highly assimilated population as leaders of violent communist organizations? This is not a rhetorical question.

    http://www.brill.com/products/book/jewish-communist-weimar-germany
    , @Sm Sung
    "Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2"

    This has become a shibboleth - if they had "assimilated" so "spectacularly" why were they hated from Dunkirk to the Dnieper?

    And don't say "it was the Christian bigots because the jews are always blameless".

    Jews have been chased from Babylon onwards and the only consistent factor is that they have always been "blameless". It simply doesn't make any sense.

    You're still whining about America when the most remarkable thing about the Weinstein affair is that no-one has even mentioned an aspect of his background that would have been put forward as the most salient fact up until about 40 years ago.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Jack D
    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram, give or take 30 IQ points. Oh, and Alejandro and Abdul like Jews a whole lot less than Avram did. Other than that, they are EXACTLY the same thing so we should let in a lot of them in order to make up for not letting in more Avrams after 1924 and especially after 1933.

    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram …

    Actually it’s quite clear from Ms. Wolfe’s screed that even taking in Avram was mistake.

    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group–much less a nation–loyalty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    A mentality and process that is repeatedly and endlessly for 3000 years!
    , @Art Deco
    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group–much less a nation–loyalty.

    You're being foolish. Old stock Americans of the same class, occupation, and educational history as this woman aren't going to give you more than a marginally better deal than this woman. Southerners might, non-coastal northerners in smaller cities might. Your problem is the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. The country at large does not have the loyalty of its fancy people. It does not have the loyalty of its chattering classes. They're loyal to people of their class cross-border.

    , @Eagle Eye

    Lauren Wolfe is a journalist and director of Women Under Siege, a journalism project on sexualized violence based at the Women’s Media Center in New York.
     
    "Journalism" in 2017 has become simply a euphemism for "slavering propagandist."

    Note also how most female "journalists" seem stuck writing exclusively about topics related to sexuality, with their own sexual desires and frustrations never far in the background.

    Steve Sailer has noted the phenomenon that female "journalists" always seem to advocating for social changes that would coincidentally increase their own sexual market value.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    Which people? International Jew mentioned the Czar, meaning Russians. But before the Russians, there were the Polish-Lithuanians, who seem to have handled their Jewish population better.

    The Russian elites fucked up – they mishandled and mismanaged their Jewish population, which resulted in a lot of grief. Both the leftist Jews who cry about peasant pogroms and the alt-righters who go “Actually, it was the Jews’ fault!” get this wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    You are missing my point--which is the obvious point:

    1) The conflict is fundamentally because there were two separate peoples inhabiting--in competition for--the same land.

    and

    2) The reason there were two separate peoples is because of Jewish ideology, not Christian ideology.

    Christianity is an open integrationist religion--a Jew, a Greek, a Roman, a Celt, a German ... heck even an Aztec or Tongan can become a Christian. The Christians integrated ... everybody in Europe--from Romans to eventually even the barbarian Vikings. The (few) Jews in central/western Europe who decided to bail to marry a shiska or just get along with their neighbors are my ancestors, not "the Jews" ancestors.

    ~~
    These two points are the gist of it. Separate peoples sparring over land--heck just separate peoples in contact sparring--are ... human history! Hardly limited to Jews and Christians. Look around.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for "why now?" Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    If you have just one people then tough conditions will be worked out as class tensions. The poor peasants/workers may simply be squeezed out and have negative population growth--overdrive on the normal downward mobility. Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution. But add separate peoples and you'll almost certainly have ethnic conflict as well or instead.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Cagey Beast
    For many or most of them, destroying the work of our forefathers is being loyal to their forefathers. This same cultural instinct showed up in the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago:

    Aug. 11, 2003
    Gay gesunderheit

    Canadian gay crusaders win the right for same sex marriages
    [...]
    "From a Jewish perspective, being the grandchildren of penniless [Eastern European] immigrants, I think Michael and I were immigrants at a time when being gay was symbolically crossing an ocean," Leshner observed. "My grandparents taught me never to run with Cossacks, and this was a modern day Cossack story."

    Calling homophobia a "post-modern anti-Semitism," Leshner noted Jews weren't innocent from this irrational pathology. "But to their credit they weren't the obstacle that the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant churches proved to be. By and large, Jews didn't have the stomach for a cultural war against gays and lesbians."

    Leshner termed his union with Stark just another form of intermarriage. His own mother, today 90, was present at the nuptials and sang Canada's national anthem at the ceremony, he added. By contrast, four decades ago she had bitterly fought her eldest son from marrying a non-Jewish woman.

    "She learned that love trumps religion in almost every case," Leshner smiled.
     

    http://www.gilzohar.ca/articles/canada/c2003-1.html

    Added to the usual Old World hatreds is the religious obligation laid out in their Alienu prayer:


    We must praise the master of all,
    and render greatness to the creator of the universe,
    Who did not make us like the nations of the lands,
    and did not place us like the families of the earth,
    Who did not make our lot like theirs,
    or our destiny like all of them,
    For they bow down to nothingness and emptiness,
    and pray to a god that will not save
    ,
     
    https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Aleynu.htm or:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleinu

    The section I italicised is "problematic". What the heirs of this Ashkenazi Jewish tradition choose to do with it is their business, not mine. There are hopeful signs they're becoming less hostile and toxic as the Jewish Century comes to a close but I honestly don't know what the future holds for them and us. I just advise my fellow Gentiles to practice Jew-diligence going forward.

    I honestly don’t know what the future holds for them and us

    Probably not much. If mass antisemitism couldn’t take off in the 1960s, when Jews were pushing New Left radicalism and sympathizing with the Soviet Union while still marrying each other at 90% rates, it sure as hell isn’t going to take off now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @International Jew

    It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.
     
    Actually, it is very much a coincidence that that is when large-scale Jewish emigration out of Russia began. Things turned bad in Russia, for the Jews, starting in 1881. That was the year Czar Alexander II was assassinated. It was also the year in which the Zionist movement (not yet called that) began.

    Of course it's not a coincidence those Jews chose to come to America, rather than, say, to west Africa. America was a more promising place. But it was that for the (non-Jewish) Italians, Poles, Serbs, Hungarians and all the others too.

    Lauren Wolfe is a journalist and director of Women Under Siege, a journalism project on sexualized violence based at the Women’s Media Center in New York

    Oh’ the irony – this Jewess is attacking Trump for trying to remake America into the same free country that her relatives gladly fled to.

    Meanwhile her culture has protected, with their silence, the epitome of tribal male Jewness – Harvey Weinstein who shows ZERO respect for women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @guest
    "implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. 'Assimilation,' in contrast, 'is kind of the erasure of cultural markers"

    Here's the simple Who/Whom. They want to drown out the culture of Legacy America. If we can't send people back or stop them from coming in, we'll settle for making them neo-Americans, which means erasing their old culture in part or wholly. It's Us or Them. Barring the break-up of the U.S. and a new system of segregation, there can only be one winner.


    By the way, "erasure of cultural markers?" Is there a boringer way to put what is an inherently dramatic undertaking?

    My take exactly, guest.

    The whole paragraph raised my “hackles”, particularly the final sentence you quote.

    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.

    “Assimilation” might be “new”–different than the last 20 years worth of refugee documentation–in refugee paperwork. The whole refugee scam is a post-War creation. But “assimilation” was pretty much the guiding principle and expectation of all pre-1965 immigration to the US–including for folks like Grandpa Avram. The US was societally committed–governmentally, culturally, socially–including institutions now in open rebellion, like the schools–to beating immigrants into Americans. You speak English–explicitly get your children to speak like natives–pledge allegiance and think of yourself as an American. If you didn’t … Americans were rightly suspicious of you and your foreignness.

    And that last sentence really sums it up. (For the Jews are here who complain that Sailer just keeps picking on these Jewish commentators who are just random examples spouting contemporary elite dogma who happen to be Jewish … just roll it around in your mouth and contemplate how it tastes.)

    Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.

    Sorry, but “no”. Our society–any society–bears absolutely *no* responsibly either to take anyone else in, nor especially to make any sort of change to accommodate them. If you want to go live someplace else–and are lucky enough to find someone to accept you–you, not the natives are the person who must change, adapt and assimilate to whatever extent the natives demand. It is theirnation, not yours.

    Wolfe’s idea that random people are entitled to come to the US and we must change to accommodate them is essentially the ideology of Jewish minoritarianism. Minorities are entitled to go anywhere and be accepted, natives and majorities must accommodate them. It is a fundamentally looney ideology with no basis in either any plausible moral framework nor in the actual normal behavior of humans throughout history.

    Whiny, hostile and disloyal. A marvelous package.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Minorities are entitled to go anywhere and be accepted, natives and majorities must accommodate them. It is a fundamentally looney ideology with no basis in either any plausible moral framework nor in the actual normal behavior of humans throughout history.

    Whiny, hostile and disloyal. A marvelous package.
     
    Exactly! But since they, and they alone, were “Chosen,” this is their “right.” They are entitled to invade foreign lands, choose to live as a separate tribe within those lands, and subvert the native culture in any way they please (usury, buggery, religion, etc). Then, when the natives finally have had enough, the Jews cry “pogrom!” and “victim!” as if their behavior played no role.

    Contrast Jews to the Amish. The Amish, like the Jews, fail to assimilate. They hold fast to their old language and customs. But when was the last time you saw the Amish try to force their preferences down the majority’s gullet? Their damn buggies are a danger on the roadways, but that’s about the extent of their impact on society at large.

    Why are there so few Jewish voices acknowledging their own agency in their tribal history? In this sense they’re exactly like the Dindu Nuffins and the Jew-blamers (who refuse to acknowledge that the only way 2% of the population could wreak such harm is that the native majority literally worships them as gods).
    , @Jack D
    Yes, here is one such lunatic who thinks that Jews can just come to America and do their own thing:

    "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights...every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree."

    The name of this lunatic - George Washington.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    Then you should be pleased with today’s Jews living in America with such high intermarriage rates of 50%. Yes? No?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. A couple of years ago, we confronted a local board meeting of Lutheran Family Services (which facilitates the resettlement of refugees to the US) about how some refugees don’t assimilate to their new surroundings very well (among other things.) The response of one of the board members, a stylishly dressed middle aged white woman, was, “what is assimilation, anyway?” suggesting that the definition of “assimilation” is too arbitrary to be of any use to a group of people who who help bring millions of third world world refugees into our country. The groans from the crowd spoke volumes to her lame response.

    Arbitrariness is a far greater problem with the definitions of “equality” and “social justice” than assimilation, but that doesn’t stop the Left from pursuing those policies with a blind fervor. When it comes to refugee resettlement, the inmates are running the asylum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @IHTG

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    Which people? International Jew mentioned the Czar, meaning Russians. But before the Russians, there were the Polish-Lithuanians, who seem to have handled their Jewish population better.

    The Russian elites fucked up - they mishandled and mismanaged their Jewish population, which resulted in a lot of grief. Both the leftist Jews who cry about peasant pogroms and the alt-righters who go "Actually, it was the Jews' fault!" get this wrong.

    You are missing my point–which is the obvious point:

    1) The conflict is fundamentally because there were two separate peoples inhabiting–in competition for–the same land.

    and

    2) The reason there were two separate peoples is because of Jewish ideology, not Christian ideology.

    Christianity is an open integrationist religion–a Jew, a Greek, a Roman, a Celt, a German … heck even an Aztec or Tongan can become a Christian. The Christians integrated … everybody in Europe–from Romans to eventually even the barbarian Vikings. The (few) Jews in central/western Europe who decided to bail to marry a shiska or just get along with their neighbors are my ancestors, not “the Jews” ancestors.

    ~~
    These two points are the gist of it. Separate peoples sparring over land–heck just separate peoples in contact sparring–are … human history! Hardly limited to Jews and Christians. Look around.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for “why now?” Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    If you have just one people then tough conditions will be worked out as class tensions. The poor peasants/workers may simply be squeezed out and have negative population growth–overdrive on the normal downward mobility. Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution. But add separate peoples and you’ll almost certainly have ethnic conflict as well or instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @IHTG

    Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution.
     
    Or even full-blown civil wars. Even before the concept of "class tensions" came into existence. Until WW2, nobody ever came down as hard on the Jews like the Catholic French came down on the Cathars.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for “why now?” Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.
     
    Those historical details are a past you can learn actionable lessons from. If all you're going to do is throw up your hands and say "Welp, ethnic conflict is inevitable", don't expect to be chosen for leadership.
    , @Jack D
    E. Europe was not just black and white (Jews and Christians) but a complicated ethnic melange. In Poland you had Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Germans, etc. In Hungary you had Romanians (and vice versa). In the Balkans you had everybody (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Montenegrins, etc.) Even though most were Christian, they were often different flavors of Christian and they often hated (and fought with) each other even more than they hated the Jews. The idea that everything would have been peachy-keen if there were no Jews is just a delusion.
    , @ussr andy
    I believe the segregation was partly self-inflicted.

    and those were still trad societies and a feature of trad societies is they're segregated and venturing outside one's community is unsafe.

    but it doesn't help when one thinks one is surrounded by filthy pork-eating polytheists whose sole purpose is to assimilate him out of existence.

    if only there was something in the modern day that would perhaps give an idea of the social dynamics that might have been at work.

    , @I, Libertine
    Debates about the history of antisemitism like this one remind me of this remarkably frank essay by Michael Medved, part of a larger discussion of Norman Podhoretz's "Why are Jews Liberal."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. As an assimilated child of immigrants, Wolfe’s attitude is repulsive — I mean just a truly toxic, destructive vision for America. My parents wanted (and want) to live in a stable Western nation, not a ‘multicultural’ social experiment.

    I’m proud of being Korean and obviously still reflect some Korean culture as a second-generation American. I’m not even bothering to teach my own daughter my feeble, casual-level Korean, because it serves no purpose when her extended family all speak English (or Chinese).

    People used to suggest Asian Americans were a lot like Jews, but other than being disproportionately high-achievers, I don’t think we have this emotion-driven tendency that pervades leftwing Jews.

    Maybe if more of my fellow Asians get “woke” to the Brazil-India-Nigeria trajectory we’re on, they’ll start rejecting the Democrats. My family were already Republicans/libertarians and ‘rib’ me about my transfomation from lefty progressive. Bannonite Republicans who are smarter than the white supremacist reactionaries should hammer at this potential split in the Democrat coalition and keep doen the racist morons who threaten such an alliance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @AnotherDad
    You are missing my point--which is the obvious point:

    1) The conflict is fundamentally because there were two separate peoples inhabiting--in competition for--the same land.

    and

    2) The reason there were two separate peoples is because of Jewish ideology, not Christian ideology.

    Christianity is an open integrationist religion--a Jew, a Greek, a Roman, a Celt, a German ... heck even an Aztec or Tongan can become a Christian. The Christians integrated ... everybody in Europe--from Romans to eventually even the barbarian Vikings. The (few) Jews in central/western Europe who decided to bail to marry a shiska or just get along with their neighbors are my ancestors, not "the Jews" ancestors.

    ~~
    These two points are the gist of it. Separate peoples sparring over land--heck just separate peoples in contact sparring--are ... human history! Hardly limited to Jews and Christians. Look around.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for "why now?" Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    If you have just one people then tough conditions will be worked out as class tensions. The poor peasants/workers may simply be squeezed out and have negative population growth--overdrive on the normal downward mobility. Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution. But add separate peoples and you'll almost certainly have ethnic conflict as well or instead.

    Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution.

    Or even full-blown civil wars. Even before the concept of “class tensions” came into existence. Until WW2, nobody ever came down as hard on the Jews like the Catholic French came down on the Cathars.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for “why now?” Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    Those historical details are a past you can learn actionable lessons from. If all you’re going to do is throw up your hands and say “Welp, ethnic conflict is inevitable”, don’t expect to be chosen for leadership.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @res
    Jack, I appreciate your biting humor here (and agree), but the post-1933 narrative really needs some scrutiny.

    The US pulled its weight for allowing Jewish immigration post-1933. From https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005468

    By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.
     
    1939 was the first year the allowed quota was actually filled:

    1939 also marked the first time the United States filled its combined German-Austrian quota (which now included annexed Czechoslovakia). However, this limit did not come close to meeting the demand; by the end of June 1939, 309,000 German, Austrian, and Czech Jews had applied for the 27,000 places available under the quota.
     
    Clearly there was a problem in 1939, but lumping in 1933-1938 seems unfair. It is not the fault of the US that so many Jews chose to wait until 1939. In hindsight I would have handled 1939 differently, but hindsight is 20/20.

    And this was not just about Jews. Post-1931 immigration was low across the board (the US was in or attempting to emerge from the Great Depression): https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents

    More detail at https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10008297
    The "Key Facts" seem very biased to me, but the rest of it is more balanced.

    Still more at https://www.ushmm.org/exhibition/st-louis/teach/supread2.htm
    There is much discussion of how restrictive the requirement of immigrants being able to support themselves was, but I see no data for the number of immigration applications which would help clarify how important that was in reality (it is the only thing that seems to matter in the rhetoric though).

    I would appreciate more data on 1933-1938 applications/immigrants. The 1939 numbers are always mentioned, but I have had little luck finding good numbers for the earlier period (which fills me with skepticism about the narrative).

    Hindsight is 20/20. No one knew until it was too late that Hitler actually intended to murder every single Jew in Europe. Expel them maybe, but not kill them all. Even when people found out that this was actually happening, people STILL could not believe it because it was so without precedent. Nothing like the killing factories of Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. had ever existed anywhere let alone in a civilized European country – they were literally unimaginable. (Stalin was doing horrible stuff too but few in the West knew about that at the time). Later even when it was already known to be happening, people still didn’t want to believe it because they were in denial.

    Of course the big problem in the end was not the 1/2 million German Jews but the millions and millions of Jews who lived further east. Many were trapped in the Soviet Union and could not have left even if they wanted to. For Polish Jews, there was essentially no quota so immigration to the US was more or less out of the question – everyone knew it was not an available option anymore. Growing up in Poland in the ’30s, a some of my father’s friends and relatives left Poland but they left for France and Belgium where the Germans caught up with them later (a few went to Palestine ). Poland itself experienced some anti-Semitic activity in the ’30s but it was relatively minor -you could count the total # of victims on the fingers of your hands. You didn’t have to be Nostradamus to predict that there might be another war between Germany and Russia someday with Poland caught in the middle but no one expected a campaign of total annihilation or that it would come so soon. Compared to Czarist times the political (if not economic) situation of Jews in Poland was relatively good at least until the death of Pilsudski in ’35 so there was no big pressure to flee. If American immigration was still an option many would have gone for economic reasons but not because they thought that they were in imminent danger. Things changed with incredible suddenness – the war started on the 1st of Sept. and within 2 weeks the Polish defenses crumbled and Germans were in my father’s town (which was well away from the border). On the 1st day they set fire to the synagogue so instantly it became clear that things were not going to be good but by then it was too late.

    As for the German Jews themselves, they were among the best integrated and most prosperous Jews in the world – their position was not unlike that of American Jews today. People had businesses, homes, connections to the community, non-Jewish spouses, etc. – they were not going to give up everything just because some crazy guy was elected. Yes, starting in 1933, Hitler made their lives miserable but he wasn’t actually killing a lot of Jews. Prior to Kristallnacht in late ’38, it was more like the situation of say American blacks in the Jim Crow South (few of them ever left for another country). Rather than leaving, many Jews just retreated into their own community – they had their own schools, doctors, etc. – somehow they were going to muddle thru. Maybe it will blow over? Hitler might be deposed or might mellow somehow. After Kristallnacht and the mass arrests that followed, German Jews began to see the actual seriousness of their situation – they were not just going to be 2nd class citizens but their very lives were at risk, but by then there was less than a year before the war began and the doors virtually all closed.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Alden
    Same same old Jewish propaganda I've heard all my life. Problem is, it isn't true. Go back to the Jewish publications you usually write for.

    If Jews are so smart* why do they believe all these lies.

    Average IQ in Israel 95.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Steve from Detroit
    You must have slept through Con Law II (or First Amendment). We studied the Poem Doctrine after Penumbras but before Preemption. The quaint doctrine of precedent or binding authority is clearly an anachronism.

    I have come to the conclusion that whatever the judge (or more likely his clerk) says, is law, and it's best to simply move on to your next case.

    OK, back to trial prep.

    I studied in the UK … they made a lot about having a Constitution without having a written Constitution. I just assumed that since they didn’t include poetry in their common law tradition that that also applied to other common law systems. Now that I think of it, that Emma Lazarus monstrosity is barely poetry, if at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn’t even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power – how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn’t? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America – as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren’t enough of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn’t even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land.
     
    Do you ever tire of making Jews victims? I guess not.

    They didn't want to own land. With land came responsibilities and work. They wanted to be money lenders, etc because it was easier and freer.

    The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America – as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren’t enough of them.
     
    I never thought of Jews and devious and scheming until the alt-right revealed that the obvious default mindset for secular Jews is to refuse any and all responsibility for their condition in life. It gets old watching supposedly intelligent people claim victim, regardless of actual circumstances.
    , @Issac
    It helps to understand the dynamics of the society at the time. I'll grant you our ancestors owned little to no land at the time, but neither did 99.9% of the population. That was a noble thing. Jews, in this light are often cast as "slaves," or "property of nobles," but that was the situation of all the proles in that era. Jews were among the first Freemen, merchants, civil bureaucrats, tax collectors, etc. and much of the conflict in E. Europe stems from nobles preferential treatment of Jews over the rest of the gentiles. That we also became scapegoats for those nobles makes us no different than the serfs who were frequently scapegoats themselves.

    And we shouldn't ignore the fact that many Freemen enjoyed a lot of political influence, just as 2% of the American population does today. That one is not the objective Monarch is no indicator of who has power in a society. Trump illustrates that clearly in America. He can move within the framework and context of the established orthodoxy, but only so much outside these proscribed bounds of the elite and the bureaucracy.

    Contrary to popular belief, it is not antisemitic to notice these things. In-fact I find it offensive that other Jews are not willing to admire and uphold our forefathers' success in Europe. That we were often in conflict with the natives is only historical context. One needn't pretend as though every such conflict was imagined by the evil gentiles and that admittance of such would be tantamount to a new blood libel. We have our own nation now. We are, more than ever, in need of understanding our place in the wider world. That understanding does not come from dishonest readings of our past.

    , @Neil Templeton
    I can't speak for A Dad, but I certainly didn't understand his reference to mean competition for raw land. Instead, I understood it to refer to abstract living space, e.g. economic space, cultural space, political and rule-making space, social-class space, mating and family-form space. Certainly disparate peoples compete in critical venues other than struggles for farmland. Are you contending that Jews had no conflict with any of the other peoples of E. Europe in any measure of living space?
    , @Druid
    Please stop with the anti-Semitic canard/BS.
    , @Curle
    “They had no armies”

    Because The Red Army was completely unaffiliated? Trotsky unique among such war leaders for his complete lack of ethnic affiliations?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @dr kill
    See, it's comments such as this that put you on the review list.

    I was never off it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @eah

    That picture is the reason why Germans are best as toy makers, clock makers, engineers and chemists and really should stay away from theology and world domination schemes.

    They must develop the patience of saints just to live with themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    They must develop the patience of saints just to live with themselves.

    It's bad, aber nicht hoffnungslos:

    welt.de -- Viele Fragezeichen nach Edekas leeren Regalen

    A couple of the comments: Oh, so leer sind die Regale ohne "Vielfalt"? Wie leer müssten dann erst unsere Gefängnisse ohne Vielfalt sein??? -- How empty would our prisons be without diversity??? -- Jetzt muss mir Edeka nur noch erklären was unkontrolierte offene Grenzen mit offene regulierte Märkte zu tun hat?? -- Edeka should explain what uncontrolled, open borders have to do with open, regulated markets?

    Most of the top-rated comments are similar -- BTW, the story is about 2 months old: Edeka did this back in August, in Hamburg, where antifa were allowed to riot and destroy property earlier this year.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @AnotherDad
    You are missing my point--which is the obvious point:

    1) The conflict is fundamentally because there were two separate peoples inhabiting--in competition for--the same land.

    and

    2) The reason there were two separate peoples is because of Jewish ideology, not Christian ideology.

    Christianity is an open integrationist religion--a Jew, a Greek, a Roman, a Celt, a German ... heck even an Aztec or Tongan can become a Christian. The Christians integrated ... everybody in Europe--from Romans to eventually even the barbarian Vikings. The (few) Jews in central/western Europe who decided to bail to marry a shiska or just get along with their neighbors are my ancestors, not "the Jews" ancestors.

    ~~
    These two points are the gist of it. Separate peoples sparring over land--heck just separate peoples in contact sparring--are ... human history! Hardly limited to Jews and Christians. Look around.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for "why now?" Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    If you have just one people then tough conditions will be worked out as class tensions. The poor peasants/workers may simply be squeezed out and have negative population growth--overdrive on the normal downward mobility. Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution. But add separate peoples and you'll almost certainly have ethnic conflict as well or instead.

    E. Europe was not just black and white (Jews and Christians) but a complicated ethnic melange. In Poland you had Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Germans, etc. In Hungary you had Romanians (and vice versa). In the Balkans you had everybody (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Montenegrins, etc.) Even though most were Christian, they were often different flavors of Christian and they often hated (and fought with) each other even more than they hated the Jews. The idea that everything would have been peachy-keen if there were no Jews is just a delusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    The idea that everything would have been peachy if most of Europe hadn't turned Christian is also delusional.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @AnotherDad
    My take exactly, guest.

    The whole paragraph raised my "hackles", particularly the final sentence you quote.

    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.
     
    "Assimilation" might be "new"--different than the last 20 years worth of refugee documentation--in refugee paperwork. The whole refugee scam is a post-War creation. But "assimilation" was pretty much the guiding principle and expectation of all pre-1965 immigration to the US--including for folks like Grandpa Avram. The US was societally committed--governmentally, culturally, socially--including institutions now in open rebellion, like the schools--to beating immigrants into Americans. You speak English--explicitly get your children to speak like natives--pledge allegiance and think of yourself as an American. If you didn't ... Americans were rightly suspicious of you and your foreignness.

    And that last sentence really sums it up. (For the Jews are here who complain that Sailer just keeps picking on these Jewish commentators who are just random examples spouting contemporary elite dogma who happen to be Jewish ... just roll it around in your mouth and contemplate how it tastes.)

    Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.
     
    Sorry, but "no". Our society--any society--bears absolutely *no* responsibly either to take anyone else in, nor especially to make any sort of change to accommodate them. If you want to go live someplace else--and are lucky enough to find someone to accept you--you, not the natives are the person who must change, adapt and assimilate to whatever extent the natives demand. It is theirnation, not yours.

    Wolfe's idea that random people are entitled to come to the US and we must change to accommodate them is essentially the ideology of Jewish minoritarianism. Minorities are entitled to go anywhere and be accepted, natives and majorities must accommodate them. It is a fundamentally looney ideology with no basis in either any plausible moral framework nor in the actual normal behavior of humans throughout history.

    Whiny, hostile and disloyal. A marvelous package.

    Minorities are entitled to go anywhere and be accepted, natives and majorities must accommodate them. It is a fundamentally looney ideology with no basis in either any plausible moral framework nor in the actual normal behavior of humans throughout history.

    Whiny, hostile and disloyal. A marvelous package.

    Exactly! But since they, and they alone, were “Chosen,” this is their “right.” They are entitled to invade foreign lands, choose to live as a separate tribe within those lands, and subvert the native culture in any way they please (usury, buggery, religion, etc). Then, when the natives finally have had enough, the Jews cry “pogrom!” and “victim!” as if their behavior played no role.

    Contrast Jews to the Amish. The Amish, like the Jews, fail to assimilate. They hold fast to their old language and customs. But when was the last time you saw the Amish try to force their preferences down the majority’s gullet? Their damn buggies are a danger on the roadways, but that’s about the extent of their impact on society at large.

    Why are there so few Jewish voices acknowledging their own agency in their tribal history? In this sense they’re exactly like the Dindu Nuffins and the Jew-blamers (who refuse to acknowledge that the only way 2% of the population could wreak such harm is that the native majority literally worships them as gods).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @eahRead More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @biz

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn’t “Christ killers!”, it would be “we are God’s Chosen People”.
     
    In Judaism, the concept of the "Chosen People" means chosen for a burden, that of maintaining the Covenant and behaving a certain way, not chosen for special favors. So strike one there.

    As for the rest, Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2, where they were among the proudest Germans and contributed immensely to Germany's science and industry (e.g. Haber-Bosch process), and also music and culture (e.g. Mendelsohn), but nonetheless it didn't save them.

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations. I challenge you to name an immigrant group who more thoroughly assimilated to these norms. Jews assimilate and thrive when given the chance.

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations.

    LOL! This is because WASPs by culture and behavior are far more like secular Jews than perhaps any other culture on Earth. It’s pretty obvious that upper class Protestants generally go through the motions of church life, until the modern era where they dropped the pretense altogether. (Bad thing for the rest of us, by the way.)

    Comfortable and without the Catholic emphasis on obedience and poverty (that’s good and bad by the way), it was more ritual and vague agnosticism in those WASPs for generations, although clinging to respectability and hard work brought out good results.

    That’s why there’s someone here talking about WASP/Jew elite culture. They blend quite a bit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @AndrewR
    I can scarcely describe my disgust towards leftists, especially of the tribal variety. Why should society be required to change for immigrants? Why shouldn't the burden be entirely on immigrants to assimilate, not counting the effort that should be made by society to help immigrants assimilate successfully? Or are we just quibbling over terminology? Do efforts to help immigrants assimilate count as the "change on the part of society" that skypes like Wolfe desire?

    The admired lines by Emma Lazarus do not stand as high as this elevated prose: “…this government of the people, by the people, and for the people…,” expressing the principle that the people ARE the government. We forget this too often, and speak of the delegated administration as “the government.” And so, if the people are the government, and the government is expected to act judiciously, then more than refugee status is necessary for participation, and there is a burden on the part of the arrivals to prepare for participation. If the government of, by, and for the people chooses to reach out to assist the arrivals for participation, that may be a wise choice. But it is a choice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Jack D

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn't even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power - how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn't? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America - as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren't enough of them.

    They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn’t even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land.

    Do you ever tire of making Jews victims? I guess not.

    They didn’t want to own land. With land came responsibilities and work. They wanted to be money lenders, etc because it was easier and freer.

    The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America – as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren’t enough of them.

    I never thought of Jews and devious and scheming until the alt-right revealed that the obvious default mindset for secular Jews is to refuse any and all responsibility for their condition in life. It gets old watching supposedly intelligent people claim victim, regardless of actual circumstances.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Die Viertklässler Berlins schneiden bei einem bundesweiten Vergleichstest in Deutsch und Mathematik deutlich schlechter ab als Gleichaltrige in anderen Bundesländern.

    Fourth-graders in Berlin score significantly worse than fourth-graders in other German states.

    Anteil der ausländischen Bevölkerung an der Gesamtbevölkerung in Deutschland nach Bundesländern im Jahr 2015 (Stand: 31. Dezember)

    Berlin has the highest % of migrants.

    Note: Per the data source, this is just the % of people who are not German citizens — the % who are of Migrationshintergrund is much higher — and Berlin is probably tops there too.

    Of course there’s no connection between this and school performance — and in any case, Hertha players kneel — that’s what’s important.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    The US had less trouble at least partially assimilating immigrants from the wealthier, more advanced parts of Europe than the poorer, more backwards areas: Germans vs. Poles, northern Italians vs. southern Italians. Eastern and southern Europeans were more resistant to assimilation and less ethical than the original northern/northwestern Protestant core population, but, at least they didn't hate America.

    The first group to migrate to the US with grudge were the Jews, especially the eastern European ones. They were the first group to demand that America had to change in order to suit them. First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere, then a general political and cultural radicalism.

    Now, there are Mexicans, Moslems, and a long list of other aggrieved minorities who blame their personal and homeland's misery on the machinations of evil white people.

    There are some whites who agree with them. They love to denigrate their fellow whites because they can say to themselves, "I'M NOT LIKE THAT"! Makes them feel all moral and superior.

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,

    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call “the leading role”) over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.
     
    Which is why a religion was still established in a number of states.

    (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).
     
    Maybe. I don't know much of the public controversy at the time focused on this issue specifically.

    I don't think your general drift is wrong but your framing is at least questionable.
    , @K-Drama Kumiho

    The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times
     
    This is not true. It says "year of our Lord," which is an unambiguous reference to Jesus.

    I'm a non-Christian who admires French secularism. Unfortunately religion is seldom just a matter of a person and their conscience, in fact people of such a bent, like myself, usually go by "spiritual but not religious."

    Since we're discussing Jews, circumcision, a literal blood ritual, is the epitome of religion not limiting itself to matters of personal consciousness, but needing to project, via permanent physical alteration, a defenceless child. We shamelessly disregard the 14th Amendment, and the core liberal principle of equality under the law that it embodies, by protecting girls from such barabarism, but not boys (I'm a mom and 'equity feminist,' not an MRA).

    Religion does the most pernicious and widespread damage by denying children a proper education and evidence-based understanding of material reality.


    Stalin was doing horrible stuff too but few in the West knew about that at the time.
     
    And why did few know? Stalin's crimes were public knowledge, reported in the West usually soon after they were committed. Thomas Sowell had a great section on this in Intellectuals and Society.

    The problem is that the Western intelligentsia was dominated by people, rather disproportionately Jewish by the way, who were supporters of or at least sympathetic to Stalinism. These people who carried water for one of history's greatest mass murderers are celebrated perrennial with the mythology of the 'McCarthy Era' and 'Hollywood blacklist,' which I used to buy into.

    I think that same messianic Jewish internationalism on the left has just morphed into an uncritical embrace of multiculturalism and neoliberalism, i.e. globalism. Just look at its most passionate supporters as Steve's articles today elucidate.

    , @AM

    "The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in."
     
    When a closely related society writes up documents/agreements for themselves, they do not throw in the obvious understandings. That the Constitution is a short, easy to understand document. It's the indication of a high trust society, with much simply understood to be true. (Contrast it with the EU treaty which is I believe well over 1000 pages)

    In other words, they didn't mention God because this was a government document.
    When they said "freedom", they meant in part in the form of worship with a like minded community. The government was supposed to protect worship in the public square.

    At founding, colonies had established religions which they kept. The bill of rights prevented the Federal government from imposing a sponsored religion on the states, that's all. States had every right to regulate religion, which they did.

    Mormons were exiled all the way to Utah under the powers established at the state level, traced back to their powers at the founding of the colony. Catholics couldn't use public money to run their schools, etc.

    Your concept of government dates back no later than the 1920's and the start of the "progressive" movement. Read that amendment carefully - it limits Congress (the Federal one) from regulation of religion, which means it belongs to the states. A court ruling overlooked the clear wording and in the 20's ruled states couldn't regulate or establish religion.

    The modern concept of government and religion, which is everywhere now, is a throughly new and relatively untried idea. Most societies have understood that religion was a stablizing and unifying force and it's helpful to keep objecting cranks to a minimum.

    As for the Founders, they had a obvious sense of a Protestant Christianity. They did not need to include paragraphs about it. Being an open atheist could get you hanged in some places at founding and they had no intention of changing it.

    (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).
     

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.
    , @Hibernian
    "The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. "

    Agreed, however, the D. of I. references "the Law of Nature and Nature's God" near the beginning, and clearly not in an offhand way. The Constitution is a set of rules, except for the Preamble, while the D. of I. is clearly more philosophical, and even a little theological.
    , @Curle
    “Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.”

    No, religion was expected to retain the dominant role in social life it possessed at the founding and earlier. What was not anticipated was that government would acquire the social role it has acquired in the interim, a role where the government operates as a teacher of children, an independent source for the promotion of world views and a competitor for the propagation of moral opinions. Religion was not to play a direct role in government because it wasn’t thought necessary since the two were thought to operate in different spheres. This changed with the crazy expansion of government power following the unfortunate results of the War of Northern Aggression.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Jack D

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn't even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power - how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn't? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America - as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren't enough of them.

    It helps to understand the dynamics of the society at the time. I’ll grant you our ancestors owned little to no land at the time, but neither did 99.9% of the population. That was a noble thing. Jews, in this light are often cast as “slaves,” or “property of nobles,” but that was the situation of all the proles in that era. Jews were among the first Freemen, merchants, civil bureaucrats, tax collectors, etc. and much of the conflict in E. Europe stems from nobles preferential treatment of Jews over the rest of the gentiles. That we also became scapegoats for those nobles makes us no different than the serfs who were frequently scapegoats themselves.

    And we shouldn’t ignore the fact that many Freemen enjoyed a lot of political influence, just as 2% of the American population does today. That one is not the objective Monarch is no indicator of who has power in a society. Trump illustrates that clearly in America. He can move within the framework and context of the established orthodoxy, but only so much outside these proscribed bounds of the elite and the bureaucracy.

    Contrary to popular belief, it is not antisemitic to notice these things. In-fact I find it offensive that other Jews are not willing to admire and uphold our forefathers’ success in Europe. That we were often in conflict with the natives is only historical context. One needn’t pretend as though every such conflict was imagined by the evil gentiles and that admittance of such would be tantamount to a new blood libel. We have our own nation now. We are, more than ever, in need of understanding our place in the wider world. That understanding does not come from dishonest readings of our past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @AnotherDad
    My take exactly, guest.

    The whole paragraph raised my "hackles", particularly the final sentence you quote.

    That term, “assimilation,” is brand-new in the history of U.S. policy on refugees, and it appears in the document over and over again. Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.
     
    "Assimilation" might be "new"--different than the last 20 years worth of refugee documentation--in refugee paperwork. The whole refugee scam is a post-War creation. But "assimilation" was pretty much the guiding principle and expectation of all pre-1965 immigration to the US--including for folks like Grandpa Avram. The US was societally committed--governmentally, culturally, socially--including institutions now in open rebellion, like the schools--to beating immigrants into Americans. You speak English--explicitly get your children to speak like natives--pledge allegiance and think of yourself as an American. If you didn't ... Americans were rightly suspicious of you and your foreignness.

    And that last sentence really sums it up. (For the Jews are here who complain that Sailer just keeps picking on these Jewish commentators who are just random examples spouting contemporary elite dogma who happen to be Jewish ... just roll it around in your mouth and contemplate how it tastes.)

    Previous directives have used the word “integration,” which comes from the Latin “integrare” — “to make whole” — and implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it.
     
    Sorry, but "no". Our society--any society--bears absolutely *no* responsibly either to take anyone else in, nor especially to make any sort of change to accommodate them. If you want to go live someplace else--and are lucky enough to find someone to accept you--you, not the natives are the person who must change, adapt and assimilate to whatever extent the natives demand. It is theirnation, not yours.

    Wolfe's idea that random people are entitled to come to the US and we must change to accommodate them is essentially the ideology of Jewish minoritarianism. Minorities are entitled to go anywhere and be accepted, natives and majorities must accommodate them. It is a fundamentally looney ideology with no basis in either any plausible moral framework nor in the actual normal behavior of humans throughout history.

    Whiny, hostile and disloyal. A marvelous package.

    Yes, here is one such lunatic who thinks that Jews can just come to America and do their own thing:

    “The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights…every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree.”

    The name of this lunatic – George Washington.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I know that my vision is degrading with age, but for some reason, I didn’t see the word “Jew” in that passage.
    , @AM

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights…every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree.”
     
    Because Jews conformed to Protestant morality at the time. It didn't extend to open/active atheists and it didn't extend to every religion on the planet.

    In a (wealthy) Protestant mindset, it's easy to include Jews as another denomination.

    The vision that's being pushed of the Founding Fathers makes no sense whatever. They weren't modern by any stretch of the imagination and how they lived their lives and governed the US is in perfect accordance with a Protestant mindset.
    , @bomag

    ...every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree.
     
    I suspect GW would be concerned that his ancestors are giving away/having taken away their vine and fig trees to support foreigners fleeing overpopulated lands in service to overpopulating GW's country.
    , @Philip Nolan
    I just looked at the calendar. This is the year 2017, not 1790. Granted, I was not around in 1790, but I have a sneaking suspicion that conditions have changed, dramatically, since Washington uttered those words. And Washington would agree that as conditions change so should certain policies. The population in 1790 was under 4 million. In 1900 it was 76 million, and we have not added a square inch of territory since then. Today it is 326 million.
    Besides, some peoples' "vine and fig trees" are rightly in Asia or Latin America. I have no problem with people sitting under their own vine and fig trees, I have a problem when they want to sit under mine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. True but there is also an important federal-state dimension. Massachusetts had a state-supported Congregational church until 1833 (which resentful Baptists helped topple, before many Catholics or Jews showed up). And things like school prayer could be worked out on a local or statewide basis, until the hostile Warren Court decreed a religion-free public sphere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,
     
    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call "the leading role") over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Which is why a religion was still established in a number of states.

    (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    Maybe. I don’t know much of the public controversy at the time focused on this issue specifically.

    I don’t think your general drift is wrong but your framing is at least questionable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Luke Lea

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?
     

    It is useful to keep in mind something that surprised me at least: pogroms were a more limited phenomenon than is generally reported. There were only a few hundred fatalities in total according to Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism. Most Ashkenazis emigrated to the United States in search of economic opportunity; they were fleeing poverty not religious persecution, which made a lot of sense in view of the enormous Jewish population explosion that took place in Eastern Europe during the 19th century. Traditional Jewish occupational opportunities were far too few to accommodate everyone who needed a job. The foundations of American prosperity had already been laid, making it truly a land of opportunity.

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!

    It depends what period you are referring to. In the 1881 wave of pogroms, not many were killed but property damage was very extensive. Thousands of white people didn’t have to get killed in Detroit for whites to get the message that it was time for them to leave the city. A mob comes and loots your business and burns down your house – they don’t have to kill you for you to get the message that it’s time to go.

    In the later (1903-1906) wave, deaths were in the thousands. In the chaos after WWI, tens of thousands. Not the millions that would follow (or the 20% of the Jewish population that were killed in the Khmelnytsky pogroms of the 17th century) but still very serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Jackie: 7 comments in 90 minutes! You are on a roll, ignore the trolls! Love you :)
    , @Alden
    Don't believe a word in any Jewish histories.

    If Jews and liberals say something its very probable that it is a lie. Just there affirmative action lawsuits and control of the EEOC since the traitor Nixon appointed Bloomrosen, Levy and Levine to run his anti White EEOC should be enough to understand why Jews are detrimental to any country in which they live.

    Black crime??? It wasn't all that much of a problem until Jewish attorneys joined the ACLU and made the criminals laws impossible to enforce.

    Jews need to stop believing their own propaganda and acknowledge just what they have done in America since 1900. A century of destruction of the White goyim by Jews using the law and bribery of public officials and seizure of the propaganda machine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Jack D

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn't even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power - how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn't? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America - as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren't enough of them.

    I can’t speak for A Dad, but I certainly didn’t understand his reference to mean competition for raw land. Instead, I understood it to refer to abstract living space, e.g. economic space, cultural space, political and rule-making space, social-class space, mating and family-form space. Certainly disparate peoples compete in critical venues other than struggles for farmland. Are you contending that Jews had no conflict with any of the other peoples of E. Europe in any measure of living space?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. “He didn’t arrive with much money; he did piecework making zippers for a while and went on to become very active in the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union — a feminist labor organizer ahead of his time.”

    Henry Ford in his The International Jew (Vol. 3, 1921) exposed the NYC garment unions as communist cells (ch. 49, 50).

    So even good old Avram was cancer.

    I wonder if the plaque turned him into a subversive, or if it was our magic soil that did the trick. We know for certain that he couldn’t have been a bad guy in Bessarabia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. Speaking of assimilation, it’s appearing that iSteve is in the process of becoming ‘assimilated’ lately–at least in the comments. Resistance is beginning to look futile. We should probably accept it, since the alternative appears to be ‘deplatforming’.

    Sic transit gloria apostasia…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. @Jack D

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,
     
    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call "the leading role") over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times

    This is not true. It says “year of our Lord,” which is an unambiguous reference to Jesus.

    I’m a non-Christian who admires French secularism. Unfortunately religion is seldom just a matter of a person and their conscience, in fact people of such a bent, like myself, usually go by “spiritual but not religious.”

    Since we’re discussing Jews, circumcision, a literal blood ritual, is the epitome of religion not limiting itself to matters of personal consciousness, but needing to project, via permanent physical alteration, a defenceless child. We shamelessly disregard the 14th Amendment, and the core liberal principle of equality under the law that it embodies, by protecting girls from such barabarism, but not boys (I’m a mom and ‘equity feminist,’ not an MRA).

    Religion does the most pernicious and widespread damage by denying children a proper education and evidence-based understanding of material reality.

    Stalin was doing horrible stuff too but few in the West knew about that at the time.

    And why did few know? Stalin’s crimes were public knowledge, reported in the West usually soon after they were committed. Thomas Sowell had a great section on this in Intellectuals and Society.

    The problem is that the Western intelligentsia was dominated by people, rather disproportionately Jewish by the way, who were supporters of or at least sympathetic to Stalinism. These people who carried water for one of history’s greatest mass murderers are celebrated perrennial with the mythology of the ‘McCarthy Era’ and ‘Hollywood blacklist,’ which I used to buy into.

    I think that same messianic Jewish internationalism on the left has just morphed into an uncritical embrace of multiculturalism and neoliberalism, i.e. globalism. Just look at its most passionate supporters as Steve’s articles today elucidate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?
     

    It is useful to keep in mind something that surprised me at least: pogroms were a more limited phenomenon than is generally reported. There were only a few hundred fatalities in total according to Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism. Most Ashkenazis emigrated to the United States in search of economic opportunity; they were fleeing poverty not religious persecution, which made a lot of sense in view of the enormous Jewish population explosion that took place in Eastern Europe during the 19th century. Traditional Jewish occupational opportunities were far too few to accommodate everyone who needed a job. The foundations of American prosperity had already been laid, making it truly a land of opportunity.

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!

    That’s history. In our day, almost 40% of the richest Americans (according to Forbes and the JTA) are Jewish, while Jews are less than 2% of the nation’s population. When ‘proportional representation’ is demanded, this fact never seems to get mentioned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Jack D
    E. Europe was not just black and white (Jews and Christians) but a complicated ethnic melange. In Poland you had Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Germans, etc. In Hungary you had Romanians (and vice versa). In the Balkans you had everybody (Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Montenegrins, etc.) Even though most were Christian, they were often different flavors of Christian and they often hated (and fought with) each other even more than they hated the Jews. The idea that everything would have been peachy-keen if there were no Jews is just a delusion.

    The idea that everything would have been peachy if most of Europe hadn’t turned Christian is also delusional.

    Read More
    • Agree: Nico
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @guest
    "implies some change on the part of society as well as those entering it. 'Assimilation,' in contrast, 'is kind of the erasure of cultural markers"

    Here's the simple Who/Whom. They want to drown out the culture of Legacy America. If we can't send people back or stop them from coming in, we'll settle for making them neo-Americans, which means erasing their old culture in part or wholly. It's Us or Them. Barring the break-up of the U.S. and a new system of segregation, there can only be one winner.


    By the way, "erasure of cultural markers?" Is there a boringer way to put what is an inherently dramatic undertaking?

    Break-up of the US. It’s the only hope for “legacy Americans”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Jack D
    Yes, here is one such lunatic who thinks that Jews can just come to America and do their own thing:

    "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights...every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree."

    The name of this lunatic - George Washington.

    I know that my vision is degrading with age, but for some reason, I didn’t see the word “Jew” in that passage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Don't send us your strong, capable or promising. We don't want any more Einsteins, Kandinskys or Solzhenytsyns... not even any googley Sergei Brins...

    Not wretched enough.

    Just like the statue says, it's your tired, your lame, your imbeciles that we'd prefer instead...

    Send us your sick, your cripples and your mentally ill whose evil spirits weren't successfully exorcised by your traditional hyena therapy. Sure we don't have enough resources to care adequately for the health of all our fellow American citizens, but it would be discriminatory... downright racist if we were to strive to provide care for them before finishing healing the world and all its sickness and misery.

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don't want any of them. Too much promise and potential. Send instead your failed pirates, aspiring junior terrorists, war criminals and soldiers fleeing conscription or the battlefield. They can be Uber drivers until the bots take their jobs next year. Also please give us your ordinary career criminals and schemers fleeing prosecution by the cruel justice of your backward cultures. They should be entrepreneurial enough to keep themselves busy and make their own opportunities... We also especially want your America hating revolutionary activists and agitators, religious extremists, assorted trouble-makers, rabble rousers and other loud-mouthed ne'er-do-wells whom we need to remind us what an awful oppressive racist people our nation is and to help bring the change to finally replace the racist whitemale hegemony and purge their memory and culture. Finally send all your spongers, moochers and layabouts. They can look forward to a comfortable retirement no matter how young or old they are with free housing, food and health care. And after each time they've trashed or otherwise torn apart the home they've been provided with their squalid third world lifestyles, they'll be furnished with new accommodations worthy of their privileged position in American society. All they need to do is be loyal voting clientele for the party in perpetual power... and the goodies will keep flowing.

    Some Americans say we aren't allowed to exercise discretion or discriminate in favor of what might benefit our nation and people. On the contrary, we do discriminate. The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it.

    Ah, the “New New Collossus”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @unit472
    Jews tend to congregate where there is money to be made and that is not a fault. It is no coincidence that the great influx of Jews to the United States occured when this nation was becoming the largest economy on earth.

    Jews did not rush into America when it was still a largely agrarian nation and land was cheap or even, after 1862, free to those willing to settle on a plot under the Homestead Act. Being a 'sodbuster' on the prairie and facing the danger of Indian attack ( quite a bit more vicious than a pogrom I might add) was not going to entice Avram from his Bessarabian village.

    True, not many Jews in small western countries where there are few big cities and it is difficult to make money by setting up a small business. Jews and East Asians tend to be a lot richer in the US where there are more opportunities for the small businessmen. In Australia and New Zealand, the unemployment for East Asians is actually higher than it is for whites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @AnotherDad
    You are missing my point--which is the obvious point:

    1) The conflict is fundamentally because there were two separate peoples inhabiting--in competition for--the same land.

    and

    2) The reason there were two separate peoples is because of Jewish ideology, not Christian ideology.

    Christianity is an open integrationist religion--a Jew, a Greek, a Roman, a Celt, a German ... heck even an Aztec or Tongan can become a Christian. The Christians integrated ... everybody in Europe--from Romans to eventually even the barbarian Vikings. The (few) Jews in central/western Europe who decided to bail to marry a shiska or just get along with their neighbors are my ancestors, not "the Jews" ancestors.

    ~~
    These two points are the gist of it. Separate peoples sparring over land--heck just separate peoples in contact sparring--are ... human history! Hardly limited to Jews and Christians. Look around.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for "why now?" Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    If you have just one people then tough conditions will be worked out as class tensions. The poor peasants/workers may simply be squeezed out and have negative population growth--overdrive on the normal downward mobility. Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution. But add separate peoples and you'll almost certainly have ethnic conflict as well or instead.

    I believe the segregation was partly self-inflicted.

    and those were still trad societies and a feature of trad societies is they’re segregated and venturing outside one’s community is unsafe.

    but it doesn’t help when one thinks one is surrounded by filthy pork-eating polytheists whose sole purpose is to assimilate him out of existence.

    if only there was something in the modern day that would perhaps give an idea of the social dynamics that might have been at work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Cucksworth
    Its amazing that so many people treat that poem as if it is a piece of legislation that elected officials wrote and ratified.

    Its amazing that so many people treat that poem as if it is a piece of legislation that elected officials wrote and ratified.

    Wish I would have thought of that! You are an insight machine Watson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    As proven by they behavior in Palestine!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @biz
    Yes, this is really the crux of the matter when comparing any supposed refugee population today to the Jews who fled either the Russian Empire, the Nazis, or even the Arab Nationalists and Islamists.

    Jews were a small, vulnerable minority with no political power in all of those cases. They had literally nowhere to go to be safe, other than to immigrate to a distant place. The same cannot be said for, for example, a present day Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, etc, Syrian who, no matter how dire his circumstances may be, only has to go a few hundred miles at most to find a relatively safe place where his sect is the dominant majority and in control.

    In Hondouras and El Salvador with their incredible levels of street violence, it is a tragedy for the people there, but again, almost everyone is part of the same ethno-cultural group and they are not targeted because of their minority status.

    These people's situations are just different than that of Jews in the first half of the 20th century.

    Not true. They accumulated a lot of power through finances, then abused said power, thus locals turning on them. Same thing happening in US today!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @AnotherDad

    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram ...
     
    Actually it's quite clear from Ms. Wolfe's screed that even taking in Avram was mistake.

    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group--much less a nation--loyalty.

    A mentality and process that is repeatedly and endlessly for 3000 years!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Jack D
    It depends what period you are referring to. In the 1881 wave of pogroms, not many were killed but property damage was very extensive. Thousands of white people didn't have to get killed in Detroit for whites to get the message that it was time for them to leave the city. A mob comes and loots your business and burns down your house - they don't have to kill you for you to get the message that it's time to go.


    In the later (1903-1906) wave, deaths were in the thousands. In the chaos after WWI, tens of thousands. Not the millions that would follow (or the 20% of the Jewish population that were killed in the Khmelnytsky pogroms of the 17th century) but still very serious.

    Jackie: 7 comments in 90 minutes! You are on a roll, ignore the trolls! Love you :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Luke Lea

    Why were the Pogrom’s [sic] ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways?

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.

    Any more questions?
     

    It is useful to keep in mind something that surprised me at least: pogroms were a more limited phenomenon than is generally reported. There were only a few hundred fatalities in total according to Walter Laqueur in his History of Zionism. Most Ashkenazis emigrated to the United States in search of economic opportunity; they were fleeing poverty not religious persecution, which made a lot of sense in view of the enormous Jewish population explosion that took place in Eastern Europe during the 19th century. Traditional Jewish occupational opportunities were far too few to accommodate everyone who needed a job. The foundations of American prosperity had already been laid, making it truly a land of opportunity.

    Interesting factoid: a list of the ten greatest fortunes ever made in American history includes not a single Jewish name!

    Jewish population explosion and influence has logical explanations.
    Combine effects of 1861 freedom of serfs and decline of haskalah influence.
    Economic opportunity up, self thought opportunity up, creative minds no longer bound to torah study all year, recipe for many changes.
    Too much change too soon in rigid old serfdom society trying to modernize is trouble.
    Any group free from life of bondage physical or mental will have growing pains.
    Smart societies channel those growing pains to productive ends.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Jack D

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,
     
    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call "the leading role") over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    “The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.”

    When a closely related society writes up documents/agreements for themselves, they do not throw in the obvious understandings. That the Constitution is a short, easy to understand document. It’s the indication of a high trust society, with much simply understood to be true. (Contrast it with the EU treaty which is I believe well over 1000 pages)

    In other words, they didn’t mention God because this was a government document.
    When they said “freedom”, they meant in part in the form of worship with a like minded community. The government was supposed to protect worship in the public square.

    At founding, colonies had established religions which they kept. The bill of rights prevented the Federal government from imposing a sponsored religion on the states, that’s all. States had every right to regulate religion, which they did.

    Mormons were exiled all the way to Utah under the powers established at the state level, traced back to their powers at the founding of the colony. Catholics couldn’t use public money to run their schools, etc.

    Your concept of government dates back no later than the 1920′s and the start of the “progressive” movement. Read that amendment carefully – it limits Congress (the Federal one) from regulation of religion, which means it belongs to the states. A court ruling overlooked the clear wording and in the 20′s ruled states couldn’t regulate or establish religion.

    The modern concept of government and religion, which is everywhere now, is a throughly new and relatively untried idea. Most societies have understood that religion was a stablizing and unifying force and it’s helpful to keep objecting cranks to a minimum.

    As for the Founders, they had a obvious sense of a Protestant Christianity. They did not need to include paragraphs about it. Being an open atheist could get you hanged in some places at founding and they had no intention of changing it.

    (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.
     
    False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgerton_Bible_Case
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Catholics couldn’t use public money to run their schools, etc.
     
    They can in Quebec, and in Germany as well. You never hear this detail in the otherwise fulsome praise social democrats have for these countries and their "social systems".

    Say, why hasn't the ACLU sued Hawaii for having three Christian crosses in her flag?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Jack D

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn't even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power - how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn't? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America - as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren't enough of them.

    Please stop with the anti-Semitic canard/BS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Jack D
    Yes, here is one such lunatic who thinks that Jews can just come to America and do their own thing:

    "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights...every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree."

    The name of this lunatic - George Washington.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights…every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree.”

    Because Jews conformed to Protestant morality at the time. It didn’t extend to open/active atheists and it didn’t extend to every religion on the planet.

    In a (wealthy) Protestant mindset, it’s easy to include Jews as another denomination.

    The vision that’s being pushed of the Founding Fathers makes no sense whatever. They weren’t modern by any stretch of the imagination and how they lived their lives and governed the US is in perfect accordance with a Protestant mindset.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Jack D

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,
     
    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call "the leading role") over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    “The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. ”

    Agreed, however, the D. of I. references “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” near the beginning, and clearly not in an offhand way. The Constitution is a set of rules, except for the Preamble, while the D. of I. is clearly more philosophical, and even a little theological.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dube
    "...[The Declaration of Independence] references “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” near the beginning, and clearly not in an offhand way. The Constitution is a set of rules, except for the Preamble, while the D. of I. is clearly more philosophical, and even a little theological."

    Yes, "Law of Nature" comes from the thoroughgoing materialist Hobbes, "and Nature's God" from the theist Locke. Citing both is an ingenious reconciliation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @AnotherDad
    You are missing my point--which is the obvious point:

    1) The conflict is fundamentally because there were two separate peoples inhabiting--in competition for--the same land.

    and

    2) The reason there were two separate peoples is because of Jewish ideology, not Christian ideology.

    Christianity is an open integrationist religion--a Jew, a Greek, a Roman, a Celt, a German ... heck even an Aztec or Tongan can become a Christian. The Christians integrated ... everybody in Europe--from Romans to eventually even the barbarian Vikings. The (few) Jews in central/western Europe who decided to bail to marry a shiska or just get along with their neighbors are my ancestors, not "the Jews" ancestors.

    ~~
    These two points are the gist of it. Separate peoples sparring over land--heck just separate peoples in contact sparring--are ... human history! Hardly limited to Jews and Christians. Look around.

    The rest of it is just historical detail for "why now?" Fast population growth. Russian political instability. Germany losing the Great War. The Great Depression. Whatever.

    If you have just one people then tough conditions will be worked out as class tensions. The poor peasants/workers may simply be squeezed out and have negative population growth--overdrive on the normal downward mobility. Or you may have agitation, violence, reform or revolution. But add separate peoples and you'll almost certainly have ethnic conflict as well or instead.

    Debates about the history of antisemitism like this one remind me of this remarkably frank essay by Michael Medved, part of a larger discussion of Norman Podhoretz’s “Why are Jews Liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Hibernian
    "The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. "

    Agreed, however, the D. of I. references "the Law of Nature and Nature's God" near the beginning, and clearly not in an offhand way. The Constitution is a set of rules, except for the Preamble, while the D. of I. is clearly more philosophical, and even a little theological.

    “…[The Declaration of Independence] references “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” near the beginning, and clearly not in an offhand way. The Constitution is a set of rules, except for the Preamble, while the D. of I. is clearly more philosophical, and even a little theological.”

    Yes, “Law of Nature” comes from the thoroughgoing materialist Hobbes, “and Nature’s God” from the theist Locke. Citing both is an ingenious reconciliation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    “Law of Nature” comes from the thoroughgoing materialist Hobbes
     
    It is, however, hardly original to him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Another Realist
    Time to tear out that Emma Lazarus plague and chuck it into the Hudson River, or just send it to Lazarus' ancestral homeland Israel. That dumb poem has desecrated the Statue of Liberty long enough. These days her descendants are so dumb they are taking the term "wretched refuse" literally rather than figuratively as intended. What kind of dumb country accepts the world's worst criminals, rapists, terrorists and welfare seekers other than those who want to commit suicide?

    If we hadn't accepted the millions of Jews back then, we wouldn't be in this predicament today with Jewish libtards dominating all of our most important institutions from the media to academia, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Capitol Hill, and running the country to the ground with their retarded liberal ideology. The Spaniards famously put all the Jews on a ship and told them to get lost after they conspired with Muslims to invade Spain. Now the Jews in the US are doing the same with their constant cry of discrimination for not accepting enough Muslim refugees, too dumb to even realize Jews are the #1 targets of Muslims everywhere, not just because of their history and religion but for all the libtard ideology they try to inflict on the western world, from feminism to sexual promiscuity, drugs, alcohol, pop music, homosexuality, narcissism, greed, utter lack of self control.

    Liberals are people who have evolved to a point where they've lost all instincts for self-preservation.

    Jews …., too dumb to even realize Jews are the #1 targets of Muslims everywhere.

    Anywhere there are jews and a muslim majority, jews have Government protection.
    Woe betide any muslim who dares to lay hands on a jew, whether in Iran, Indonesia, India, Australia or wherever
    To the jew, all others are cattle to be exploited.
    White Christians in general just happen to be a whole lot harder to exploit, so they’re marked for destruction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. So, our government likes “refugees” who might fit in. Hand me the barf bag.

    ISLAM DOES NOT ASSIMILATE!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Jack D, you are a foul liar.

    The Jews were indeed competing for control of the land. And they finally seized control. It was called the Bolshevik Revolution and it was obviously a Jewish project.


    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn’t even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power – how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn’t? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America – as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren’t enough of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @biz

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn’t “Christ killers!”, it would be “we are God’s Chosen People”.
     
    In Judaism, the concept of the "Chosen People" means chosen for a burden, that of maintaining the Covenant and behaving a certain way, not chosen for special favors. So strike one there.

    As for the rest, Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2, where they were among the proudest Germans and contributed immensely to Germany's science and industry (e.g. Haber-Bosch process), and also music and culture (e.g. Mendelsohn), but nonetheless it didn't save them.

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations. I challenge you to name an immigrant group who more thoroughly assimilated to these norms. Jews assimilate and thrive when given the chance.

    “Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2,”

    Like this fellow, Werner Scholem? Was all that Commie street fighting and suppression of speech ‘defensive’ as Werner’s political heirs the Antifa like to claim today? And what explains the appearance of so many sons of such a small minority but highly assimilated population as leaders of violent communist organizations? This is not a rhetorical question.

    http://www.brill.com/products/book/jewish-communist-weimar-germany

    Read More
    • Agree: G Pinfold
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    So Jews were about as integrated as Irish in the United States?
    , @Alden
    Or the Jewish communists who took over Munich in 1919 and murdered 10,000 non commumist goyim in a couple months?

    Or the jewish commumists on the Vienna city council who built the KarlMarxhof housing project that looked like a regular housing project neighborhood development but has massive cellars with tunnels going all around the city, huge caches of arms and was filled with jewish commuists training for the jewish communist takeover of Vienna? Or the Jew commumists who killed the President of Hungary in the 1920's?

    100 million Goyim Christian Russians slaughtered by Jewish communists in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1940.

    Millions of American Whites shoved out of employment by the Jews who run the affirmative action racket. Tens of millions of White children terrorized by blacks for 12 years of school by the black thugs the Jews had bussed into safe, pleasant civilized White schools.


    Almost 30 years of war in the middle east out Goyim soldiers fighting to destroy the middle east so that Israel will be the only country left in a civilized state. Billions of dollars of American Goyim taxpayers money going to Israel every month?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. See, unlike the Constitution, The New Colossus is not a living document.

    Marriage, gun rights, abortion… a bunch of powdered wigs living like, what, 100 years ago (???), couldn’t have possibly foreseen the needs of a 21st century society, so the Constitution can just be updated based on how we feel day to day.

    But the true foundational texts of this great nation – the Hart-Cellar Act and The New Colossus – they are writ in stone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    The New Colossus is cast in bronze but close enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @anonymous
    The poem was completely ignored for decades. According to Google's ngram book archive, 1951 is the first year the phrase "give me your tired" is found in book form. The poem took off in popularity after Ellis Island closed in 1954.

    “Give me your Triad.”

    Of course we don’t hear much about Chinese gangsters these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Make friends with a San Francisco or NYC cop and you will hear plenty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Jack D

    First, it was driving expressions of Christianity out of the public sphere,
     
    This is completely backwards. The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.

    Only much later when the older arrivals start feeling that their automatic primacy (what Communists used to call "the leading role") over more recent arrivals is threatened do they start bringing in Christian (and often specifically Protestant) elements as a way of showing who is in charge, and naturally there was push back by those who were getting it rubbed in their face. (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).

    “Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in.”

    No, religion was expected to retain the dominant role in social life it possessed at the founding and earlier. What was not anticipated was that government would acquire the social role it has acquired in the interim, a role where the government operates as a teacher of children, an independent source for the promotion of world views and a competitor for the propagation of moral opinions. Religion was not to play a direct role in government because it wasn’t thought necessary since the two were thought to operate in different spheres. This changed with the crazy expansion of government power following the unfortunate results of the War of Northern Aggression.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Jack D

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.
     
    This could not be more wrong. The Jews were always a small minority in Eastern Europe. They were crowded into their own small towns and cities and didn't even OWN any land. They NEVER had any illusions that they were going to compete and take over the land. They had no armies, they had no power - how were they going to do this even if they wanted to, which they didn't? The idea that the Jews were competing for the land is delusional in a specifically anti-Semitic way. The Jews were never going to take over E. Europe any more than they are going to (all 2% of them) take over America - as devious and scheming as you think they are, there just aren't enough of them.

    “They had no armies”

    Because The Red Army was completely unaffiliated? Trotsky unique among such war leaders for his complete lack of ethnic affiliations?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    You might be an anti-Semite if...

    you conflate Jews and Bolsheviks.
    , @Samuel Skinner
    The Bolsheviks were disproportionately Jewish but not overwhelmingly so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#Composition_of_the_party
    "In 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34% and 20% for the Mensheviks)"
    (note it is wiki, so they might have picked a narrative friendly time or simply the only time data was available).

    The party leadership was dominated by Jews (I think about a third of the top positions were held by ethnic Jews), but the proportion of Jews was low compared to latter communist parties. Until world war 1, I believe the big left wing cause for Jews was Marxist social democrat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. I think she needed to make Avram a lot more sympathetic. Her piece ended up begging the question: Was Avram such a gift?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  124. @biz

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn’t “Christ killers!”, it would be “we are God’s Chosen People”.
     
    In Judaism, the concept of the "Chosen People" means chosen for a burden, that of maintaining the Covenant and behaving a certain way, not chosen for special favors. So strike one there.

    As for the rest, Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2, where they were among the proudest Germans and contributed immensely to Germany's science and industry (e.g. Haber-Bosch process), and also music and culture (e.g. Mendelsohn), but nonetheless it didn't save them.

    In America, mainstream Jews have assimilated to upper class WASP-ish norms (education, family, productive professional work, low crime) for several generations. I challenge you to name an immigrant group who more thoroughly assimilated to these norms. Jews assimilate and thrive when given the chance.

    “Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2″

    This has become a shibboleth – if they had “assimilated” so “spectacularly” why were they hated from Dunkirk to the Dnieper?

    And don’t say “it was the Christian bigots because the jews are always blameless”.

    Jews have been chased from Babylon onwards and the only consistent factor is that they have always been “blameless”. It simply doesn’t make any sense.

    You’re still whining about America when the most remarkable thing about the Weinstein affair is that no-one has even mentioned an aspect of his background that would have been put forward as the most salient fact up until about 40 years ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Curle
    “They had no armies”

    Because The Red Army was completely unaffiliated? Trotsky unique among such war leaders for his complete lack of ethnic affiliations?

    You might be an anti-Semite if…

    you conflate Jews and Bolsheviks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    You might be an anti-Semite if…

    you conflate Jews and Bolsheviks.
     
    You might be a nervous, secular, self-centered Jew if you insist there were no Jews in the Bolsheviks.

    Here out of all places, the anti-Semite card is not only maxed out, the peanut gallery is laughing at you for even presenting it.

    I want more Steven Millers. This need to distort history and deflect blame, regardless of ethnic origin, is a massive problem around the world. You're not helping.
    , @Curle
    You might be a dissembler if you imagine an elastic and interpretation-heavy dismissal term like anti-semitism can resolve a factual inquiry such as ‘why were so many ethnic Jews leaders of so many violent Communist organizations in Germany and elsewhere?’ Especially given the thrust of your original comment that these people were everywhere and always the victims of others.

    It is a contradiction deserving a serious response not dismissals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @ATX Hipster
    See, unlike the Constitution, The New Colossus is not a living document.

    Marriage, gun rights, abortion... a bunch of powdered wigs living like, what, 100 years ago (???), couldn't have possibly foreseen the needs of a 21st century society, so the Constitution can just be updated based on how we feel day to day.

    But the true foundational texts of this great nation - the Hart-Cellar Act and The New Colossus - they are writ in stone.

    The New Colossus is cast in bronze but close enough.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Don't send us your strong, capable or promising. We don't want any more Einsteins, Kandinskys or Solzhenytsyns... not even any googley Sergei Brins...

    Not wretched enough.

    Just like the statue says, it's your tired, your lame, your imbeciles that we'd prefer instead...

    Send us your sick, your cripples and your mentally ill whose evil spirits weren't successfully exorcised by your traditional hyena therapy. Sure we don't have enough resources to care adequately for the health of all our fellow American citizens, but it would be discriminatory... downright racist if we were to strive to provide care for them before finishing healing the world and all its sickness and misery.

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don't want any of them. Too much promise and potential. Send instead your failed pirates, aspiring junior terrorists, war criminals and soldiers fleeing conscription or the battlefield. They can be Uber drivers until the bots take their jobs next year. Also please give us your ordinary career criminals and schemers fleeing prosecution by the cruel justice of your backward cultures. They should be entrepreneurial enough to keep themselves busy and make their own opportunities... We also especially want your America hating revolutionary activists and agitators, religious extremists, assorted trouble-makers, rabble rousers and other loud-mouthed ne'er-do-wells whom we need to remind us what an awful oppressive racist people our nation is and to help bring the change to finally replace the racist whitemale hegemony and purge their memory and culture. Finally send all your spongers, moochers and layabouts. They can look forward to a comfortable retirement no matter how young or old they are with free housing, food and health care. And after each time they've trashed or otherwise torn apart the home they've been provided with their squalid third world lifestyles, they'll be furnished with new accommodations worthy of their privileged position in American society. All they need to do is be loyal voting clientele for the party in perpetual power... and the goodies will keep flowing.

    Some Americans say we aren't allowed to exercise discretion or discriminate in favor of what might benefit our nation and people. On the contrary, we do discriminate. The more wretched the refuse, the more we want it.

    Scientists? Engineers? Doctors? No we certainly don’t want any of them.

    Damn straight, I don’t. It needs to be said over and over again that we do not need high-skilled/high-wage immigrants any more than we need the wretched refuse. We do not need cunning jackals and fraudsters from the Third World putting downward wage pressure on our own professional class. America needs to exist solely for the benefit of the White race. It is not some gigantic vo-tech academy where we invite the talented tenth from around the world to come achieve their “promise and potential.” Immigration needs to stop, period. No exemptions, no exceptions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Doggerel by Emma Lazarus. I am not a USA person, but admiring much (also depising much). … and to sympathising with many.

    Having the plaque attached to the magnificent gift from France, when she was in no position to speaking for the nation, as a new arrival, it is just arrogance and a dirty trick, also to reflecting the excessive power her tribe had already gained in NYC by that time .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. @eah

    I also get the point. Germans (and Westerners generally) need to start making their own stuff again.

    First the elites sell all our industries abroad, and then they say, “See, without globalism you wouldn’t have anything.” Then they use the supposed economic indispensability of foreigners as an argument for letting in as many of them as possible.

    Read More
    • Agree: eah
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Curle
    “Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2,”

    Like this fellow, Werner Scholem? Was all that Commie street fighting and suppression of speech ‘defensive’ as Werner’s political heirs the Antifa like to claim today? And what explains the appearance of so many sons of such a small minority but highly assimilated population as leaders of violent communist organizations? This is not a rhetorical question.

    http://www.brill.com/products/book/jewish-communist-weimar-germany

    So Jews were about as integrated as Irish in the United States?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle
    If you are alluding to a specific instance of Irish leadership of a street fighting group in the US committed to overthrowing the established political order, especially one that got close to achieving its objectives, please be more specific. I offered the German example of Werner Scholem. If you have an Irish-American equivalent please name that person.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Curle
    “They had no armies”

    Because The Red Army was completely unaffiliated? Trotsky unique among such war leaders for his complete lack of ethnic affiliations?

    The Bolsheviks were disproportionately Jewish but not overwhelmingly so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#Composition_of_the_party

    “In 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34% and 20% for the Mensheviks)”
    (note it is wiki, so they might have picked a narrative friendly time or simply the only time data was available).

    The party leadership was dominated by Jews (I think about a third of the top positions were held by ethnic Jews), but the proportion of Jews was low compared to latter communist parties. Until world war 1, I believe the big left wing cause for Jews was Marxist social democrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle
    The answer to the question on the table ‘did the Russian Jews have an army looking out for their interests?’ is yes, they did. Russian Jews had an army, the Bolshevik Army, looking out for their interests even if they were but a coalition member. Trotsky was, for a time, head of that army.

    “Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.”

    "Trotsky's idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Jack D
    You might be an anti-Semite if...

    you conflate Jews and Bolsheviks.

    You might be an anti-Semite if…

    you conflate Jews and Bolsheviks.

    You might be a nervous, secular, self-centered Jew if you insist there were no Jews in the Bolsheviks.

    Here out of all places, the anti-Semite card is not only maxed out, the peanut gallery is laughing at you for even presenting it.

    I want more Steven Millers. This need to distort history and deflect blame, regardless of ethnic origin, is a massive problem around the world. You’re not helping.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Jack D
    You might be an anti-Semite if...

    you conflate Jews and Bolsheviks.

    You might be a dissembler if you imagine an elastic and interpretation-heavy dismissal term like anti-semitism can resolve a factual inquiry such as ‘why were so many ethnic Jews leaders of so many violent Communist organizations in Germany and elsewhere?’ Especially given the thrust of your original comment that these people were everywhere and always the victims of others.

    It is a contradiction deserving a serious response not dismissals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    For the same reason that the KKK did not have a lot of black members. Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Pogroms???

    In the archives of the State/Foreign departments of every country in Europe and the Americas that is USA and all of Latin America are reports from diplomats on the scene not just in the Petersburg but the consulates in all the provincial towns.

    They all firmly and explicitly state that the pogroms did not happen. The reports all state that the pogroms are a lying falsehood designed to:

    !. Facilitate the movement of Jews to other countries regardless of immigration and visa regulations.
    2. Get money from Jews in the Americas and W. Europe to help them move and establish themsleves.

    There are records going back to 1880 in the library of congress,read into the congressional record and in our State department archives.

    And since I know so many grandchildren and great grandchildren of AVram and his fellow invaders I know exactly what became of AVram and his descendants. In 1919 they joyously joined the communist party. In 1933 they swarmed to subvert FDR’s 12 year administration with Russian spies and commumists. In the fifties they were forced to lie low due to that great hero Senator McCarthy’s exposure of them.

    By 1965 their grandchildren were young adults and they flocked to DAvid Horowitz and his black panther buddies. Avram’s descendants went to law school and the day they passed the bar exam they began filing affirmative action lawsuits against Whites against labor unions (Philadelphia plan), let the black criminals out of jail, they pushed that pro rape POS book To Kill A Mockingbird on every 6 grader on up and have worked ceaselessly to destroy America just as they worked ceasecessly to destroy Poland from about 1550 AD on

    DAvid Horowitz a conservative? He began life as a hardcore 3rd generation communist who helped turn the college town of Berkely CA into the den of inquity it is. Then he became the communist party of America’s liason tothe black panthers in Oakland. PS all those liason years his paycheck came from the taxpayers via grants to the Black Panthers. He was on their payroll.

    When he got word the Panthers planned to kill himm because he knew so much about their common crimes of murder and pimping, he became a spy and lobbyist for Israel.

    I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in the Devil. Horowitz and his hate the White goyim affirmative action enablers crew are te worst of the worst. According to their own publications, I believe they are ready to make their next historic jump and try to take over China.

    I don’t think it will work as the Chinese as a whole have no sympathy for anyone but other Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @Jack D
    It depends what period you are referring to. In the 1881 wave of pogroms, not many were killed but property damage was very extensive. Thousands of white people didn't have to get killed in Detroit for whites to get the message that it was time for them to leave the city. A mob comes and loots your business and burns down your house - they don't have to kill you for you to get the message that it's time to go.


    In the later (1903-1906) wave, deaths were in the thousands. In the chaos after WWI, tens of thousands. Not the millions that would follow (or the 20% of the Jewish population that were killed in the Khmelnytsky pogroms of the 17th century) but still very serious.

    Don’t believe a word in any Jewish histories.

    If Jews and liberals say something its very probable that it is a lie. Just there affirmative action lawsuits and control of the EEOC since the traitor Nixon appointed Bloomrosen, Levy and Levine to run his anti White EEOC should be enough to understand why Jews are detrimental to any country in which they live.

    Black crime??? It wasn’t all that much of a problem until Jewish attorneys joined the ACLU and made the criminals laws impossible to enforce.

    Jews need to stop believing their own propaganda and acknowledge just what they have done in America since 1900. A century of destruction of the White goyim by Jews using the law and bribery of public officials and seizure of the propaganda machine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Lurker
    "Give me your Triad."

    Of course we don't hear much about Chinese gangsters these days.

    Make friends with a San Francisco or NYC cop and you will hear plenty

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Jack D
    Hindsight is 20/20. No one knew until it was too late that Hitler actually intended to murder every single Jew in Europe. Expel them maybe, but not kill them all. Even when people found out that this was actually happening, people STILL could not believe it because it was so without precedent. Nothing like the killing factories of Auschwitz, Treblinka, etc. had ever existed anywhere let alone in a civilized European country - they were literally unimaginable. (Stalin was doing horrible stuff too but few in the West knew about that at the time). Later even when it was already known to be happening, people still didn't want to believe it because they were in denial.

    Of course the big problem in the end was not the 1/2 million German Jews but the millions and millions of Jews who lived further east. Many were trapped in the Soviet Union and could not have left even if they wanted to. For Polish Jews, there was essentially no quota so immigration to the US was more or less out of the question - everyone knew it was not an available option anymore. Growing up in Poland in the '30s, a some of my father's friends and relatives left Poland but they left for France and Belgium where the Germans caught up with them later (a few went to Palestine ). Poland itself experienced some anti-Semitic activity in the '30s but it was relatively minor -you could count the total # of victims on the fingers of your hands. You didn't have to be Nostradamus to predict that there might be another war between Germany and Russia someday with Poland caught in the middle but no one expected a campaign of total annihilation or that it would come so soon. Compared to Czarist times the political (if not economic) situation of Jews in Poland was relatively good at least until the death of Pilsudski in '35 so there was no big pressure to flee. If American immigration was still an option many would have gone for economic reasons but not because they thought that they were in imminent danger. Things changed with incredible suddenness - the war started on the 1st of Sept. and within 2 weeks the Polish defenses crumbled and Germans were in my father's town (which was well away from the border). On the 1st day they set fire to the synagogue so instantly it became clear that things were not going to be good but by then it was too late.

    As for the German Jews themselves, they were among the best integrated and most prosperous Jews in the world - their position was not unlike that of American Jews today. People had businesses, homes, connections to the community, non-Jewish spouses, etc. - they were not going to give up everything just because some crazy guy was elected. Yes, starting in 1933, Hitler made their lives miserable but he wasn't actually killing a lot of Jews. Prior to Kristallnacht in late '38, it was more like the situation of say American blacks in the Jim Crow South (few of them ever left for another country). Rather than leaving, many Jews just retreated into their own community - they had their own schools, doctors, etc. - somehow they were going to muddle thru. Maybe it will blow over? Hitler might be deposed or might mellow somehow. After Kristallnacht and the mass arrests that followed, German Jews began to see the actual seriousness of their situation - they were not just going to be 2nd class citizens but their very lives were at risk, but by then there was less than a year before the war began and the doors virtually all closed.

    Same same old Jewish propaganda I’ve heard all my life. Problem is, it isn’t true. Go back to the Jewish publications you usually write for.

    If Jews are so smart* why do they believe all these lies.

    Average IQ in Israel 95.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Jack D
    Yes, here is one such lunatic who thinks that Jews can just come to America and do their own thing:

    "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights...every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree."

    The name of this lunatic - George Washington.

    …every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree.

    I suspect GW would be concerned that his ancestors are giving away/having taken away their vine and fig trees to support foreigners fleeing overpopulated lands in service to overpopulating GW’s country.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    International Jew and Jack D are just reciting the fraudulent tale of European oppression which is not true at all. The archives of every State Foreign Affairs department in W. Europe and the Americas has reports going back to the 1880′s by diplomats right there who wrote reports that the tales of the pogroms were just lies to facilitate immigration to prosperous countries.

    At the same time the Jews were invading the Americas back in 1900, they were invading South AFrica.
    When they got to S. Africa, they did the same thing, founded a communist party, sent sob story propaganda to the rest of the world and look ow South Africa ended up thanks to the commuists like Joe Schlomo and the rest of them.

    It’s all in those state /foreign department archives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. ANN CORCORAN HAS THE HEART OF A LION

    GOD BLESS ANN CORCORAN

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    Thanks for this -- I agree 100% -- she is indefatigable.

    Looking at Wolfe's twitter I noticed the retweet below -- of course what this woman means is that men have to bring the perpetrators to justice: she isn't going to do anything -- also the US had taken in tens of thousands of refugees from the DRC.

    https://twitter.com/HelenClarkNZ/status/919970268705148930
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Curle
    “Jews did assimilate spectacularly in e.g. Germany before WW2,”

    Like this fellow, Werner Scholem? Was all that Commie street fighting and suppression of speech ‘defensive’ as Werner’s political heirs the Antifa like to claim today? And what explains the appearance of so many sons of such a small minority but highly assimilated population as leaders of violent communist organizations? This is not a rhetorical question.

    http://www.brill.com/products/book/jewish-communist-weimar-germany

    Or the Jewish communists who took over Munich in 1919 and murdered 10,000 non commumist goyim in a couple months?

    Or the jewish commumists on the Vienna city council who built the KarlMarxhof housing project that looked like a regular housing project neighborhood development but has massive cellars with tunnels going all around the city, huge caches of arms and was filled with jewish commuists training for the jewish communist takeover of Vienna? Or the Jew commumists who killed the President of Hungary in the 1920′s?

    100 million Goyim Christian Russians slaughtered by Jewish communists in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1940.

    Millions of American Whites shoved out of employment by the Jews who run the affirmative action racket. Tens of millions of White children terrorized by blacks for 12 years of school by the black thugs the Jews had bussed into safe, pleasant civilized White schools.

    Almost 30 years of war in the middle east out Goyim soldiers fighting to destroy the middle east so that Israel will be the only country left in a civilized state. Billions of dollars of American Goyim taxpayers money going to Israel every month?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. ANN CORCORAN IS THE EXPERT ON REFUGEE OVERLOAD

    REFUGEE OVERLOAD IS DESTROYING THE UNITED STATES

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  143. Here is a book I highly recommend. “Supermob” by Gus Russo. It’s easily available on Amazon, bookstores and public libraries.

    International Jew and Jack D should read it too. Although it seems as though the brains of International Jew and Jack D are just empty vessel Jewish liberal brains. BAsically an empty sink. Propaganda central puts down the plug, and turns on the propaganda faucet. When the sink is full, the faucet is turned off.

    Every word either of them wrote on this thread is just same old same old jewish propaganda. I read it in my parents library 60 years ago. Then I went to a top 5 university and dove into the library. And I soon learned that all the pro communist pro liberal pro Jew propaganda I read as a teen was a complete lie.

    Especially that Anne Frank diary written by Meyer Levine a very profilic, very popular New York Jew writer of FICTION hired by Mr Frank to write the diary. Levine wrote some excellent books. I like his books, but they are all fiction including the Diary of Anne

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. “… future Avrams may never have the chance to come to the United States. “. My response to that is “So what? Good”
    First this isn’t 1900. Its economic base, its population, its government programs (i.e welfare and other social programs) are not the same as 1900. Is America to take in refugees and other migrants until New York City rivals Dhaka, Bangladesh? Until the national debt is 2X GDP?
    Second, where is it written that Americans must play host to all the world’s miserable detritus, just because of some ill defined “yearning to be free”? Besides, they don’t want to be free, anyway. How many come here now expecting handouts and goodies, and cradle to grave state support. Eliminate the welfare programs (and, I include in that public services such as “free” education) and see how many continue to come.
    Sorry, but future Avrams are just gonna have to learn to make due in their native countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. @Jack D
    Yes, here is one such lunatic who thinks that Jews can just come to America and do their own thing:

    "The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

    It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights...every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree."

    The name of this lunatic - George Washington.

    I just looked at the calendar. This is the year 2017, not 1790. Granted, I was not around in 1790, but I have a sneaking suspicion that conditions have changed, dramatically, since Washington uttered those words. And Washington would agree that as conditions change so should certain policies. The population in 1790 was under 4 million. In 1900 it was 76 million, and we have not added a square inch of territory since then. Today it is 326 million.
    Besides, some peoples’ “vine and fig trees” are rightly in Asia or Latin America. I have no problem with people sitting under their own vine and fig trees, I have a problem when they want to sit under mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    You lost the Philippines since then!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    In 1900 it was 76 million, and we have not added a square inch of territory since then.
     
    You are forgetting the Convention Between the United States and Denmark for Cession of the Danish West Indies, 100 years ago this spring.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Curle
    You might be a dissembler if you imagine an elastic and interpretation-heavy dismissal term like anti-semitism can resolve a factual inquiry such as ‘why were so many ethnic Jews leaders of so many violent Communist organizations in Germany and elsewhere?’ Especially given the thrust of your original comment that these people were everywhere and always the victims of others.

    It is a contradiction deserving a serious response not dismissals.

    For the same reason that the KKK did not have a lot of black members. Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Curle
    Go back to your original assertion that was challenged and that you are now attempting to escape from by shifting to a different subject.
    , @anonymous

    Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
     
    You are conflating white Gentile with Christian. Jews might be considered Jews ethnically and/or religiously, but European Gentiles are not necessarily Christians. Christianity is just a religion and is not an ethnic background. There are plenty of European atheists, pagans and even muslim Slavs.

    I am sure 100 percent of Nazi party members were white, probably overwhelmingly German, but not necessarily practicing Christians.
    , @Alden
    Get your facts right. Hitler was a militant atheist. The Nazi party was explicitly anti Christian. The Nazi party was actually a new religion, a combination of ancient paganism, nature worship, atheism and new age stuff. Your brain is just a sink filled with the garbage in the Jewish publications you read.

    Post about you know, not ignorant propaganda like the Nazi party was Christian.
    It was as anti Christian as drmicrats, liberals and Jews are.
    , @Eagle Eye

    Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
     
    Not true. The inner National Socialist party was from the beginning actively and viciously anti-Christian although this was somewhat toned down for the general populace in the early 1930s. Upon gaining power, the N-Socialists immediately set about replacing Christian churches - already massively weakened by WW I, following anti-Christian activism going back to the 1820s - by instituting neo-pagan practices, and even worked to invent a purely pagan religion.

    Indeed, it appears that there were quite a few Jews among the early adherents of National Socialism notwithstanding the openly anti-Jewish position of parts of the party, but it is difficult to find evidence of this one way or the other. (Remember the Hitler faction did not gain full control of the party until the purge of the Roehm wing.)

    P.S.: Never say "Nazi." Leftards prefer "Nazi" because it obscures the pedigree of their fellow socialists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @eah

    It would be funny to see this comparison taken to its logical conclusion. Which kind of goods end up in the store? The kind which are useful or desirable and which sell. The ones that do not sell do not get future orders, the unsold stock is destroyed or returned for destruction, displeased buyers have plenty of recourse against the store or the manufacturer. Heaven! Maybe immigrants would be in the cigarette sections with the big European-style warning pictures on the packets with all the horribleness resulting from immigration, like terror, poverty and conflict.

    Read More
    • Agree: eah
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Philip Nolan
    I just looked at the calendar. This is the year 2017, not 1790. Granted, I was not around in 1790, but I have a sneaking suspicion that conditions have changed, dramatically, since Washington uttered those words. And Washington would agree that as conditions change so should certain policies. The population in 1790 was under 4 million. In 1900 it was 76 million, and we have not added a square inch of territory since then. Today it is 326 million.
    Besides, some peoples' "vine and fig trees" are rightly in Asia or Latin America. I have no problem with people sitting under their own vine and fig trees, I have a problem when they want to sit under mine.

    You lost the Philippines since then!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You lost the Philippines since then!
     
    In what way was that a loss for us?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Except Bolshevism primarily attracted atheistic Jews. The predominate such organizations to this day. It’s insane to call them some sort of universalist organization when it appeared that comfort with Jews by birth was absolutely a requirement.

    Certainly, Bolshevism only appeals to certain groups. The Ukrainians would have none of it and their profile is much more like a Midwestern farmer.

    Meanwhile, you can find Jewish Nazis. Look it up.

    Nazis embraced ideas that were anti-Christian. To call a Christian disease is to fail to notice the millions of Christians (more than Jews) who died in the Holocaust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Except Bolshevism primarily attracted atheistic Jews. The predominate such organizations to this day.

    Jews are a tiny minority in every occidental country except the United States and France. The notion they predominate in any social sphere other than synagogues, the kosher meat trade, and the diamond trade beggars belief. In the U.S., Communist movements have been demographically insignificant and the most salient figures within them (Earl Browder, Harry Bridges) gentile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Jack D
    For the same reason that the KKK did not have a lot of black members. Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Go back to your original assertion that was challenged and that you are now attempting to escape from by shifting to a different subject.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It is simply the right thing at the wrong time.

    Without the restriction in white European immigration during the 1920′s we would have never had the. Great Migration. Everyone knew that the Euro trash wretched ruined the neighborhoods. Little did they realize.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29

    The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million African-Americans out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest, and West that occurred between 1916 and 1970.[1] Until 1910, more than 90 percent of the African-American population lived in the American South.[2] In 1900, only one-fifth of African-Americans living in the South were living in urban areas.[3] By the end of the Great Migration, 53 percent of the African-American population remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the North, and 7 percent in the West,[4] and the African-American population had become highly urbanized. By 1970, more than 80 percent of African-Americans lived in cities,[5] and by 1960, of those African-Americans still living in the South, half now lived in urban areas.[3] In 1991, Nicholas Lemann wrote that the Great Migration:

    was one of the largest and most rapid mass internal movements in history—perhaps the greatest not caused by the immediate threat of execution or starvation. In sheer numbers it outranks the migration of any other ethnic group—Italians or Irish or Jews or Poles—to [the United States]. For blacks, the migration meant leaving what had always been their economic and social base in America, and finding a new one.[6]

    I apologize for Wikipedia.

    The thing with immigration … a little goes a long way.

    So …. 40 years and the unwashed ethnics having cashed in on post WW 2 prosperity …. immigration didn’t seem like such a bad idea. Nation of nations. &c. Plus, it seemed so much better in retrospect than the new batch of migrants from the south.

    Hard to believe that only 6 million wrecked all Northern Cities East of the Mississippi.

    In Chicago, it isn’t the White working class that is getting replaced by open borders and globalism.

    The point being that we seem to always be breaking the wrong way on immigration. Without the vacuum of sealed borders, the great migration would have encountered immediate pushback. It wouldn’t have stopped it cold but it would have at least moderated it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. @AM

    "The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in."
     
    When a closely related society writes up documents/agreements for themselves, they do not throw in the obvious understandings. That the Constitution is a short, easy to understand document. It's the indication of a high trust society, with much simply understood to be true. (Contrast it with the EU treaty which is I believe well over 1000 pages)

    In other words, they didn't mention God because this was a government document.
    When they said "freedom", they meant in part in the form of worship with a like minded community. The government was supposed to protect worship in the public square.

    At founding, colonies had established religions which they kept. The bill of rights prevented the Federal government from imposing a sponsored religion on the states, that's all. States had every right to regulate religion, which they did.

    Mormons were exiled all the way to Utah under the powers established at the state level, traced back to their powers at the founding of the colony. Catholics couldn't use public money to run their schools, etc.

    Your concept of government dates back no later than the 1920's and the start of the "progressive" movement. Read that amendment carefully - it limits Congress (the Federal one) from regulation of religion, which means it belongs to the states. A court ruling overlooked the clear wording and in the 20's ruled states couldn't regulate or establish religion.

    The modern concept of government and religion, which is everywhere now, is a throughly new and relatively untried idea. Most societies have understood that religion was a stablizing and unifying force and it's helpful to keep objecting cranks to a minimum.

    As for the Founders, they had a obvious sense of a Protestant Christianity. They did not need to include paragraphs about it. Being an open atheist could get you hanged in some places at founding and they had no intention of changing it.

    (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).
     

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.

    False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgerton_Bible_Case

    Read More
    • Replies: @AM

    False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgerton_Bible_Case
     
    Okay, thanks for demonstrating that the state of Wisconsin had the power to regulate matters of religion in 1890, just as I had stated. ahem

    So...are you going to react to anything else I said at all?

    Like refashioning colonial history into something more like your liking? Like taking Catholics improperly as a historical shield?

    I'd think of it as big joke, except your version of history is literally the cultural air we breathe. And it's killing us as a culture. And I'm at a loss.

    , @Hibernian
    The answer to this issue, like many others, is "both of the above."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Samuel Skinner
    So Jews were about as integrated as Irish in the United States?

    If you are alluding to a specific instance of Irish leadership of a street fighting group in the US committed to overthrowing the established political order, especially one that got close to achieving its objectives, please be more specific. I offered the German example of Werner Scholem. If you have an Irish-American equivalent please name that person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    I'm referring to Irish-Americans attempting to conquer Canada using the United States as a base, building a submarine in the United States to attack the British Navy and the support of the IRA. Not at intense as Jewish activities, but certainly crazy in its own unique ways.
    , @Alden
    Somebody's been watching "Gangs of New York"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Jack D

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.
     
    False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgerton_Bible_Case

    False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgerton_Bible_Case

    Okay, thanks for demonstrating that the state of Wisconsin had the power to regulate matters of religion in 1890, just as I had stated. ahem

    So…are you going to react to anything else I said at all?

    Like refashioning colonial history into something more like your liking? Like taking Catholics improperly as a historical shield?

    I’d think of it as big joke, except your version of history is literally the cultural air we breathe. And it’s killing us as a culture. And I’m at a loss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Jack D

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.
     
    False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgerton_Bible_Case

    The answer to this issue, like many others, is “both of the above.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Samuel Skinner
    The Bolsheviks were disproportionately Jewish but not overwhelmingly so.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#Composition_of_the_party
    "In 1907, 78.3% of the Bolsheviks were Russian and 10% were Jewish (34% and 20% for the Mensheviks)"
    (note it is wiki, so they might have picked a narrative friendly time or simply the only time data was available).

    The party leadership was dominated by Jews (I think about a third of the top positions were held by ethnic Jews), but the proportion of Jews was low compared to latter communist parties. Until world war 1, I believe the big left wing cause for Jews was Marxist social democrat.

    The answer to the question on the table ‘did the Russian Jews have an army looking out for their interests?’ is yes, they did. Russian Jews had an army, the Bolshevik Army, looking out for their interests even if they were but a coalition member. Trotsky was, for a time, head of that army.

    “Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.”

    “Trotsky’s idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    For the same reason that the KKK did not have a lot of black members. Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    You are conflating white Gentile with Christian. Jews might be considered Jews ethnically and/or religiously, but European Gentiles are not necessarily Christians. Christianity is just a religion and is not an ethnic background. There are plenty of European atheists, pagans and even muslim Slavs.

    I am sure 100 percent of Nazi party members were white, probably overwhelmingly German, but not necessarily practicing Christians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    100% of Bolsheviks were not practicing Jews, by definition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @AnotherDad

    Because the Czar needed a scapegoat to distract his non-Jewish subjects from overthrowing him. And because the Church taught that the Jews killed Christ.
     
    LOL. Seriously? This is your level of analysis?

    How about the simple one: Two separate groups of people living in and competing for the same land.

    It's always amazing to me that Jews who are otherwise intelligent seriously spout--as if they believe it themselves, not just pushing it as propaganda--a completely cartoon version of Jewish history and "oppression".

    European national peoples are all a melange of whatever tribes existed in the area, plus the contributions of various invaders, who were Christianized--converted en masse--at various times over the last couple thousand years. The unique and salient feature of the Jews, is that they are a people who *refused* to integrate with their neighbors--socially, culturally, genetically--and hence were able to maintain themselves as a separate tribe down to the present day.

    Jews acting like their ancestors were all little MLKs giving "I have a dream" speech and just wishing that every man should be judged "by the content of his character" and wanting to get together with the gentiles break bread and sing kumbaya ... absolutely the most laughable pablum propaganda ever.

    The Europeans were the integrationists--live there, speak the language, celebrate the local traditions, go to the local church, marry one of your neighbors ... and you were, or would in a generation or two become, one of the local people--English, Bavarian, Frisan, Alsatian, what have you. The Jews were the reverse, the hyper-tribalist non-integrationists who rejected assimilation with their neighbors. (Actually with very specific religious commandments against social association with the goyim.)

    If you want a theological principle that is responsible for pogroms it isn't "Christ killers!", it would be "we are God's Chosen People".

    marry one of your neighbors

    Like Harvey Weinstein did?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Philip Nolan
    I just looked at the calendar. This is the year 2017, not 1790. Granted, I was not around in 1790, but I have a sneaking suspicion that conditions have changed, dramatically, since Washington uttered those words. And Washington would agree that as conditions change so should certain policies. The population in 1790 was under 4 million. In 1900 it was 76 million, and we have not added a square inch of territory since then. Today it is 326 million.
    Besides, some peoples' "vine and fig trees" are rightly in Asia or Latin America. I have no problem with people sitting under their own vine and fig trees, I have a problem when they want to sit under mine.

    In 1900 it was 76 million, and we have not added a square inch of territory since then.

    You are forgetting the Convention Between the United States and Denmark for Cession of the Danish West Indies, 100 years ago this spring.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @AM

    "The Founding Fathers did not include Christianity in the public sphere. The Constitution mentions God exactly zero times and the Declaration of Independence never once mentions Jesus. Religion was to be a private matter between you and your conscience and not something that the government should have any part in."
     
    When a closely related society writes up documents/agreements for themselves, they do not throw in the obvious understandings. That the Constitution is a short, easy to understand document. It's the indication of a high trust society, with much simply understood to be true. (Contrast it with the EU treaty which is I believe well over 1000 pages)

    In other words, they didn't mention God because this was a government document.
    When they said "freedom", they meant in part in the form of worship with a like minded community. The government was supposed to protect worship in the public square.

    At founding, colonies had established religions which they kept. The bill of rights prevented the Federal government from imposing a sponsored religion on the states, that's all. States had every right to regulate religion, which they did.

    Mormons were exiled all the way to Utah under the powers established at the state level, traced back to their powers at the founding of the colony. Catholics couldn't use public money to run their schools, etc.

    Your concept of government dates back no later than the 1920's and the start of the "progressive" movement. Read that amendment carefully - it limits Congress (the Federal one) from regulation of religion, which means it belongs to the states. A court ruling overlooked the clear wording and in the 20's ruled states couldn't regulate or establish religion.

    The modern concept of government and religion, which is everywhere now, is a throughly new and relatively untried idea. Most societies have understood that religion was a stablizing and unifying force and it's helpful to keep objecting cranks to a minimum.

    As for the Founders, they had a obvious sense of a Protestant Christianity. They did not need to include paragraphs about it. Being an open atheist could get you hanged in some places at founding and they had no intention of changing it.

    (BTW a lot of the push back came from Catholics and not Jews, objecting to the use of the King James Version of the Bible in schools).
     

    You know what American Catholics did? We took our money and started our own schools. We did not demand, ultimately that public schools change their Protestant character or attempt to re-write history.

    Catholics couldn’t use public money to run their schools, etc.

    They can in Quebec, and in Germany as well. You never hear this detail in the otherwise fulsome praise social democrats have for these countries and their “social systems”.

    Say, why hasn’t the ACLU sued Hawaii for having three Christian crosses in her flag?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @jjbees
    Why were the Pogrom's ravaging cities across eastern europe, anyways? She sort of glossed over that.

    Interesting that Avram's great-granddaughter is agitating to destroy the very country that took her ancestors in. Her lack of self-awareness is quite ironic.

    I still can’t figure out how these people continue to think that mass immigration with few checks can yield a positive outcome. It’s certainly not just Jews either.

    Yesterday, there was a story of an idiotic Canadian who decided to move himself and his family to Afghanistan.

    Of course that was a disaster, with him saying the Taliban raped his wife and killed his youngest daughter.

    An Afghan government spokesman stated that while they could not confirm his story it was perfectly plausible. The Taliban are vicious.

    I looked at travel advisories offered by the Canadian government. A sortable list was quite interesting.

    Afghanistan was “Avoid completely.” I suspect it’s been that way for years.

    But what I noticed was that certain European countries were not in the most safe category (“use reasonable precautions”) .

    Belgium, for example, was deemed more dangerous than Belarus, which is governed by a dictator. The UK and France were in same category as Belgium.

    I can only assume this is due to the numerous attacks of Islamic terrorists in these countries.

    It’s staggering to me that with all this information available (I just mention examples) some people are still pushing for more Muslims. Don’t they at least read the news headlines?

    They are ignorant or stupid or what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. About 40 percent of Americans are now descended from someone who came through Ellis Island.

    This claim appears to originate with the Ellis Island immigration museum. Am I the only one who finds it slightly dubious? Ellis Island processed about 12 million people between 1892 and 1954; in the same span of time, the US population grew from about 63 million to 163 million. About 10 million of these immigrants arrived before 1925, when the overall population was about 116 million. It’s certainly possible- a combination of out-marriage and population growth could potentially turn 10 million people into 130 million descendants over the course of four generations- but is it likely? Relative to random chance, one would assume that the descendants of Ellis island immigrants would be more likely to marry the descendants of other Ellis Island immigrants, limiting the number of people whose ancestors could be said to have crossed its gates. I’m not 100% sure it’s false, but whoever discovered this purported fact really ought to show his work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    I take this to mean that if even 1 of your ancestors went thru Ellis Island you would be included. We are around 4 generations in so many younger people have 16 great-great grandparents who were born in the 1900-25 window so even being 1/16th immigrant would "count". With that low bar it wouldn't be difficult to get up to 40% of the population. They are saying, conversely, that 60% of the population does not have even 1 ancestor who came after 1900. Of course a goodly portion of those are probably black.
    , @Alden
    Not me or mine I'm thankful to say. Some of mine came 200 years earlier. Probably deported convicts and Scots rebels and people so down and out they had to sell themselves into indentured servitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @AM
    That picture is the reason why Germans are best as toy makers, clock makers, engineers and chemists and really should stay away from theology and world domination schemes.

    They must develop the patience of saints just to live with themselves.

    They must develop the patience of saints just to live with themselves.

    It’s bad, aber nicht hoffnungslos:

    welt.de — Viele Fragezeichen nach Edekas leeren Regalen

    A couple of the comments: Oh, so leer sind die Regale ohne “Vielfalt”? Wie leer müssten dann erst unsere Gefängnisse ohne Vielfalt sein??? — How empty would our prisons be without diversity??? — Jetzt muss mir Edeka nur noch erklären was unkontrolierte offene Grenzen mit offene regulierte Märkte zu tun hat?? — Edeka should explain what uncontrolled, open borders have to do with open, regulated markets?

    Most of the top-rated comments are similar — BTW, the story is about 2 months old: Edeka did this back in August, in Hamburg, where antifa were allowed to riot and destroy property earlier this year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Charles Pewitt
    ANN CORCORAN HAS THE HEART OF A LION

    GOD BLESS ANN CORCORAN

    https://twitter.com/RefugeeWatcher/status/918845138142748677

    Thanks for this — I agree 100% — she is indefatigable.

    Looking at Wolfe’s twitter I noticed the retweet below — of course what this woman means is that men have to bring the perpetrators to justice: she isn’t going to do anything — also the US had taken in tens of thousands of refugees from the DRC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @anonymous

    Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
     
    You are conflating white Gentile with Christian. Jews might be considered Jews ethnically and/or religiously, but European Gentiles are not necessarily Christians. Christianity is just a religion and is not an ethnic background. There are plenty of European atheists, pagans and even muslim Slavs.

    I am sure 100 percent of Nazi party members were white, probably overwhelmingly German, but not necessarily practicing Christians.

    100% of Bolsheviks were not practicing Jews, by definition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Neither was Einstein. Try convincing any other Jews he wasn't a Jew!

    Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
     
    Like, no, man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @Jack D
    100% of Bolsheviks were not practicing Jews, by definition.

    Neither was Einstein. Try convincing any other Jews he wasn’t a Jew!

    Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Like, no, man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    They'd agree he wasn't a (religion) Jew, but an (ethnic) Jew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Dube
    "...[The Declaration of Independence] references “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” near the beginning, and clearly not in an offhand way. The Constitution is a set of rules, except for the Preamble, while the D. of I. is clearly more philosophical, and even a little theological."

    Yes, "Law of Nature" comes from the thoroughgoing materialist Hobbes, "and Nature's God" from the theist Locke. Citing both is an ingenious reconciliation.

    “Law of Nature” comes from the thoroughgoing materialist Hobbes

    It is, however, hardly original to him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Rapparee

    About 40 percent of Americans are now descended from someone who came through Ellis Island.
     
    This claim appears to originate with the Ellis Island immigration museum. Am I the only one who finds it slightly dubious? Ellis Island processed about 12 million people between 1892 and 1954; in the same span of time, the US population grew from about 63 million to 163 million. About 10 million of these immigrants arrived before 1925, when the overall population was about 116 million. It's certainly possible- a combination of out-marriage and population growth could potentially turn 10 million people into 130 million descendants over the course of four generations- but is it likely? Relative to random chance, one would assume that the descendants of Ellis island immigrants would be more likely to marry the descendants of other Ellis Island immigrants, limiting the number of people whose ancestors could be said to have crossed its gates. I'm not 100% sure it's false, but whoever discovered this purported fact really ought to show his work.

    I take this to mean that if even 1 of your ancestors went thru Ellis Island you would be included. We are around 4 generations in so many younger people have 16 great-great grandparents who were born in the 1900-25 window so even being 1/16th immigrant would “count”. With that low bar it wouldn’t be difficult to get up to 40% of the population. They are saying, conversely, that 60% of the population does not have even 1 ancestor who came after 1900. Of course a goodly portion of those are probably black.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    They are saying, conversely, that 60% of the population does not have even 1 ancestor who came after 1900.
     
    That does not follow. Ellis Island closed in 1954 so none of our post-1954 immigrants should be counted.

    I was unable to find numbers for what proportion of 1892-1954 immigrants passed through Ellis Island. I assume it was not 100.0% though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Jack D
    For the same reason that the KKK did not have a lot of black members. Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Get your facts right. Hitler was a militant atheist. The Nazi party was explicitly anti Christian. The Nazi party was actually a new religion, a combination of ancient paganism, nature worship, atheism and new age stuff. Your brain is just a sink filled with the garbage in the Jewish publications you read.

    Post about you know, not ignorant propaganda like the Nazi party was Christian.
    It was as anti Christian as drmicrats, liberals and Jews are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Curle
    If you are alluding to a specific instance of Irish leadership of a street fighting group in the US committed to overthrowing the established political order, especially one that got close to achieving its objectives, please be more specific. I offered the German example of Werner Scholem. If you have an Irish-American equivalent please name that person.

    I’m referring to Irish-Americans attempting to conquer Canada using the United States as a base, building a submarine in the United States to attack the British Navy and the support of the IRA. Not at intense as Jewish activities, but certainly crazy in its own unique ways.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    I’m referring to Irish-Americans attempting to conquer Canada using the United States as a base, building a submarine in the United States to attack the British Navy and the support of the IRA. Not at intense as Jewish activities, but certainly crazy in its own unique ways.
     
    No argument there.

    They’d agree he wasn’t a (religion) Jew, but an (ethnic) Jew.
     
    True, but this applies equally well to Bolshies above. You (not you, I mean, of course) can't juggle the meaning at whim so good guys are Jews and bad guys aren't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Anon
    Neither was Einstein. Try convincing any other Jews he wasn't a Jew!

    Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
     
    Like, no, man.

    They’d agree he wasn’t a (religion) Jew, but an (ethnic) Jew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Samuel Skinner
    I'm referring to Irish-Americans attempting to conquer Canada using the United States as a base, building a submarine in the United States to attack the British Navy and the support of the IRA. Not at intense as Jewish activities, but certainly crazy in its own unique ways.

    I’m referring to Irish-Americans attempting to conquer Canada using the United States as a base, building a submarine in the United States to attack the British Navy and the support of the IRA. Not at intense as Jewish activities, but certainly crazy in its own unique ways.

    No argument there.

    They’d agree he wasn’t a (religion) Jew, but an (ethnic) Jew.

    True, but this applies equally well to Bolshies above. You (not you, I mean, of course) can’t juggle the meaning at whim so good guys are Jews and bad guys aren’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. I don’t know why you guys are so focused on the plaque. If I had my way I’d send the whole statue back to France.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. @Curle
    If you are alluding to a specific instance of Irish leadership of a street fighting group in the US committed to overthrowing the established political order, especially one that got close to achieving its objectives, please be more specific. I offered the German example of Werner Scholem. If you have an Irish-American equivalent please name that person.

    Somebody’s been watching “Gangs of New York”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @Maj. Kong
    The Jews are punching far above their weight in California politics, which is seen as the path the rest of our country will be forced into following. I don't think they worry about a future Latin-Muslim government introducing quotas or putting an embargo on Israel.

    Avram appears to have been a leftist, which this country never needed. He and his descendants would have been better off in Ottoman Palestine.

    Read Super Mob by Gus Russo to find out how they did it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Romanian
    You lost the Philippines since then!

    You lost the Philippines since then!

    In what way was that a loss for us?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Jack D
    I take this to mean that if even 1 of your ancestors went thru Ellis Island you would be included. We are around 4 generations in so many younger people have 16 great-great grandparents who were born in the 1900-25 window so even being 1/16th immigrant would "count". With that low bar it wouldn't be difficult to get up to 40% of the population. They are saying, conversely, that 60% of the population does not have even 1 ancestor who came after 1900. Of course a goodly portion of those are probably black.

    They are saying, conversely, that 60% of the population does not have even 1 ancestor who came after 1900.

    That does not follow. Ellis Island closed in 1954 so none of our post-1954 immigrants should be counted.

    I was unable to find numbers for what proportion of 1892-1954 immigrants passed through Ellis Island. I assume it was not 100.0% though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rapparee
    If I didn't flub my hurried back-of-the-envelope summation based on this page, 1890-1950 saw about 24 million immigrants arrive in the US. If that's correct, about half of immigrants during that sixty-year period passed through Ellis Island.

    It'd be interesting (albeit very difficult) to figure the number of total descendants of, say, Puritan migrants to New England during the 1630s, using the same standard. Once upon a time, darn-near everybody not from a first or second generation immigrant family probably had at least one New England Puritan ancestor somewhere (even in the South, thanks to a few New England transplants who married into the Cavalier aristocracy), though presumably few could demonstrably prove it with reliable records. I find that if you probe around in their family tress a little, plenty of "ethnic" Catholics here in the Northeast actually have a little bit of Anglo-Protestant ancestry down the line somewhere (myself included). Since most American blacks have at least a hint of European ancestry, I wouldn't automatically reject a wild guess that 80% of Americans have at least one Puritan forebear, even though only 20 or 30 thousand of them arrived during the 17th century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Maj. Kong
    The Jews are punching far above their weight in California politics, which is seen as the path the rest of our country will be forced into following. I don't think they worry about a future Latin-Muslim government introducing quotas or putting an embargo on Israel.

    Avram appears to have been a leftist, which this country never needed. He and his descendants would have been better off in Ottoman Palestine.

    Here is an excellent account of how mostly jumped up Chicago West Side Jews turned the State of CAlifornia from reliable Republican to Democrat. The Father of the present looney left old codger Governor was one of their proteges.

    “Super Mob” by Gus Russo

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Magic Jews do not exist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Rapparee

    About 40 percent of Americans are now descended from someone who came through Ellis Island.
     
    This claim appears to originate with the Ellis Island immigration museum. Am I the only one who finds it slightly dubious? Ellis Island processed about 12 million people between 1892 and 1954; in the same span of time, the US population grew from about 63 million to 163 million. About 10 million of these immigrants arrived before 1925, when the overall population was about 116 million. It's certainly possible- a combination of out-marriage and population growth could potentially turn 10 million people into 130 million descendants over the course of four generations- but is it likely? Relative to random chance, one would assume that the descendants of Ellis island immigrants would be more likely to marry the descendants of other Ellis Island immigrants, limiting the number of people whose ancestors could be said to have crossed its gates. I'm not 100% sure it's false, but whoever discovered this purported fact really ought to show his work.

    Not me or mine I’m thankful to say. Some of mine came 200 years earlier. Probably deported convicts and Scots rebels and people so down and out they had to sell themselves into indentured servitude.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @res

    They are saying, conversely, that 60% of the population does not have even 1 ancestor who came after 1900.
     
    That does not follow. Ellis Island closed in 1954 so none of our post-1954 immigrants should be counted.

    I was unable to find numbers for what proportion of 1892-1954 immigrants passed through Ellis Island. I assume it was not 100.0% though.

    If I didn’t flub my hurried back-of-the-envelope summation based on this page, 1890-1950 saw about 24 million immigrants arrive in the US. If that’s correct, about half of immigrants during that sixty-year period passed through Ellis Island.

    It’d be interesting (albeit very difficult) to figure the number of total descendants of, say, Puritan migrants to New England during the 1630s, using the same standard. Once upon a time, darn-near everybody not from a first or second generation immigrant family probably had at least one New England Puritan ancestor somewhere (even in the South, thanks to a few New England transplants who married into the Cavalier aristocracy), though presumably few could demonstrably prove it with reliable records. I find that if you probe around in their family tress a little, plenty of “ethnic” Catholics here in the Northeast actually have a little bit of Anglo-Protestant ancestry down the line somewhere (myself included). Since most American blacks have at least a hint of European ancestry, I wouldn’t automatically reject a wild guess that 80% of Americans have at least one Puritan forebear, even though only 20 or 30 thousand of them arrived during the 17th century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @AnotherDad

    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram ...
     
    Actually it's quite clear from Ms. Wolfe's screed that even taking in Avram was mistake.

    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group--much less a nation--loyalty.

    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group–much less a nation–loyalty.

    You’re being foolish. Old stock Americans of the same class, occupation, and educational history as this woman aren’t going to give you more than a marginally better deal than this woman. Southerners might, non-coastal northerners in smaller cities might. Your problem is the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. The country at large does not have the loyalty of its fancy people. It does not have the loyalty of its chattering classes. They’re loyal to people of their class cross-border.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Alden
    Here is an excellent account of how mostly jumped up Chicago West Side Jews turned the State of CAlifornia from reliable Republican to Democrat. The Father of the present looney left old codger Governor was one of their proteges.

    "Super Mob" by Gus Russo

    Magic Jews do not exist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @AM

    Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.
     
    Except Bolshevism primarily attracted atheistic Jews. The predominate such organizations to this day. It's insane to call them some sort of universalist organization when it appeared that comfort with Jews by birth was absolutely a requirement.

    Certainly, Bolshevism only appeals to certain groups. The Ukrainians would have none of it and their profile is much more like a Midwestern farmer.

    Meanwhile, you can find Jewish Nazis. Look it up.

    Nazis embraced ideas that were anti-Christian. To call a Christian disease is to fail to notice the millions of Christians (more than Jews) who died in the Holocaust.

    Except Bolshevism primarily attracted atheistic Jews. The predominate such organizations to this day.

    Jews are a tiny minority in every occidental country except the United States and France. The notion they predominate in any social sphere other than synagogues, the kosher meat trade, and the diamond trade beggars belief. In the U.S., Communist movements have been demographically insignificant and the most salient figures within them (Earl Browder, Harry Bridges) gentile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Communist_Party_USA#The_factional_war_.281923.E2.80.931929.29

    Count names with links. Pres. candidates were generally gentile for some reason.

    Also consider the Rosenbergs as the first who come to mind, before any actual CPUSA dignitaries. Curiously (maybe not, in NY) the judge and prosecutor were also Jewish!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    Except Bolshevism primarily attracted atheistic Jews. The predominate such organizations to this day.

    Jews are a tiny minority in every occidental country except the United States and France. The notion they predominate in any social sphere other than synagogues, the kosher meat trade, and the diamond trade beggars belief. In the U.S., Communist movements have been demographically insignificant and the most salient figures within them (Earl Browder, Harry Bridges) gentile.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Communist_Party_USA#The_factional_war_.281923.E2.80.931929.29

    Count names with links. Pres. candidates were generally gentile for some reason.

    Also consider the Rosenbergs as the first who come to mind, before any actual CPUSA dignitaries. Curiously (maybe not, in NY) the judge and prosecutor were also Jewish!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Jack D
    For the same reason that the KKK did not have a lot of black members. Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Meanwhile, 100% of Nazi party members were white Christians so it seems to me that you are the one who has even more explaining to do. Bolshevism attracted people of all races and religions, not just Jews, but Nazism was a specific disease of white Christians.

    Not true. The inner National Socialist party was from the beginning actively and viciously anti-Christian although this was somewhat toned down for the general populace in the early 1930s. Upon gaining power, the N-Socialists immediately set about replacing Christian churches – already massively weakened by WW I, following anti-Christian activism going back to the 1820s – by instituting neo-pagan practices, and even worked to invent a purely pagan religion.

    Indeed, it appears that there were quite a few Jews among the early adherents of National Socialism notwithstanding the openly anti-Jewish position of parts of the party, but it is difficult to find evidence of this one way or the other. (Remember the Hitler faction did not gain full control of the party until the purge of the Roehm wing.)

    P.S.: Never say “Nazi.” Leftards prefer “Nazi” because it obscures the pedigree of their fellow socialists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @AnotherDad

    Alejandro or Abdul are exactly like Avram ...
     
    Actually it's quite clear from Ms. Wolfe's screed that even taking in Avram was mistake.

    Avram might have been a fine hard working fellow. But three generations in his spawn are objectively hostile to the very people/nation that took him in when times were tough in his old country. These are not people that you want around. They fail the basic test for membership in any group--much less a nation--loyalty.

    Lauren Wolfe is a journalist and director of Women Under Siege, a journalism project on sexualized violence based at the Women’s Media Center in New York.

    “Journalism” in 2017 has become simply a euphemism for “slavering propagandist.”

    Note also how most female “journalists” seem stuck writing exclusively about topics related to sexuality, with their own sexual desires and frustrations never far in the background.

    Steve Sailer has noted the phenomenon that female “journalists” always seem to advocating for social changes that would coincidentally increase their own sexual market value.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored