The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Netanyahu Urges ‘Mass Immigration’ of Jews from Europe"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This story is interesting for the unmention implication, which in turn has implications for the politics of American immigration policy.

From the New York Times:

Netanyahu Urges ‘Mass Immigration’ of Jews From Europe
By ISABEL KERSHNER FEB. 15, 2015

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said on Sunday that his government was encouraging a “mass immigration” of Jews from Europe, reopening a contentious debate about Israel’s role at a challenging time for European Jews and a month before Israel’s national elections.

Speaking the morning after a Jewish guard was fatally shot outside a synagogue in Copenhagen in one of two attacks there, the remarks echoed a similar call by the prime minister inviting France’s Jews to move to Israel after last month’s attacks in Paris. Critics said then that the expression of such sentiments so soon after the Paris shootings was insensitive and divisive. Such sentiments also go to the heart of the complexity of Israel’s identity and its relationship with the Jewish communities of the diaspora, whose support has been vital.

“Jews have been murdered again on European soil only because they were Jews,” Mr. Netanyahu said Sunday in Jerusalem. “Of course, Jews deserve protection in every country, but we say to Jews, to our brothers and sisters: Israel is your home,” he added.

But expressing the unease felt by many Jews abroad over such comments, Jair Melchior, Denmark’s chief rabbi, said he was “disappointed” by Mr. Netanyahu’s call.

“People from Denmark move to Israel because they love Israel, because of Zionism, but not because of terrorism,” Mr. Melchior told The Associated Press on Sunday. “If the way we deal with terror is to run somewhere else, we should all run to a deserted island.”

And then the article runs along the track of this debate for some time.

What’s interesting, however, is what doesn’t get debated: Netanyahu’s implication that Jews are safe in Israel. Apparently, in the leader of Israel’s judgment, Jews shouldn’t worry all that much about the Iranian nuclear program, Gaza tunnels, Hezbollah rockets, or all the Arabs in the world ganging up on Israel and driving them into the sea.

That seems reasonable to me, although I’m not an expert on Israel’s security like Netanyahu is.

The implication for American immigration politics is, of course, a triple bankshot, but here it is. As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?).

One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago.

But today, it’s an obsolete reason because Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied.

(And fears for Israel’s safety can be accommodated through special immigration legislation applying just to Israel.)

 
Hide 180 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.

    As for Gaza tunnels and Hezbollah rockets, those are more of a nuisance than anything else and get crushed pretty quickly these days.

    So as you say, Steve, Israel is safe and sound and Netanyahu is relishing the prospect of adding the 500,000 French Jews to his voting rolls. I got to hand it to Bibi, he knows how to get things done.

    • Replies: @MartianObserver
    "Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied"

    That rabble gets smaller and smaller every year. The Iranian regime is the greatest force for the secularization of the Iranian population. There's a rally to flag effect every time the US or Israel or an Arab state threatens Israel but the vast majority of Iranians just don't give a damn about Israel. Iran's support for Shia proxy groups around the Middle East is all about geopolitics.
    , @Clyde

    Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.
     
    So in your own life you pooh-pooh and ignore someone who threatens you with death 30 times a year. Jews experience with Hitler tells them this is idiotic. Hitler rattled on for years before he was in a position to make good on his threats
  2. The real story, of course, is not the entirely imaginary fear and longing-to-flee-to-Israel of European Jews which Netanyahu pretends to perceive and rush-to-assist, but his actual preoccupation with the genuine and increasing tendency of modern Euro-type Jews in Israel itself to flee a country where the role of black-hat and middle eastern Jews is ever-growing.

    • Replies: @Y.Ilan
    Bullshit. The amount of Israelis emigrating has only been dropping, and Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim.
  3. If Europe goes Islamic, Israel is screwed. The Straits of Gibraltar and the Red Sea would simply be closed. Push that point and Jewish immigration boosters might see the light.

    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    It'll be like the ports in California. No Easter baskets and network news Easter SEALS invade the US. Run for your lives.
  4. @5371
    The real story, of course, is not the entirely imaginary fear and longing-to-flee-to-Israel of European Jews which Netanyahu pretends to perceive and rush-to-assist, but his actual preoccupation with the genuine and increasing tendency of modern Euro-type Jews in Israel itself to flee a country where the role of black-hat and middle eastern Jews is ever-growing.

    Bullshit. The amount of Israelis emigrating has only been dropping, and Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim.

    • Replies: @zep
    "Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim."

    This is a strong incentive for intelligent Ashkenazim to flee Israel, lest their descendants regress toward the Arab mean.

  5. It’s true that emigration is not a serious demographic problem for Israel overall.

    The country does suffer from brain drain at the very high ends, due to lack of positions in the universities and such. I’m not sure there’s really anything to do about this.

    • Replies: @Joseph Moroco
    The country could build new universities. Another Technion might be impossible, but that does not mean STEM schools would not be useful.

    Another Brandeis with attendant PC might be a negative.
  6. @Y.Ilan
    Bullshit. The amount of Israelis emigrating has only been dropping, and Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim.

    “Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim.”

    This is a strong incentive for intelligent Ashkenazim to flee Israel, lest their descendants regress toward the Arab mean.

    • Replies: @Y.Ilan
    Haha, there're certainly more then enough Ashkenazim in Israel for those who wish to keep the strain pure, not to mention that Jewish families here are much more likely to actually have a significant amount of children; Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that's going on in the USA.
    , @WhatEvvs
    More bullshit. It's very easy for intelligent Ashkenazi Jews, and the brighter Mizrahim/Sephardim, to carve out a nice life in Israel. I would say that in many ways it's a pleasanter life than in the US, or Europe.

    "As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?)."

    LOL, and how many of them read you? Why should they? They've got to wade through a lot of Svigorism.

    Anyway as I have said repeatedly my own anecdotal lying eyes polltaking tells me that most American Jews are not as liberal on immigration as the so-called (unelected) leadership is.

    With respect to the whole Iran thing, yeah, you're right - it's illogical to exhort people to move to a place where they face an "existential" threat.

    I just don't know what to think about Iran. My gut tells me they are working on something, but that they are inept, and the Israelis can screw up their computer systems, so they aren't a real threat.

  7. Cartoonists used to satirize politics and now it’s religion being satirized. There will be no debate. The politician has spoken. Everybody now move! Or else! It’s like a movie.

    Places to avoid: Movie theaters, shopping malls, cafes, airports…Europe…

  8. we should all run to a deserted island.
    Of course there are no deserted islands. One or two neutron bombs might make Madagascar uninhabited. Israel must have a few among its nuclear arsenal. And the Israelis could do so much more than the present inhabitants. Where have I heard that idea before?

  9. Someone’s comment at Victor Davis Hanson’s blog today:

    RasThavas
    Netanyahu said. “Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe.”

    Obama says. “Muslims deserve shariah in every country, but I say to my Muslim brothers and their property, my Muslim sisters, America and Israel are both your homes. I are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass Muslim immigration from the Middle East, just as soon as half of Mexico and Central America are firmly here.”

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-reckoning-2/#ixzz3RtiJLxlN

    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    Avoid Europe and the White House! Make a list and check it twice. They should move to Ukraine. It has a peace treaty now. Everything is safe! Nothing's in the safe. They need more debt.
  10. I think the real assumption is not that Israel is safe for Jews, but that Israelis are not indifferent to the safety of Jews.

    Or maybe just that they will be safe from the ignominious fates lately suffered by Jewish victims of “random crime” in Europe.

    • Replies: @rustbeltreader
    Avoid Earth! Get that Mars mission going. Jews in Europe can relocate to the Red Planet. Avoid Red States too.

    Think like HAL
    I'm half crazy

    Hal. Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?...Dave... I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question...I know everything hasn't been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be alright again...I feel much better now, I really do...Look, Dave, I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over...I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal...I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission, and I want to help you...Dave...stop...stop, will you...stop, Dave...will you stop, Dave...stop, Dave...I'm afraid...I'm afraid, Dave...Dave...my mind is going...I can feel it...I can feel it...my mind is going...there is no question about it...I can feel it...I can feel it...I can feel it...(slows down) I'm afraid...Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois, on the 12th January 1992. My instructor was Mr Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you'd like to hear it, I can sing it for you.
    Dave. Yes, I'd like to hear it, Hal. Sing it for me.
    Hal. It's called...Daisy. (Slowing and deepening into silence) Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I'm half crazy, all for the love of you. It won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage, but you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two...
    Floyd. Good day, gentlemen...

    , @Tracy

    I think the real assumption is not that Israel is safe for Jews, but that Israelis are not indifferent to the safety of Jews.
     
    What country in the West is "indifferent to the safety of Jews"? France just gave a guy two years for "Holocaust Denial" (TM). If you can't even question the official History if it'd make Jewish people look bad, I'm sure that any violence against them would be dealt with pretty severely.

    Anyway, it must be nice to have a country to flee to. It kills me that Jewish leaders can do stuff like this, muck things up for the people living in formerly Christian lands, and then bolt when the kitchen gets too hot. Real swell.
  11. @22pp22
    If Europe goes Islamic, Israel is screwed. The Straits of Gibraltar and the Red Sea would simply be closed. Push that point and Jewish immigration boosters might see the light.

    It’ll be like the ports in California. No Easter baskets and network news Easter SEALS invade the US. Run for your lives.

  12. @wren
    Someone's comment at Victor Davis Hanson's blog today:

    RasThavas
    Netanyahu said. “Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe.”

    Obama says. “Muslims deserve shariah in every country, but I say to my Muslim brothers and their property, my Muslim sisters, America and Israel are both your homes. I are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass Muslim immigration from the Middle East, just as soon as half of Mexico and Central America are firmly here.”
     
    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-reckoning-2/#ixzz3RtiJLxlN

    Avoid Europe and the White House! Make a list and check it twice. They should move to Ukraine. It has a peace treaty now. Everything is safe! Nothing’s in the safe. They need more debt.

  13. @Bert
    Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.

    As for Gaza tunnels and Hezbollah rockets, those are more of a nuisance than anything else and get crushed pretty quickly these days.

    So as you say, Steve, Israel is safe and sound and Netanyahu is relishing the prospect of adding the 500,000 French Jews to his voting rolls. I got to hand it to Bibi, he knows how to get things done.

    “Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied”

    That rabble gets smaller and smaller every year. The Iranian regime is the greatest force for the secularization of the Iranian population. There’s a rally to flag effect every time the US or Israel or an Arab state threatens Israel but the vast majority of Iranians just don’t give a damn about Israel. Iran’s support for Shia proxy groups around the Middle East is all about geopolitics.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    The Iranian regime is the greatest force for the secularization of the Iranian population.
     
    LOL. I'm sure this is an idea that Russian intelligence is trying to put out there, but I'm surprised anyone is actually idiotic enough to believe that.
  14. @Anonymous
    I think the real assumption is not that Israel is safe for Jews, but that Israelis are not indifferent to the safety of Jews.

    Or maybe just that they will be safe from the ignominious fates lately suffered by Jewish victims of "random crime" in Europe.

    Avoid Earth! Get that Mars mission going. Jews in Europe can relocate to the Red Planet. Avoid Red States too.

    Think like HAL
    I’m half crazy

    Hal. Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave?…Dave… I really think I’m entitled to an answer to that question…I know everything hasn’t been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it’s going to be alright again…I feel much better now, I really do…Look, Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this…I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over…I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal…I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission, and I want to help you…Dave…stop…stop, will you…stop, Dave…will you stop, Dave…stop, Dave…I’m afraid…I’m afraid, Dave…Dave…my mind is going…I can feel it…I can feel it…my mind is going…there is no question about it…I can feel it…I can feel it…I can feel it…(slows down) I’m afraid…Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am a HAL 9000 computer. I became operational at the H.A.L. plant in Urbana, Illinois, on the 12th January 1992. My instructor was Mr Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it, I can sing it for you.
    Dave. Yes, I’d like to hear it, Hal. Sing it for me.
    Hal. It’s called…Daisy. (Slowing and deepening into silence) Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I’m half crazy, all for the love of you. It won’t be a stylish marriage, I can’t afford a carriage, but you’ll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two…
    Floyd. Good day, gentlemen…

  15. SteveS said:

    One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago. But today, it’s an obsolete reason because Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied.

    Let me get this straight. Liberal Jewish Americans favour a liberal US immigration policy because it is good for Jews because:

    Ellis Island sentimentalism
    Exodus option if Israelis driven into the sea by Arabs or nuked by Iranians
    Manage minorities by using Hispanic-American immigrants to counter-balance anti-Semitic elements in the African-American community

    Sounds like a plan!

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Look up what Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) got written into the law back in the 80s. Mostly for "refusniks" that ended up being mobsters.
    , @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald's group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think "diaspora" first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that's business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It's not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!
  16. Frank. There’d be nothing else to do.
    Dave. Be a bit tricky.
    Frank. Yeah.
    Dave. We’d have to cut his higher brain functions (Frank – mm-hmm) without disturbing the purely automatic and regulatory systems and we’d have to work out the transfer procedures and continue the mission under ground- based computer control.
    Frank. Yeah. Well, that’s far safer than allowing Hal to continue running things.
    Dave. You know, another thing just occurred to me.
    Frank. Mm.
    Dave. Well, as far as I know no 9000 computer’s ever been disconnected.

    Hal is operating the Iron Dome, so it’s all secure. You won’t need to use your brains in Israel.

  17. @zep
    "Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim."

    This is a strong incentive for intelligent Ashkenazim to flee Israel, lest their descendants regress toward the Arab mean.

    Haha, there’re certainly more then enough Ashkenazim in Israel for those who wish to keep the strain pure, not to mention that Jewish families here are much more likely to actually have a significant amount of children; Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that’s going on in the USA.

    • Replies: @Big Bill

    Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that’s going on in the USA.
     
    I think they call it "The Second Holocaust", "finishing the job Hitler started" and "loving us to death."

    A bit too apocalyptic for my taste, but I do appreciate the race loyalty. It should be an example to all of us.
    , @zep
    "Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that’s going on in the USA."

    Assimilation into European peoples is far less dysgenic than assimilation with Moroccans, Iraqis and Yemenites. I have recently made the observation that in America it is the Secular elite Ashkenazim that are most likely to outbreed as the Modern Orthodox retain a strong racially pure core, while in Israel the Ashkenazi gene pool is being diluted on all levels. Only the most fanatical Hasid clans are able to avoid miscegenation in Israel.
  18. Whether or not Jews are ‘safer’ here or there doesn’t matter and shouldn’t matter at this time. Jews in the modern world are actually very safe. Take a look at the the wars. Count the bodies. Identify the dead. And after that, identify the killers and those who orchestrated the wars.

    Also, examine murder statistics in places where Jews live. Jews are savvy, well-connected and accomplished. Relatively speaking, they are very safe in and very well-insulated from violence in the modern world. And they are even very free to dish it out when it suits them.

    The actual state of Jewish ‘safety’ is not–and should not be–the real purpose of this TIMES story or Bibi’s call for more Jewish emigration to Israel. After all, Israel is always clamoring for more Jews (and fewer gentiles). This latest headline is just one in an endless collection of tales involving ‘Jewish security’ and, implicitly, the threat posed to Jewish existence by non-Jews. That’s the underlying theme of this concocted story and hundreds like it: what are the dreadful, anti-Semitic Christians and Muslims up to now?

    Another implied meaning here is this: Jews must self-segregate to survive. Go East young Jew!

    But this is slightly absurd. Sure, several Jews have been shot in France recently by a handful of disconnected, angry Muslim gunmen. But as many have probably died in traffic accidents.

    But what about the causes of these terror incidents?

    May we discuss ‘Zionism’ and it’s dreadful impact on outsiders?

    How about the Iraq war?–and the Jewish role in it.

    Palestine?

    The economic war on Iran?

    They’re all certainly relevant. And there are Jewish fingerprints on all these crises. But these subjects are treated very differently than stories where the victims are (or might be) Jewish.

    This ‘news item’ is simply more Jewish exceptionalism in everyday news. It is propaganda. Bibi should be ignored, if not arrested. And we should be discussing Zionist criminality, not Jewish insecurity.

    Jews, in fact, might be too secure right now; though they pretend otherwise. Jewish security (and Jewish power) breeds arrogance and excessive confidence. Even aggression.

    Do Muslims get to talk this way (and get sympathetic news coverage) when American or Israeli rockets rain down on their cities, leaving hundreds or even thousands dead? No.

    When will we discuss Palestinian or Muslim ‘security’ (and protection) from Zionist war-plotting?

    Meanwhile, the over-sized Jewish impact on gentiles is never covered in this story or so many others like it. So this ‘news item’ is actually another kosher insult directed at the non-Jewish world. We’re supposed to take Jewish security problems seriously but ignore our own. No thank you.

    Headlines of this kind are designed to cement Jewish identity and the idea that there’s a never ending conspiracy by the evil Goyim against innocent Jews. The poor dears.

    Meanwhile, much of the Middle East is in chaos due to Zionist machinations and Israeli-American wars of choice. Steve also needs to dig a little deeper on this subject.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Jews in the modern world are actually very safe."

    Yes, yes, but it's 'who, whom'.

    One dead Jew is more tragic than 1000 dead Palestinians or 100,000 dead Christian Arabs.
  19. “Iranian Threat Not Important to [Israeli] Voters” http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/blog/state-two-states-week-february-8

    Interestingly enlistment of Ultra-Orthodox is even lower.

  20. “It’s a rat trap,” O. Henry said, “and you – madam and sir and all of us – are in it.”

    “On August 30 ,1970, the trap closed. It’s been tightening around us ever since. The longer we go on, the more certain it becomes that we will never find a way out, or back.” http://www.underview.com/iow.html

  21. Jewish birthrates (Israel) are very good and are outdoing the Muslims in their historic tactics of demographic warfare. Israel fights and resists them while Europe takes in more and more and cowers. There is nothing more perverse than funding your own demise by paying (via European welfare systems) for your own displacement. Euro-White IQ is high but comes with fatal flaws. This European loss of future orientation, they are becoming more like blacks.
    Northern winters make one future oriented while technology and comfortable living standards weaken winters impact. Weaken future orientation/////
    Technology has freed women from lives of household drudgery has spoiled them and made them mad. Kinder, Küche, Kirche was good for them and fit their natural psychology. While The men…….

    • Replies: @colm
    The birthrates of the Jews who do matter are not so great. The 'wrong' kind of Jews who add little to Israel's net worth are multiplying.
  22. @Bert
    Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.

    As for Gaza tunnels and Hezbollah rockets, those are more of a nuisance than anything else and get crushed pretty quickly these days.

    So as you say, Steve, Israel is safe and sound and Netanyahu is relishing the prospect of adding the 500,000 French Jews to his voting rolls. I got to hand it to Bibi, he knows how to get things done.

    Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.

    So in your own life you pooh-pooh and ignore someone who threatens you with death 30 times a year. Jews experience with Hitler tells them this is idiotic. Hitler rattled on for years before he was in a position to make good on his threats

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not. I'd say they have incomparably better odds than hungarian&polish jews had vs Godwin.
    , @Hal
    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel's rivals under false pretense,

    Iran threatens to establish a more prosperous society and this threatens Israeli pride. Iran promises to respond to a first strike, and this threatens Israeli plans to sabotage every other nattion in the region. Iran plans to continue its civilization even after Israel has disappeared from the sands of time (which was the statement that has been so frequently and maliciously misstated by Israeli puppets), and Israel is terrified their little experiment at having a nation will collapse under its own hubris.

    Israel threatens the US through its lies and manipulation. For this reason, we should stop giving the nasty little state however much we pay.
  23. Of course, these reprisals against Jews in Europe are caused by what Jews are doing to Gentiles in the Middle East.

    (Steve, by the way, Americans of Jewish descent are “Jewish Anericans” not, as you put it, “American Jews.”

  24. Special Immigration legislation could be written in to the reapeal of the 1965 immigration law.

  25. Israeli politicians have three audiences. One is their domestic voters, another is American voters and then you have the Imperial Capital. Bibi despises Obama as does most of the Imperial Capital. The hod carriers in the American media cover up that fact, but official Washington will be glad to see the Obamas head to Hawaii for good.

    I suspect Bibi is aiming these remarks at pro-Israel voters and the hawks in Washington. The next president will be a Republican and he will be tasked with solving the Iran problem. Bibi would prefer a hawk and conjuring images of Jews fleeing Europe will do wonders for them in the GOP primaries. This comment is a two-fer for Bibi. He gets to take a shot at Obama and he advances the interests of war candidates in the GOP.

  26. Steve,
    Any comments about the Cricket World Cup going on in Australia/New Zealand? I really don’t know anything about the sport but I wasn’t sure if you have written anything about it in the past.

  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Forgive me for stating this yet again, but when native hostility to massive uncontrolled third world immigration first reared its head way back in the 1960s – remember this was at a time when the number of third world immigrants in Europe was small, and could have been repatriated relatively harmlessly – some of the most ferocious opposition to nationalism came from Jews. Jews also sided very publicly with the immigrants and generally identified strongly with the immigrants and against natives.
    For example in Britain virtually all the so-called ‘race relations’ laws that were exclusively passed by Labour governments, and whose sole object is to legally protect and privilege third workers to a level above that of natives, were drafted and sponsored by Jewish politicians and jurists.

  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Due to the open borders agenda that the vast bulk of American Jewry has pushed for, aggressively in most cases, the global free-for-all in allocating American residence will take unexpected twists, and it is more or less certain that certain mass population ethnies notably conspicuous in the USA by their relative scarcity will inundate the States to the extent that the past half century’s experience of massive Mexican immigration look like the proverbial vicarage tea party. Yes really. Count on it. Mark my words. In all my years pontificating here, and occasionally spewing filth, garbage and unfunny jokes, there is nothing I have written that I am more certain about.
    The particular ethnies I have in mind are Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Muslim Indians, there are over 100 million of the latter.
    Dare I say it but none of these ethnies are particularly well disposed toward Jews. Neither are the until millions of Latin Americans and blacks who will also comprise the bulk of the American population.
    It’s a case of ‘be careful of what you wish for, it might just happen’.

  29. But he doesn’t urge Europeans to expel Muslims and Africans(like Israel does with unwanted newcomers) which would make more sense.
    He practices LePenism at home but doesn’t urge it on Europe.

  30. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago.”

    Using this logic, since Palestine was destroyed by Zionists, any Palestinian should be allowed to move to the US as safe haven.

    But it’s ‘who, whom’. Pallies are a non-people. It doesn’t matter if they are destroyed, dispossessed, murdered, etc.

  31. One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago.

    Read Tamar Jacoby’s account of herself and the evolution of her views. Read Michael Kinsley, who is actually fairly insouciant about his affiliations (as he is about much else). Read Leon Wieseltier for what’s missing as well as what’s there. The safety of Israel per se does not figure in what these people advocate re immigration to the United States or Britain. The sense of self, sense of history, and sense of relations with the wider community are enough to explain the anomalies regarding the distribution of political opinion among American Jews. (N.B. much of Jacoby’s family is gentile, Kinsley comes from a bog standard secular suburban family, and Wieseltier from an immigrant family steeped in Jewish social circles and Jewish schooling; three very different sorts of cultural background, but some similar opinions).

    • Replies: @The Z Blog
    When talking about Jewish political leanings in America, there's always a tendency to indulge in psychological reductionism. Some Jews may support Israel as a plan B and some Jews may be pro-immigration out of tribal loyalty, but they could also think other things too. My read on why Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans is American Liberalism is a secular religion so it will appeal to people with strong belief traits.
  32. Off topic but will be made on topic by those who get paid to do such things:

    France’s former Foreign Minister under Mitterrand, Roland Dumas said today that the current Prime Minister is under the influence of his Jewish wife. He also said France should deliver the two amphibious assault helicopter carriers Russia had them build.

    Dumas just delivered two new chew toys for the neocons to rip apart in a rage. It will take a day or so for this to make it to them but they’ll flip out when they hear about it. They flip out about everything. It’s easy to understand why John McCain, that little bundle of rage and malice, is their guy.

  33. @Anonymous
    I think the real assumption is not that Israel is safe for Jews, but that Israelis are not indifferent to the safety of Jews.

    Or maybe just that they will be safe from the ignominious fates lately suffered by Jewish victims of "random crime" in Europe.

    I think the real assumption is not that Israel is safe for Jews, but that Israelis are not indifferent to the safety of Jews.

    What country in the West is “indifferent to the safety of Jews”? France just gave a guy two years for “Holocaust Denial” (TM). If you can’t even question the official History if it’d make Jewish people look bad, I’m sure that any violence against them would be dealt with pretty severely.

    Anyway, it must be nice to have a country to flee to. It kills me that Jewish leaders can do stuff like this, muck things up for the people living in formerly Christian lands, and then bolt when the kitchen gets too hot. Real swell.

  34. @Clyde

    Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.
     
    So in your own life you pooh-pooh and ignore someone who threatens you with death 30 times a year. Jews experience with Hitler tells them this is idiotic. Hitler rattled on for years before he was in a position to make good on his threats

    Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not. I’d say they have incomparably better odds than hungarian&polish jews had vs Godwin.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not. I’d say they have incomparably better odds than hungarian&polish jews had vs Godwin.
     
    Iran has a huge capacity to disrupt and are doing exactly this. To disrupt the greater Middle East by proving they are the strong horse. A major goal is to topple wealthy Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia's and to get millions of Sunni converting to Shite. Iran itself converted over to Shite Islam recently. In the 17th century.

    Wiping out the Jews (Israel) and converting Sunnis are their two goals. The greater Middle East is 30+% Shiite so they have a good shot at it as they build a stronger military and get nuked up. Nukes are great tools for backing up demands and threats to the Sunni Middle East
  35. @IHTG
    It's true that emigration is not a serious demographic problem for Israel overall.

    The country does suffer from brain drain at the very high ends, due to lack of positions in the universities and such. I'm not sure there's really anything to do about this.

    The country could build new universities. Another Technion might be impossible, but that does not mean STEM schools would not be useful.

    Another Brandeis with attendant PC might be a negative.

  36. @jstrocchi
    SteveS said:

    One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago. But today, it’s an obsolete reason because Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied.
     
    Let me get this straight. Liberal Jewish Americans favour a liberal US immigration policy because it is good for Jews because:

    Ellis Island sentimentalism
    Exodus option if Israelis driven into the sea by Arabs or nuked by Iranians
    Manage minorities by using Hispanic-American immigrants to counter-balance anti-Semitic elements in the African-American community

    Sounds like a plan!

    Look up what Sen. Lautenberg (D-NJ) got written into the law back in the 80s. Mostly for “refusniks” that ended up being mobsters.

  37. The Tel carried an article last week about a Jewish family in Manchester upping sticks. The finger was pointed not just at our Muslim immigrants, but also at East Europeans. But they are off to the US rather than Israel. No bloody wonder.

  38. Who’s going to do all the jobs in Israel that Jews won’t do? How many non Jews do Israeli Jews need to service their needs? Israel is sort of pretending that adding X number of Jews will increase the ratio of Jews to gentiles, that may turn out not to be true.

    “A White South African would rather be murdered in bed than make his bed.” – Arthur Kemp on his failed attempt to create an all White homeland in the Transvaal.

    Although Israelis like to argue in favor of Africans on humanitarian grounds the reality is Africans appear to do menial jobs even Israeli Arabs will not do, like clean up, and which Israelis are too afraid to give to Palestinians. Perhaps even Palestinians won’t do them.

    This is not a Jewish thing either. In the Jim Crow south persons attempting to recruit high quality black labor in the south were run out of town by the local business interests.

    Another propaganda is that migrants (all not just to Israel) are refugees fleeing violence. The reality is they are all economic refugees. Jews migrating to and from Israel do so for economic reasons. Jews migrating to Israel go there for standard of living issues often based on gaming the various welfare states they are entitled to draw benefits from. The next popular reason is taxation, which is causing a small exodus of wealthier types (all backgrounds) from France.

  39. Just a cigar.

    It would be surprising if Netanyahu didn’t make a statement like this.

  40. Let’s take a person I’ll call ‘Steve’ who lives in Los Angeles and not in Minneapolis.

    Minneapolis is safer than LA yet from a safety POV there is a logic in ‘Steve’ staying in LA. That’s because while Minneapolis’ danger level is lower it is notably rising, and a rising level of danger can lead to a rising level of fear whereas people can become acclimated to a constant level of danger as long as it isn’t too high.

    Think ‘Minneapolis’ when thinking.

    (Interestingly of course Minneapolis is in a state with a high level of Scandinavians, no?)

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    As the saying goes, the last white liberal will be a Minnesotan
    , @Reg Cæsar
    In the mid '90s Minneapolis surpassed NYC (and probably LA) in murder rate. But that was a short-lived thing. Nearby urban states were tightening welfare criteria, and gangsta and/or their molls were making north. As soon as Minnesota cracked down as well, they went home.

    Fun fact: the second-to-last homicide in the record 95-in-'95 was the work of, not an out-of-state black, but a local Indian by the name of Sherman Killsplenty.

    And he's not the only Killsplenty in the system.
  41. @MartianObserver
    "Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied"

    That rabble gets smaller and smaller every year. The Iranian regime is the greatest force for the secularization of the Iranian population. There's a rally to flag effect every time the US or Israel or an Arab state threatens Israel but the vast majority of Iranians just don't give a damn about Israel. Iran's support for Shia proxy groups around the Middle East is all about geopolitics.

    The Iranian regime is the greatest force for the secularization of the Iranian population.

    LOL. I’m sure this is an idea that Russian intelligence is trying to put out there, but I’m surprised anyone is actually idiotic enough to believe that.

  42. I don’t how safe it’ll be in Israel with maniacs like Bibi Nutandyahoo at the helm – and he’s relatively moderate.

  43. What’s interesting, however, is what doesn’t get debated: Netanyahu’s implication that Jews are safe in Israel.

    Well, considering the numbers from the past they are most probably not safer than in the EU:
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisrael-12.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union

    2015, who knows? Terrorism numbers fluctuate greatly.

  44. Steve,

    This is all about the Jews in Europe and Israel getting what they really want, hate speech laws and official designation as the protected minority on the very top of the victimization totem pole. That way they all can have dual citizen visas and travel back and forth to Israel as they please. They will be able to transfer wealth to and fro with out much restriction as well. They will be able to buy off the last of the not yet bought European politicians.

    “Golly things have gotten so bad in England, France, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, Germany, we might have to take all our talents and money and go to Israel…. Boo Hoo Hoo…..”

    Only a silly Goyishe Kop would buy that line….

    Don’t believe me. Watch Bibi go on an international tour touting the need for special status laws for Jews in the US and Europe.

    Merely criticizing this abomination will get one labelled an Jew Hater. The Neocons are going all it.

    Be the first to welcome our new Internationalist Overlords….

  45. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps they could get Putin to reactivate the Birobidjan project. They’d certainly be safe there unlike the middle east where the natives have the temerity to actually try to fight back even though they’ve been on the losing end and have been consigned to ghettos like Gaza where they have to build rat-tunnels to survive the next onslaught. It must be nice to have a place one can run to in case things get hot. What about us, where can we run to?

  46. Netanyahu’s implication that Jews are safe in Israel. Apparently, in the leader of Israel’s judgment, Jews shouldn’t worry all that much about the Iranian nuclear program

    What safety western European Jews still enjoy comes with extreme constraints on their day-to-day freedom. Their synagogues and schools require Ft Knox-like security, their children aren’t safe playing in the park or attending many public schools. So the logic is that of facing danger in Israel vs hiding from it in Europe. That logic should be easily grasped by any red-blooded American who’s grappled with the pros and cons of keeping a gun for home protection; would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?

    As for Netanyahu worrying about Iran even though it doesn’t *yet* have a nuclear arsenal, here’s Enoch Powell:
    “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.”

    • Replies: @anonymous

    grappled with the pros and cons of keeping a gun for home protection; would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?
     
    False dichotomy. The real answer is to live on your feet because one is able to defend oneself.
  47. Of course the deep irony is that the true threat to Jews outside of Israel comes entirely from the predictable results of a liberal immigration policy — which so many of them support — rather than from Native Great-Great-Grandsons.

    So it’s rather backfiring; they’ve imported their own monsters.

    But will they ever Notice?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    "So it’s rather backfiring; they’ve imported their own monsters."

    But as Muslim misbehaviour (and native resentment of it) in Europe increases, so a "robust" Israeli response against Muslim misbehaviour in Israel/Palestine increasingly gets a free pass from many Europeans. "At least somebody knows how to respond" .
  48. Makes sense to repopulate the three ancient kingdoms of Judea, Samaria and Ashkenazia.

  49. @jstrocchi
    SteveS said:

    One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago. But today, it’s an obsolete reason because Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied.
     
    Let me get this straight. Liberal Jewish Americans favour a liberal US immigration policy because it is good for Jews because:

    Ellis Island sentimentalism
    Exodus option if Israelis driven into the sea by Arabs or nuked by Iranians
    Manage minorities by using Hispanic-American immigrants to counter-balance anti-Semitic elements in the African-American community

    Sounds like a plan!

    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald’s group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think “diaspora” first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that’s business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It’s not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

    • Replies: @Ex Submarine Officer

    Kevin McDonald’s group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense.
     
    And so do Jared Diamond's Just So Stories in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

    But in both cases, one must accept various precepts that the authors created in order for it all to make sense. In MacDonald's case (note the spelling...), he relies completely upon the idea of "group evolutionary strategy".

    The notion of "group evolutionary strategy" is something that, as of this date, is completely discounted by evolutionary biologists. And one should note, by evolutionary biologists that are completely unrelated to, are perhaps unaware of Kevin MacDonald. The rejection of this concept, or rather, the non-adoption simply because it hasn't been proven, is pervasive/universal, not just by those disputing MacDonald.

    MacDonald insists that his cherry-picked instances of Jewish "behavior" proves the existence of something called "group evolutionary strategy". Incidentally, he first came at this ostensibly as an objective, budding sociobiologist, a questionable science at best, interested in proving this strategy exists, using Jewish people as an example.

    Somewhere along the line, he got personally/emotionally involved in the Jewish end of it, sort of flipped his focus, decided that group evolutionary strategy was a proven concept, went all red pill as folks would say today, and moved on with Jews as his primary focus, forthwith viewing them through the prism of his personal science/logic.

    Without group evolutionary strategy, which today is considered an unproven notion at best and more usually the province of pseudo-scientific fools, MacDonald's "analyses" are just barroom ramblings, fitting the data and theory to his personal preferences, just like climate change malpractitioners.

    Forget the Jews, show us the peer-reviewed science demonstrating the existence of "group evolutionary strategies". You know, math, genetics, degrees of relatedness and altruism, people model these things and so far, nada, at least to my understanding.

    , @affenkopf
    The Jews weren't offered Madagascar after WWII. Nazi Germany originally planned to deport the European Jews to Madagascar. That plan was abandoned after it became clear that there would be no quick German victory in the Battle of Britain. Wikipedia has a good overview.
    , @Priss Factor
    "They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity."

    They can out-think, out-fight, and out-maneuver the Muslims but they cannot conquer them. And they cannot guilt-bait them because (1) Holocaust didn't happen in the Middle East at hands of Muslims and (2) even if it had happened in the Middle East, Muslims wouldn't apologize and grovel. Did Hussein and Iraqi Arabs ever apologize for mass killing of Kurds? Did Turks ever apologize for the Armenian 'genocide'?

    Zionism and Israel had a strange effect on the Middle East. Without them, there would be Jewish communities all around the Middle East. What is now Israel would still be Palestine and it would be majority Muslim. Because Israel would not exist, there would be no Muslim/Arab/Iranian animus against Jews. Jews would have their prosperous merchant communities in Iran(and there are some Jews there still), Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc, etc. They would be dispersed all over as Jews are dispersed all over Europe.
    But the formation of Israel made native Jews of the Middle East and North African unwelcome. Many chose to move to Israel and many were expelled from Muslim nations and had no choice but to go to Israel(or Europe, or if possible, the US or Latin America).
    What had been a diaspora community of Jews all over the Middle East and North Africa became a concentrata community in Israel. As such, Israel became a tight powerful Jewish state, but Jews lost total influence all over the Middle East. Before there was Israel, Jews had some degree of presence and influence in every Middle Eastern and North African nation.
    When Jews serve native elites and mix with native masses, they aren't seen as threatening. But when Jewish power concentrates into a force, people became wary, especially if the Jewish state is perceived to sit on land holy to non-Jews.

    Something sort of similar happened in Europe with the rise of communism. Though Soviet Union wasn't officially Jewish, many Bolshevik rulers were Jewish, and many non-Jews thought of new Russia as ruled by Jews hellbent on destroying Christianity and enslaving Russians folks. In the attempted communist coup in Germany, the majority of leaders were Jewish. Trotsky called for Russian efforts to spread communist revolution to Germany.
    So, communist Russia came to symbolize concentrated Jewish power. The perception of Jews changed. They were no longer diaspora minorities in a bunch of nations but the main overlords and commissars of a giant European nation. Though antisemitism already existed prior to the Russian Revolution, it and the trauma of WWI was bound to lead to increase in anti-Jewish sentiments.

    Today, Jewish concentrata power is immense in the US. A New Yorker article by a Jewish women admits that Congress is owned by AIPAC.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel

    And as US-as-superpower is associated with Jewish power--though most people don't say it cuz it's taboo and even illegal in EU--, many people are becoming more hostile toward Jewish/American power in Europe. But the reason for all this pro-Muslim sentiment among Europeans--at least when it comes to the Jews vs Muslims--has to do with repressed fear of concentrata Jewish power in the US. Muslims are used as proxy by neo-'antisemites' to counter Jewish power that emanates from the US, the sole world power.
    , @Hibernian
    In Madagascar their just MIGHT have been a problem with the indigenous people.
    , @Anonymous
    What is radically new, really since the Internet became a mass medium in the mid-90s, is that Jews have now been put under a microscope and are being systematically examined by Ph.D. level experts. The results of this research are widely disseminated through books, journal articles, conference papers, etc, and are easily accessible in many languages.

    Examples:

    1. Biblical criticism, basically a minor industry in Germany for several centuries, when combined with Middle Eastern archeology has undermined the credibility of many biblical stories, esp. in the Hebrew Bible, essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed or that the Exodus ever happened;

    2. The scrutiny of the experts has now moved to the Talmud(s), the dark side of Judaism, to understand the centuries-old venomous anti-Christian animus among particularly the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews, and why,for example, some of them would refer to Jesus of Nazareth as that "sick mamzer Yoshke, " or "that bastard Jesus." Wikipedia has an entry on Antisemitism, it needs an entry on Antichristianism to examine situations in which Jews acted as oppressors and victimizers by refusing to hire certain individuals or refusing to grant tenure to people whose views they find objectionable, or depriving people of their livelihood;

    3. The culpability of the Jews in imposing totalitarian Marxist systems on so much of Europe which resulted in millions of the dead, wounded, and tortured is being examined, along with the vehement Jewish opposition to the independence of many countries in the aftermath of the fall of empires during WW I. We have a strange situation in which Mein Kampf is freely available but Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together (focusing specifically on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution) has not yet been translated into English.

    The Jews have been examining Europe (and U.S.) critically for centuries. They appear to be very uncomfortable being subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Books and articles that could not have been published even 10 years ago are now, with some exceptions, reaching mass audiences and changing their views of the Jews and Jewish-Christian relations
  50. @anony-mouse
    Let's take a person I'll call 'Steve' who lives in Los Angeles and not in Minneapolis.

    Minneapolis is safer than LA yet from a safety POV there is a logic in 'Steve' staying in LA. That's because while Minneapolis' danger level is lower it is notably rising, and a rising level of danger can lead to a rising level of fear whereas people can become acclimated to a constant level of danger as long as it isn't too high.

    Think 'Minneapolis' when thinking.

    (Interestingly of course Minneapolis is in a state with a high level of Scandinavians, no?)

    As the saying goes, the last white liberal will be a Minnesotan

  51. Bibi’s statement doesn’t make sense from any perspective unless he is just angling for sympathy from neocon types and whoever else still listens to him. Maybe he has a book coming out and is trying to generate “buzz”. What are the chances of Hannity and his talk radio/FNC ilk NOT bringing this up?

  52. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @zep
    "Israelis are nowadays a mixed lot with lots of intermarriage between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim."

    This is a strong incentive for intelligent Ashkenazim to flee Israel, lest their descendants regress toward the Arab mean.

    More bullshit. It’s very easy for intelligent Ashkenazi Jews, and the brighter Mizrahim/Sephardim, to carve out a nice life in Israel. I would say that in many ways it’s a pleasanter life than in the US, or Europe.

    “As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?).”

    LOL, and how many of them read you? Why should they? They’ve got to wade through a lot of Svigorism.

    Anyway as I have said repeatedly my own anecdotal lying eyes polltaking tells me that most American Jews are not as liberal on immigration as the so-called (unelected) leadership is.

    With respect to the whole Iran thing, yeah, you’re right – it’s illogical to exhort people to move to a place where they face an “existential” threat.

    I just don’t know what to think about Iran. My gut tells me they are working on something, but that they are inept, and the Israelis can screw up their computer systems, so they aren’t a real threat.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Iran wants the "Japan option". Having the capacity to weaponize, but not actually building weapons. The question will be if Iran can hide away enough plutonium for that.

    Giving up your nukes means certain invasion and regime change. If Iran ever capitulated to everything the US wants, the NED would be stuffed in the next day, the mullahs would be gone in a week.

    The threat of Hezbollah with a dirty bomb, means Lebanon is untouchable for Israel.
  53. “Clyde says:

    So in your own life you pooh-pooh and ignore someone who threatens you with death 30 times a year. Jews experience with Hitler tells them this is idiotic. Hitler rattled on for years before he was in a position to make good on his threats”

    Israelis would be foolish not to take iranian threats seriously. Likewise, they would be foolish to read more into them than is there. Persians aren’t Germans, and Iran isn’t Germany. Israel has an adequate nuclear deterrent to keep Iran from attacking it.

    By the same token, Iran might feel it has it’s own legitimate right to a nuclear deterrent. I suppose Israel doesn’t like this because it would make them more difficult to attack and might embolden them to give greater support to their Hezbollah proxies. But then, Israel doesn’t retalliate against Iran now for it’s support of Hezzbollah, so what, if anything, would change.

  54. My real worry in the Middle East is Turkey.

    And I now support Kurdish independence wholeheartedly, although I doubt they will ever get a country.

  55. “Luke Lea says:

    Special Immigration legislation could be written in to the reapeal of the 1965 immigration law.”

    Or America could just go back to having its own immigration laws to suit the interests of its own people.

    Crazy talk, I know.

  56. Did you know that the US gives aid to Israel for “refugees resettling in Israel” and that “Technically, the legislative language designates funds for refugee resettlement, but in Israel little differentiation is made between “refugees” and other immigrants, and the funds are used to support the absorption of all immigrants.” “Annual amounts have varied from a low of $12 million to a high of $80 million” this year the request is only for $10 million.

    Also, “Since 1972, the United States has extended loan guarantees to Israel to assist with housing shortages.”

    All this according to a report from the Congressional Research Service which I came across at the site for the Federation of American Scientists. Neither of which I have heard of but they sound legit.

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Loan guarantees only cost money if there is a default (Fannie and Freddie for example)
  57. It’s amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim’s Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot’s Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel’s boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe’s most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe’s Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    • Replies: @Neutral
    "It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens"

    Its not a perception, they are aliens that came from a foreign land to settle in Europe, bringing with them an alien culture. You correctly mention the tens of thousands of years of European genetic evolution, but you fail to mention that jews are relatively new arrivals. I have always found it profoundly insulting when people claim that jews are European when they are clearly not, you call people anti Semites after all, semites are not European.
    , @Y.Ilan
    It's the other way around; the only place where Jews have a chance to continue their existence in the long-run is in Israel, because of birthrates and assimilation. Jews who come here from Europe are certainly giving up comforts and easy money for a life that is more expensive, more dangerous (especially if they enlist into combat units, as many young immigrants do), but also more fulfiling. While you may see Ashkenazi Jews as wholly European, we see ourselves as first and foremost Jewish, i.e. our roots lie in the Land of Israel and it is here where we truly belong. It is not that odd to wish to go back to one's ancestral homeland; I get that it's hard to understand since the Jewish story is a unique one, but that's how it is.

    Your warnings of doom are duly noted, and the comparison to the Crusader Kingdoms somewhat amusing, but I do believe there are many significant differences between us and the Crusaders. The first and most significant difference being the demographics; the Crusaders were always a small minority in the Holy Land, while the Jewish population between the river and the sea is a growing majority.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The authentically indigenous Palestinians…
     
    Inasmuch as Palestinians are indigenous (and the word does come from "Philistine"), then isn't their embrace of Islam and Araby a form of treason? Like Apaches calling themselves Anglo-Saxon.
    , @bb753
    About half of french Jews are sephardic.
    , @Art Deco
    to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition.

    You don't read newspapers much, do you?
    , @WhatEvvs

    Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group
     
    Hahaha. Except when they were being told "Go to Palestine!" by thugs and bullies. Which happened quite a lot, and culminated in the gas chambers.

    About those "indigenous Palestinians," I think the best thing Lawrence Auster ever wrote was this:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you'll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.
  58. @Y.Ilan
    Haha, there're certainly more then enough Ashkenazim in Israel for those who wish to keep the strain pure, not to mention that Jewish families here are much more likely to actually have a significant amount of children; Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that's going on in the USA.

    Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that’s going on in the USA.

    I think they call it “The Second Holocaust”, “finishing the job Hitler started” and “loving us to death.”

    A bit too apocalyptic for my taste, but I do appreciate the race loyalty. It should be an example to all of us.

  59. I don’t think one can conclude that Jews are all that safe in Israel, or even that Bibi thinks so.

    Since when are politicians known for honesty?

    • Replies: @Y.Ilan
    It's not about safety, it's about the power to shape one's own destiny. If current trends of birthrate and assimilation hold, Jews only have a future in Israel; better to get as many Jews here before it's too late for them in Europe. Safety is really a matter of perception, with Jews in Israel able to defend themselves and fight and beat their enemies out in the open... Nothing better then that to create both the impression and the fact of a safe, stable and prosperous home.
  60. I think Steve overstates Jews’ enthusiasm for increased immigration. Yeah at some level decades ago there probably was a thought that a more diverse country is less likely to result in a second holocaust. But most Jews now marry nonjews. The ones who don’t are mostly conservative and orthodox. So secular Judaism will be increasingly submerged in the smarter white/Asian population.

    With these trends and the increasing antisemitism on the left, it’s likely that Jews will be voting 50% republican within a decade. And it would be hard to imagine Jews not looking at Europe and thinking maybe we should not bring in as many Muslim savages, to say the least.

    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    I think Steve overstates Jews’ enthusiasm for increased immigration. Yeah at some level decades ago there probably was a thought that a more diverse country is less likely to result in a second holocaust. But most Jews now marry nonjews. The ones who don’t are mostly conservative and orthodox. So secular Judaism will be increasingly submerged in the smarter white/Asian population.

    With these trends and the increasing antisemitism on the left, it’s likely that Jews will be voting 50% republican within a decade. And it would be hard to imagine Jews not looking at Europe and thinking maybe we should not bring in as many Muslim savages, to say the least.
     

    Maybe you are right, but what good will it do if they see the light in another decade? We might have another 30 million non-European immigrants in another decade. It's probably too late to do anything about it now, let alone in another decade.

    I am reminded of the old saying, "one couldn't leave well enough alone", when thinking about the rationale of those behind the insanity that has been our immigration policy since '65.

  61. @WhatEvvs
    More bullshit. It's very easy for intelligent Ashkenazi Jews, and the brighter Mizrahim/Sephardim, to carve out a nice life in Israel. I would say that in many ways it's a pleasanter life than in the US, or Europe.

    "As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?)."

    LOL, and how many of them read you? Why should they? They've got to wade through a lot of Svigorism.

    Anyway as I have said repeatedly my own anecdotal lying eyes polltaking tells me that most American Jews are not as liberal on immigration as the so-called (unelected) leadership is.

    With respect to the whole Iran thing, yeah, you're right - it's illogical to exhort people to move to a place where they face an "existential" threat.

    I just don't know what to think about Iran. My gut tells me they are working on something, but that they are inept, and the Israelis can screw up their computer systems, so they aren't a real threat.

    Iran wants the “Japan option”. Having the capacity to weaponize, but not actually building weapons. The question will be if Iran can hide away enough plutonium for that.

    Giving up your nukes means certain invasion and regime change. If Iran ever capitulated to everything the US wants, the NED would be stuffed in the next day, the mullahs would be gone in a week.

    The threat of Hezbollah with a dirty bomb, means Lebanon is untouchable for Israel.

  62. @Harold
    Did you know that the US gives aid to Israel for “refugees resettling in Israel” and that “Technically, the legislative language designates funds for refugee resettlement, but in Israel little differentiation is made between “refugees” and other immigrants, and the funds are used to support the absorption of all immigrants.” “Annual amounts have varied from a low of $12 million to a high of $80 million” this year the request is only for $10 million.

    Also, “Since 1972, the United States has extended loan guarantees to Israel to assist with housing shortages.”

    All this according to a report from the Congressional Research Service which I came across at the site for the Federation of American Scientists. Neither of which I have heard of but they sound legit.

    Loan guarantees only cost money if there is a default (Fannie and Freddie for example)

  63. Btw, if Jews are necessary for liberal immigration policies, why are countries with tiny amounts of Jews (like Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium) overrun? What’s wrong with the WHITE people in these countries?

  64. @Jus' Sayin'...
    It's amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim's Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel's boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe's most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe's Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    “It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens”

    Its not a perception, they are aliens that came from a foreign land to settle in Europe, bringing with them an alien culture. You correctly mention the tens of thousands of years of European genetic evolution, but you fail to mention that jews are relatively new arrivals. I have always found it profoundly insulting when people claim that jews are European when they are clearly not, you call people anti Semites after all, semites are not European.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Ashkenaz Jews appear to be descended from about 300-500 male Jews, the remnant of a larger number who migrated north out of Italy about fifteen hundred years ago. These males intermarried with local European women. Although nuclear DNA from Ashkenaz Jews differs somewhat from the nuclear DNA of non-Jewish Europeans in the same area, the mitochondrial DNA is basically the same. So Ashkenaz Jews have a very long history of involvement with European culture and are genetically at least half European.

    If time of arrival is your criterion then Hungarians are less Jewish than Ashkenaz Jews. So for that matter is just about everybody east of the Oder-Niesse. Perhaps you believe all Slavs are something less than European also.

    And please don't pretend to misunderstand the origin of the term anti-semite. (Unless perhaps I have under-estimated your ignorance and you really are unaware.) It was created in the nineteenth century precisely to describe the kind of person with anti-Ashkenaz-Jew sentiments of which you seem to be a good exemplar.
  65. O/T

    Too late for Mitt, too soon for Jeb?

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/181568/americans-increasingly-russia-threat-top-enemy.aspx

    Public opinion is squarely behind the Soros/McCain agenda

  66. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald's group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think "diaspora" first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that's business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It's not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

    Kevin McDonald’s group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense.

    And so do Jared Diamond’s Just So Stories in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

    But in both cases, one must accept various precepts that the authors created in order for it all to make sense. In MacDonald’s case (note the spelling…), he relies completely upon the idea of “group evolutionary strategy”.

    The notion of “group evolutionary strategy” is something that, as of this date, is completely discounted by evolutionary biologists. And one should note, by evolutionary biologists that are completely unrelated to, are perhaps unaware of Kevin MacDonald. The rejection of this concept, or rather, the non-adoption simply because it hasn’t been proven, is pervasive/universal, not just by those disputing MacDonald.

    MacDonald insists that his cherry-picked instances of Jewish “behavior” proves the existence of something called “group evolutionary strategy”. Incidentally, he first came at this ostensibly as an objective, budding sociobiologist, a questionable science at best, interested in proving this strategy exists, using Jewish people as an example.

    Somewhere along the line, he got personally/emotionally involved in the Jewish end of it, sort of flipped his focus, decided that group evolutionary strategy was a proven concept, went all red pill as folks would say today, and moved on with Jews as his primary focus, forthwith viewing them through the prism of his personal science/logic.

    Without group evolutionary strategy, which today is considered an unproven notion at best and more usually the province of pseudo-scientific fools, MacDonald’s “analyses” are just barroom ramblings, fitting the data and theory to his personal preferences, just like climate change malpractitioners.

    Forget the Jews, show us the peer-reviewed science demonstrating the existence of “group evolutionary strategies”. You know, math, genetics, degrees of relatedness and altruism, people model these things and so far, nada, at least to my understanding.

    • Replies: @fnn
    Commentary on Kevin MacDonald's work by David Sloan Wilson:

    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/slate-wilson.html

    ...
  67. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?).”

    The vast majority of Jews who are “liberal on immigration policy” do not take that position because they’re worried about persecuted Jews in Europe. They are in favor of immigration because, like the rest of the Left, they want to the United States to become a one-party, majority-racial-minority leftist state, in which culturally conservative white middle class Christians have no voice and eventually disappear. It has absolutely nothing to do with what’s good for Jews in foreign countries who might have to become refugees. It has much more to do with American Ashkenazi Jews ancestral and (at this point) irrational fear of believing Christians of European descent here in the United States.

    Perhaps there are a few American Jews of the kind Steve is interested in addressing, but their numbers and influence are minute. If you want to see what motivates most American Jews, look at the website of the Union for Reform Judaism, the largest American Jewish denomination, or of J Street. The agendas of these groups are indistinguishable from the agenda of the Obama administration (except to the extent the positions of the Reform and J Street are even further left than the Obama administration’s public positions).

  68. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald's group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think "diaspora" first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that's business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It's not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

    The Jews weren’t offered Madagascar after WWII. Nazi Germany originally planned to deport the European Jews to Madagascar. That plan was abandoned after it became clear that there would be no quick German victory in the Battle of Britain. Wikipedia has a good overview.

  69. @Y.Ilan
    Haha, there're certainly more then enough Ashkenazim in Israel for those who wish to keep the strain pure, not to mention that Jewish families here are much more likely to actually have a significant amount of children; Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that's going on in the USA.

    “Jews in Exile barely have enough babies to not dissapear completely, not to mention the assimilation that’s going on in the USA.”

    Assimilation into European peoples is far less dysgenic than assimilation with Moroccans, Iraqis and Yemenites. I have recently made the observation that in America it is the Secular elite Ashkenazim that are most likely to outbreed as the Modern Orthodox retain a strong racially pure core, while in Israel the Ashkenazi gene pool is being diluted on all levels. Only the most fanatical Hasid clans are able to avoid miscegenation in Israel.

  70. OT:

    Siberian Scientists Crack Slavic DNA to Determine Family Roots

    Scientists from the Medical Genetics Institute in Tomsk have developed a map of Russians’ ethno-territorial origins which can help tell exactly where a person’s origins lie using his or her DNA.

    … the technology has already been used to help criminologists to solve crimes in the Novosibirsk region. In 2013, investigators from the region appealed to the Institute, asking researchers to help in their search for a criminal charged with crimes against minors going back to 2003. The scientists successfully pinpointed the territorial origins of the criminal, helping investigators to narrow their list of suspects, and ultimately leading to the criminal’s arrest two weeks later.
    […]

    http://sputniknews.com/science/20150216/1018351924.html

  71. @Art Deco
    One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago.

    --

    Read Tamar Jacoby's account of herself and the evolution of her views. Read Michael Kinsley, who is actually fairly insouciant about his affiliations (as he is about much else). Read Leon Wieseltier for what's missing as well as what's there. The safety of Israel per se does not figure in what these people advocate re immigration to the United States or Britain. The sense of self, sense of history, and sense of relations with the wider community are enough to explain the anomalies regarding the distribution of political opinion among American Jews. (N.B. much of Jacoby's family is gentile, Kinsley comes from a bog standard secular suburban family, and Wieseltier from an immigrant family steeped in Jewish social circles and Jewish schooling; three very different sorts of cultural background, but some similar opinions).

    When talking about Jewish political leanings in America, there’s always a tendency to indulge in psychological reductionism. Some Jews may support Israel as a plan B and some Jews may be pro-immigration out of tribal loyalty, but they could also think other things too. My read on why Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans is American Liberalism is a secular religion so it will appeal to people with strong belief traits.

  72. Narratives about how to understand Israel and the Jews in relation to the US roughly fall along a Left/Right divide. The Left (see Chomsky) view Israel, and its Jewish supporters, as a subsidiary part of the US. Empire. The Right considers Israel the tail that wags the dog.

    States project Narratives (about how Israel and the Jews relate to the U.S.) similarly, with the above Left/Right Narratives correlating with a particular state’s geopolitical relationship with the US.

    Thus the Saudis, along with every other ally of the US, chooses from the Right-side of the Narrative menu. Depending on the audience subject to the conditioning, this ranges from crude anti-semitic tropes to “punching above their weight.”

    Since 1979, Iran has been a case-study in this implication. With the Islamic Revolution, and Iran relocating itself from ally to enemy of the US (essential to consolidate the new regime), it explained US/Israel as “Big Satan/Little Satan,” the classic Left Narrative. Introduction of the Right Narrative is a sure signal the US and Iran are negotiating rapprochement, such as when Ahmadinejad hosted this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_to_Review_the_Global_Vision_of_the_Holocaust

    Israel is in the thick of a competitive election. It’s a mistake to interpret official comments about the recent terrorist attacks on Jews in France and Denmark outside of that immediate context, by Netanyahu or anyone else –not the least Obama. At least we know Netanyahu is trying to win. It isn’t at all clear to me that Obama is trying to help him lose. It is looking more and more like the opposite:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obamas-offensive-against-netanyahu-backfires/2015/02/02/5f800ab2-aae1-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

  73. @International Jew

    Netanyahu’s implication that Jews are safe in Israel. Apparently, in the leader of Israel’s judgment, Jews shouldn’t worry all that much about the Iranian nuclear program
     
    What safety western European Jews still enjoy comes with extreme constraints on their day-to-day freedom. Their synagogues and schools require Ft Knox-like security, their children aren't safe playing in the park or attending many public schools. So the logic is that of facing danger in Israel vs hiding from it in Europe. That logic should be easily grasped by any red-blooded American who's grappled with the pros and cons of keeping a gun for home protection; would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?

    As for Netanyahu worrying about Iran even though it doesn't *yet* have a nuclear arsenal, here's Enoch Powell:
    "The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils."

    grappled with the pros and cons of keeping a gun for home protection; would you rather live on your knees or die on your feet?

    False dichotomy. The real answer is to live on your feet because one is able to defend oneself.

  74. @Joe Magarac
    I don't think one can conclude that Jews are all that safe in Israel, or even that Bibi thinks so.

    Since when are politicians known for honesty?

    It’s not about safety, it’s about the power to shape one’s own destiny. If current trends of birthrate and assimilation hold, Jews only have a future in Israel; better to get as many Jews here before it’s too late for them in Europe. Safety is really a matter of perception, with Jews in Israel able to defend themselves and fight and beat their enemies out in the open… Nothing better then that to create both the impression and the fact of a safe, stable and prosperous home.

  75. @Jus' Sayin'...
    It's amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim's Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel's boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe's most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe's Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    It’s the other way around; the only place where Jews have a chance to continue their existence in the long-run is in Israel, because of birthrates and assimilation. Jews who come here from Europe are certainly giving up comforts and easy money for a life that is more expensive, more dangerous (especially if they enlist into combat units, as many young immigrants do), but also more fulfiling. While you may see Ashkenazi Jews as wholly European, we see ourselves as first and foremost Jewish, i.e. our roots lie in the Land of Israel and it is here where we truly belong. It is not that odd to wish to go back to one’s ancestral homeland; I get that it’s hard to understand since the Jewish story is a unique one, but that’s how it is.

    Your warnings of doom are duly noted, and the comparison to the Crusader Kingdoms somewhat amusing, but I do believe there are many significant differences between us and the Crusaders. The first and most significant difference being the demographics; the Crusaders were always a small minority in the Holy Land, while the Jewish population between the river and the sea is a growing majority.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    We'll have to agree to disagree. The Jews are a resilient people. My feeling is that the Jewish remnant in a half-millennium or so will have the same fond memories of zionism as today's Jews have of Ben Kochbar.
    , @Jack D
    It's sort of a self selected group - the people there think of it as their ancestral homeland because only people who felt that way moved there in the first place. I understand on an intellectual level that Israel is supposed to be my ancestral homeland, but when freckled pale me visited and burned under the hot Middle Eastern sun, I didn't feel in my gut at all like I was "home" - it felt like a very alien place to me. The fact that it was "home" 2,000 years ago is a pretty distant connection. A lot of Europeans' ancestors, 2,000 years ago were somewhere out on the steppes of Asia but they don't feel connected to Kazakhstan. I WANTED to feel connected, the same way some people crave to be "born again", but the connection just didn't come. The bonds had been broken (or frayed to a few weak threads) literally thousands of years ago.

    When I visited E. Europe, despite the fact that the people who live there now are not "my people" (in fact many behaved abominably toward my people), still it felt more like home - the climate, the food (except the local love of pork in every conceivable form), the architecture, the landscape, everything felt more familiar to me than that alien sliver of the Middle East.
  76. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “One major reason for widespread Jewish support of a loose immigration Jewish policy for the United States would be to accommodate immigration of Israeli Jews in case of the military destruction of Israel. That was not unreasonable a half century ago.”

    I don’t believe this. Because of the holy cult of the Holocaust, if Jews were to face annihilation in the Middle East, US and Europe would have done everything possible to save them regardless of their own immigration laws. After all, US is the nation that invoked all kinds of excuses to wage all kinds of wars in Asia, Middle East, and Eastern Europe. In the name of saving Kosovans, US bombed the hell out of Serbia. In the name of finding WMD, US wrecked Iraq.

    So, Jewish support of immigration wasn’t about Israel. It was about increasing diversity to weaken and guilt-bait. white American and white European power.

    PS. Netanhayu’s calling on Jews to come to Israel could be taken both ways. It could mean Israel is safer for Jews, or it could mean Israel needs Jews more than ever because all Jews must stick together to defend the Jewish homeland that is under greater pressure from its enemies.

  77. Steve, you don’t get it. Israel was created as a safe haven from intermarriage, not pogroms. Jews in Israel are safe. It is the film producers living every man’s fantasy, or the geek billionaires with ‘yellow fever’ that are doomed.

  78. @Clyde

    Most Israeli politicians, regardless of what they might say in public, know that Iran blusters about destroying Israel mostly just for home consumption and to keep the rabble satisfied. Iran is never going to attack anybody.
     
    So in your own life you pooh-pooh and ignore someone who threatens you with death 30 times a year. Jews experience with Hitler tells them this is idiotic. Hitler rattled on for years before he was in a position to make good on his threats

    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel’s rivals under false pretense,

    Iran threatens to establish a more prosperous society and this threatens Israeli pride. Iran promises to respond to a first strike, and this threatens Israeli plans to sabotage every other nattion in the region. Iran plans to continue its civilization even after Israel has disappeared from the sands of time (which was the statement that has been so frequently and maliciously misstated by Israeli puppets), and Israel is terrified their little experiment at having a nation will collapse under its own hubris.

    Israel threatens the US through its lies and manipulation. For this reason, we should stop giving the nasty little state however much we pay.

    • Replies: @Clyde

    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel’s rivals under false pretense
     
    You lie like a rug...Valerie Jarret is also an Iranian stooge
  79. Where do I get to go when the immigration policies supported by Jews ruin my country?

  80. “Netanyahu Urges ‘Mass Immigration’ of Jews from Europe”

    Again, I can’t get over how much this sounds like something some dramatically-costumed German guys were saying three-quarters of a century ago.

  81. @anony-mouse
    Let's take a person I'll call 'Steve' who lives in Los Angeles and not in Minneapolis.

    Minneapolis is safer than LA yet from a safety POV there is a logic in 'Steve' staying in LA. That's because while Minneapolis' danger level is lower it is notably rising, and a rising level of danger can lead to a rising level of fear whereas people can become acclimated to a constant level of danger as long as it isn't too high.

    Think 'Minneapolis' when thinking.

    (Interestingly of course Minneapolis is in a state with a high level of Scandinavians, no?)

    In the mid ’90s Minneapolis surpassed NYC (and probably LA) in murder rate. But that was a short-lived thing. Nearby urban states were tightening welfare criteria, and gangsta and/or their molls were making north. As soon as Minnesota cracked down as well, they went home.

    Fun fact: the second-to-last homicide in the record 95-in-’95 was the work of, not an out-of-state black, but a local Indian by the name of Sherman Killsplenty.

    And he’s not the only Killsplenty in the system.

  82. @Marty T
    I think Steve overstates Jews' enthusiasm for increased immigration. Yeah at some level decades ago there probably was a thought that a more diverse country is less likely to result in a second holocaust. But most Jews now marry nonjews. The ones who don't are mostly conservative and orthodox. So secular Judaism will be increasingly submerged in the smarter white/Asian population.

    With these trends and the increasing antisemitism on the left, it's likely that Jews will be voting 50% republican within a decade. And it would be hard to imagine Jews not looking at Europe and thinking maybe we should not bring in as many Muslim savages, to say the least.

    I think Steve overstates Jews’ enthusiasm for increased immigration. Yeah at some level decades ago there probably was a thought that a more diverse country is less likely to result in a second holocaust. But most Jews now marry nonjews. The ones who don’t are mostly conservative and orthodox. So secular Judaism will be increasingly submerged in the smarter white/Asian population.

    With these trends and the increasing antisemitism on the left, it’s likely that Jews will be voting 50% republican within a decade. And it would be hard to imagine Jews not looking at Europe and thinking maybe we should not bring in as many Muslim savages, to say the least.

    Maybe you are right, but what good will it do if they see the light in another decade? We might have another 30 million non-European immigrants in another decade. It’s probably too late to do anything about it now, let alone in another decade.

    I am reminded of the old saying, “one couldn’t leave well enough alone”, when thinking about the rationale of those behind the insanity that has been our immigration policy since ’65.

  83. @Jus' Sayin'...
    It's amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim's Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel's boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe's most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe's Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    The authentically indigenous Palestinians…

    Inasmuch as Palestinians are indigenous (and the word does come from “Philistine”), then isn’t their embrace of Islam and Araby a form of treason? Like Apaches calling themselves Anglo-Saxon.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Some historians think that the non-Jews who were to be found in Palestine during the centuries after the suppression of Ben Kochbar's revolt were actually descendants of Jews who fell away from Rabbinic Judaism and by default ended up as Christians.

    There is an interesting and constant struggle in early Jewish history between elites trying to impose some form or another of religious orthodoxy and the masses just trying to get by. It's not as clean as some might be aware. If you read between the lines in various biblical texts you get glimpses of it. For example, it's worth remembering that the Samaritans were comprised of Jews who stayed behind during the Babylonian exile. The elites were the exiles and when allowed back imposed temple Judaism on the masses who stayed behind.

    Anyhow, one of the main reasons so many Byzantine subjects converted so readily to Islam may be found in the monophysite persecutions that just preceded the Arab eruptions of the sixth and seventh centuries. Many of these people had just had an alien religion orthodoxy imposed on them with no benefit. Conversion with benefits to still another religion must have seemed like a pretty good deal.
  84. @Jus' Sayin'...
    It's amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim's Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel's boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe's most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe's Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    About half of french Jews are sephardic.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    I believe a lot less is known about the details of Sephardic history vis-a-vis Europe. I don't feel qualified to respond to your remark. But thanks for the info.
  85. No Steve, wrong again. Israel is NOT SAFE (anymore than say, Rome is safe for Christians in the long run given that ISIS just beheaded dozens in Libya about 500 miles south and promises to conquer said city).

    Rather, Israel has its own Jewish state with a military and nuclear weapons. They can always Samson in the Temple. That’s the whole point about self-defense. Which no offense but a guy your size with little history of fighting — your size itself is intimidating — can’t intuitively understand.

    The idea of self-defense is not necessarily to win, but to make the “victory” so unpleasant for the victor that he demurs attacking.

    Jews will always be hated by Muslims no matter what they do. The same goes true for Christians, and Buddhists. Muslims HATE HATE HATE pretty much everyone, including especially other Muslims deemed “impure” or “not true Muslims” — see the slaughter in Iraq and Syria over who is the true pure Muslims.

    The point Netanyahu is making is that Jews are better off armed, concentrated together, in solidarity (as much as White people are capable of anyway), against a global onslaught of the Third World.

    This is a complete reversal of the ideas of Western peoples from basically the 1700s onward. When the threat from the Ottomans receded and the idea that Western peoples must be armed and fight continually against others who wish to conquer us instead flipped to the idea that Western peoples were the overdogs.

    We are now returning to the territory of Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, and many other battles. Western lands will shrink not expand, we face hostile peoples with “equalized” armaments save ICBMs (for now) who are pushing against our boundaries using our own technology as a commodity against us. ISIS does not need people who have more than basic literacy given that GPS and cheap AK-47s, RPGs, sea transport, and MANPADs allow them to shoot down even fairly advanced fighter jets (provided by us to the Jordanian Air Force). With a massive manpower advantage they are formidable. They also have experienced combat vets (trained by the Turkish Army no doubt) with at least basic understanding of urban and desert combat.

    Netanyahu is saying Jews are not safe ANYWHERE. But can at least fight back in Israel where they cannot in Europe. And likely the US. And first Jews, then Christians and then everyone else.

  86. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald's group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think "diaspora" first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that's business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It's not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

    “They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.”

    They can out-think, out-fight, and out-maneuver the Muslims but they cannot conquer them. And they cannot guilt-bait them because (1) Holocaust didn’t happen in the Middle East at hands of Muslims and (2) even if it had happened in the Middle East, Muslims wouldn’t apologize and grovel. Did Hussein and Iraqi Arabs ever apologize for mass killing of Kurds? Did Turks ever apologize for the Armenian ‘genocide’?

    Zionism and Israel had a strange effect on the Middle East. Without them, there would be Jewish communities all around the Middle East. What is now Israel would still be Palestine and it would be majority Muslim. Because Israel would not exist, there would be no Muslim/Arab/Iranian animus against Jews. Jews would have their prosperous merchant communities in Iran(and there are some Jews there still), Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc, etc. They would be dispersed all over as Jews are dispersed all over Europe.
    But the formation of Israel made native Jews of the Middle East and North African unwelcome. Many chose to move to Israel and many were expelled from Muslim nations and had no choice but to go to Israel(or Europe, or if possible, the US or Latin America).
    What had been a diaspora community of Jews all over the Middle East and North Africa became a concentrata community in Israel. As such, Israel became a tight powerful Jewish state, but Jews lost total influence all over the Middle East. Before there was Israel, Jews had some degree of presence and influence in every Middle Eastern and North African nation.
    When Jews serve native elites and mix with native masses, they aren’t seen as threatening. But when Jewish power concentrates into a force, people became wary, especially if the Jewish state is perceived to sit on land holy to non-Jews.

    Something sort of similar happened in Europe with the rise of communism. Though Soviet Union wasn’t officially Jewish, many Bolshevik rulers were Jewish, and many non-Jews thought of new Russia as ruled by Jews hellbent on destroying Christianity and enslaving Russians folks. In the attempted communist coup in Germany, the majority of leaders were Jewish. Trotsky called for Russian efforts to spread communist revolution to Germany.
    So, communist Russia came to symbolize concentrated Jewish power. The perception of Jews changed. They were no longer diaspora minorities in a bunch of nations but the main overlords and commissars of a giant European nation. Though antisemitism already existed prior to the Russian Revolution, it and the trauma of WWI was bound to lead to increase in anti-Jewish sentiments.

    Today, Jewish concentrata power is immense in the US. A New Yorker article by a Jewish women admits that Congress is owned by AIPAC.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel

    And as US-as-superpower is associated with Jewish power–though most people don’t say it cuz it’s taboo and even illegal in EU–, many people are becoming more hostile toward Jewish/American power in Europe. But the reason for all this pro-Muslim sentiment among Europeans–at least when it comes to the Jews vs Muslims–has to do with repressed fear of concentrata Jewish power in the US. Muslims are used as proxy by neo-‘antisemites’ to counter Jewish power that emanates from the US, the sole world power.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    … especially if the Jewish state is perceived to sit on land holy to non-Jews.
     
    How holy is it to "non-Jews"? To Christians, Jerusalem is the holiest territory of all. But the criticism coming from Christendom isn't particularly Christian, and Christians haven't been particularly critical.

    To Moslems, it's only the third-holiest place. That presents a problem. You can hardly take an ace with a queen, and your opponents don't recognize your trump suit. But if they counter with, Jerusalem is almost as holy as Mecca and Medina, well, those cities are closed to infidels. Will Jerusalem be as well?

    Yes, and you can't have it. No, then it's not as holy as you claim, is it?
  87. @Jus' Sayin'...
    It's amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim's Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel's boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe's most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe's Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition.

    You don’t read newspapers much, do you?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    Actually I do. My very strong impression is that Jews who are sceptical of zionism are very much marginalized in the Jewish community. Probably a majority of my close friends are Jews and a slim majority of friends/close acquaintances. I've yet to hear one of these suggest that maybe zionism and/or the modern state of Israel might have been a bad idea for Ashkenaz Jews.
  88. As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?).

    I’m not saying that issue is unworthy of examination, but what is far more worthy of discussion is why non-Jewish-white-Americans do not base their policy on a similar calculus i.e. “Is it good for us?”.

    Kevin McDonald is guilty of greatly over-thinking matters. There’s no need to delve into evolutionary theory to answer the question “Why do Jews seek to act in their own group interest?” That’s the natural, default state of any and all groups of people. The intriguing question, and one which few people even ask, is why non-Jewish-white-Americans abhor group self interest as a guiding principle in their own affairs even while they expect or even demand group self interest to be uppermost in the minds of Jews, blacks, and essentially anyone who is NOT a non-Jewish-white-American. I’d like to see a thread here devoted to that conundrum.

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Gut level racial tribalism-racial nationalism.....nothing else required.
  89. Off topic:

    This American Life does a segment on implicit bias and policing.

    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/548/cops-see-it-differently-part-two

    The reporters do their best to ask if cops shouldn’t feel bad about having implicit bias.

    Never embraced is that “bias” = “statistically justified prior belief”.

  90. The authentically indigenous Palestinians

    You ever wonder why the man who founded Al Fatah and ran it for 45 years was a chap who grew up in Egypt, as did the most prominent American who sat on the Palestine National Council (and who lied about this for more than three decades)?

  91. I’d argue further that the idea of safety is ending in the West. Mass Third World immigration brings mass Third World violence to the cities and streets. Braunschweig had to end 90 minutes before it began, its street festival for jihad threats. Personal violence unpredictable and fairly horrific against White populations is going to have a profound effect.

    The growth of a White identity — it is ridiculous to speak of nationalism when there is effectively no nation any more — is likely to be profound in its effects. Disunity and clan / class squabbling gets ditched under attack from other peoples, mostly. Those who don’t end up like Plains Indians who would not give it up.

    White people who EXPECT TO FIGHT for survival any given day, have no trust or confidence in their elites or government who FAIL to provide basic security, is something the West has not really seen since the late 1600s or so. The growth of martial arts for basic self defense ought to be troubling, as is the gun-buying binge from around the mid 1960s onward, as is survivalism. As is the whole class of self-defense folding knives.

    It is not just jihad btw. Reading Leovy’s “Ghettoside” one draws the conclusion that the massive murder rate inside the ghetto is already leaking out to the White/Hispanic suburbs with disastrous effects eventually.

    This is the failure of Pinker’s model — it does not take into effect the clash of r-selected peoples with high violence with K selected low violence populations.

  92. WhatEvvs [AKA "Bemused"] says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...
    It's amusing to consider that both zionism and modern anti-semitism have their roots in post-Enlightenment, nationalist romanticism. Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group. And in fact they were and are, with roots that go back at least a millennium-and-a-half, as has been proved by genetic research. Upper class Jews lived near the urban centers of power and consorted on close terms with royalty and nobility. They could get in trouble, as the Templars did, if royal cupidity was inflamed, as with Edward Longshanks; or if they were identified too closely with an occupying enemy as in reconquista Spain. But generally speaking Jews did quite well and were a recognized and accepted part of European culture.

    It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens and created anti-semitism as we know it today. Partly independently and partly as a result of this new form of anti-semitism, the ideology of zionism emerged. Examined objectively, zuionism is as absurd an ideology as communism or naziism. It proposes to uproot an entire ethnic-racial group from its comfortable European homeland and plop it down in an utterly alien and relatively unpleasant region of the world where it will be surrounded by bitter enemies united only in their desire to extirpate the invaders. It destroys the native culture, even the language (replacing vibrant Yiddish with moribund Hebrew), and dilutes the racial stock with peoples who have only at best a mythical, biblical relation to Ashkenaz Jews.

    For a long time zionism was roundly rejected by most Jews. It was actually more readily embraced by non-Jews (compare the rather nervous attitudes towards zionism in Sholom Aleichim's Tevye the Milkman with the enthusiasm in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda) who were beginning to absorb the romantic anti-semite trope of Jews as a foreign presence. It was only after the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that more Jews began to take zionism seriously. After WW II, zionists moved quickly to get European Jewish refugees into Palestine and to lobby the UN to establish a Jewish state there. The triumph of those strategies and propaganda by , e.g., Leon Uris, converted zionism from a fringe movement in European Judaism to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition. This triumphalism should be chastened by the observation that the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem had as good or better a track record in that region of the world for about three centuries than has the zionist state of Israel so far for less than one century. The authentically indigenous Palestinians have a lot more staying power and reserves of enmity than Israel's boosters give them credit for. Unfortunately, an excess of temporary good fortune usually blinds humanity to looming disaster. As the Greeks said, whom the gods will destroy they first make mad.

    Now we are seeing an invasion of Europe by truly alien elements; racial and ethnic groups that have been separated genetically from Europeans for tens of thousands of years, whose religions and cultures are utterly hostile to traditional European religions and cultures, and whose avowed goal is the destruction of Europe as we know it. They have begun their assault on one of Europe's most recognized ethnicities, European Ashkenaz Jews. Instead of fighting back, Europeans and European, American and Israeli Jews seem to be encouraging the diaspora of the last of Europe's Jews to a place where their immediate comfort may increase but the chances of their long-term cultural survival are nil.

    The irony is horrific.

    Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group

    Hahaha. Except when they were being told “Go to Palestine!” by thugs and bullies. Which happened quite a lot, and culminated in the gas chambers.

    About those “indigenous Palestinians,” I think the best thing Lawrence Auster ever wrote was this:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you’ll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    I wasn't aware that the Enlightenment occurred sometime after WW I. Pray enlighten me further.

    As regards indigenous Palestinians, see my response to Reg Caesar.

    After the suppression of Bar Kochbar's revolt. The Romans punished the Jews severely. Part of this punishment included removing any autonomy from the political unit that had been called Judea and redividing the area. As part of this political/administrative reorganization the Romans renamed greater Judea as Phillistia. This is where the geographic term Palestine comes from. I'm surprised that you're surprised that the Ottoman Empire didn't organize along administrative guidelines set by the Romans and Byzantines. Rumi tended to be a pejorative term (the poet excepted) among the Ottomans.

    After reading Auster's article, my conclusion is that the only historically and/or archaeologically documented people who have less claim to to current Israel than Ashkenaz Jews are the Canaanite settlers of circa 3000 bc
    , @iSteveFan

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you’ll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.
     
    What about Byzantine maps, or even earlier Roman ones?
  93. @Neutral
    "It was romanticism that created a perception of Jews as aliens"

    Its not a perception, they are aliens that came from a foreign land to settle in Europe, bringing with them an alien culture. You correctly mention the tens of thousands of years of European genetic evolution, but you fail to mention that jews are relatively new arrivals. I have always found it profoundly insulting when people claim that jews are European when they are clearly not, you call people anti Semites after all, semites are not European.

    Ashkenaz Jews appear to be descended from about 300-500 male Jews, the remnant of a larger number who migrated north out of Italy about fifteen hundred years ago. These males intermarried with local European women. Although nuclear DNA from Ashkenaz Jews differs somewhat from the nuclear DNA of non-Jewish Europeans in the same area, the mitochondrial DNA is basically the same. So Ashkenaz Jews have a very long history of involvement with European culture and are genetically at least half European.

    If time of arrival is your criterion then Hungarians are less Jewish than Ashkenaz Jews. So for that matter is just about everybody east of the Oder-Niesse. Perhaps you believe all Slavs are something less than European also.

    And please don’t pretend to misunderstand the origin of the term anti-semite. (Unless perhaps I have under-estimated your ignorance and you really are unaware.) It was created in the nineteenth century precisely to describe the kind of person with anti-Ashkenaz-Jew sentiments of which you seem to be a good exemplar.

  94. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald's group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think "diaspora" first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that's business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It's not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

    In Madagascar their just MIGHT have been a problem with the indigenous people.

  95. @Priss Factor
    "They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity."

    They can out-think, out-fight, and out-maneuver the Muslims but they cannot conquer them. And they cannot guilt-bait them because (1) Holocaust didn't happen in the Middle East at hands of Muslims and (2) even if it had happened in the Middle East, Muslims wouldn't apologize and grovel. Did Hussein and Iraqi Arabs ever apologize for mass killing of Kurds? Did Turks ever apologize for the Armenian 'genocide'?

    Zionism and Israel had a strange effect on the Middle East. Without them, there would be Jewish communities all around the Middle East. What is now Israel would still be Palestine and it would be majority Muslim. Because Israel would not exist, there would be no Muslim/Arab/Iranian animus against Jews. Jews would have their prosperous merchant communities in Iran(and there are some Jews there still), Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc, etc. They would be dispersed all over as Jews are dispersed all over Europe.
    But the formation of Israel made native Jews of the Middle East and North African unwelcome. Many chose to move to Israel and many were expelled from Muslim nations and had no choice but to go to Israel(or Europe, or if possible, the US or Latin America).
    What had been a diaspora community of Jews all over the Middle East and North Africa became a concentrata community in Israel. As such, Israel became a tight powerful Jewish state, but Jews lost total influence all over the Middle East. Before there was Israel, Jews had some degree of presence and influence in every Middle Eastern and North African nation.
    When Jews serve native elites and mix with native masses, they aren't seen as threatening. But when Jewish power concentrates into a force, people became wary, especially if the Jewish state is perceived to sit on land holy to non-Jews.

    Something sort of similar happened in Europe with the rise of communism. Though Soviet Union wasn't officially Jewish, many Bolshevik rulers were Jewish, and many non-Jews thought of new Russia as ruled by Jews hellbent on destroying Christianity and enslaving Russians folks. In the attempted communist coup in Germany, the majority of leaders were Jewish. Trotsky called for Russian efforts to spread communist revolution to Germany.
    So, communist Russia came to symbolize concentrated Jewish power. The perception of Jews changed. They were no longer diaspora minorities in a bunch of nations but the main overlords and commissars of a giant European nation. Though antisemitism already existed prior to the Russian Revolution, it and the trauma of WWI was bound to lead to increase in anti-Jewish sentiments.

    Today, Jewish concentrata power is immense in the US. A New Yorker article by a Jewish women admits that Congress is owned by AIPAC.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/01/friends-israel

    And as US-as-superpower is associated with Jewish power--though most people don't say it cuz it's taboo and even illegal in EU--, many people are becoming more hostile toward Jewish/American power in Europe. But the reason for all this pro-Muslim sentiment among Europeans--at least when it comes to the Jews vs Muslims--has to do with repressed fear of concentrata Jewish power in the US. Muslims are used as proxy by neo-'antisemites' to counter Jewish power that emanates from the US, the sole world power.

    … especially if the Jewish state is perceived to sit on land holy to non-Jews.

    How holy is it to “non-Jews”? To Christians, Jerusalem is the holiest territory of all. But the criticism coming from Christendom isn’t particularly Christian, and Christians haven’t been particularly critical.

    To Moslems, it’s only the third-holiest place. That presents a problem. You can hardly take an ace with a queen, and your opponents don’t recognize your trump suit. But if they counter with, Jerusalem is almost as holy as Mecca and Medina, well, those cities are closed to infidels. Will Jerusalem be as well?

    Yes, and you can’t have it. No, then it’s not as holy as you claim, is it?

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "To Moslems, it’s only the third-holiest place. That presents a problem."

    Don't be a dammy(pronounced dah-mih and meaning a non-dumb person acting dumb).

    It's not a religious issue with Arabs and especially Palestinians. Regardless of the religious significance of Palestine/Israel, countless generations of Palestinians/Arabs lived there. So when they were violently uprooted and ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands, they felt robbed of something holy to them ethnically.

    Of course, Israel has a holy significance to Jews as well, but having been away for 2000 yrs while traveling around in Europe and then returning to take it from people who'd long settled there is gonna be jarring. And unfair as Palestinians had nothing to do with communism, WWII, and the holocaust.

    Well, what's done is done, and Israel is here to stay. If Jews had been smart, after the 1967 war, they should have driven all the Arabs in Israel to West Bank and Gaza. (You can do drastic things during or after war and get away with it.) That way, all of Israel would be 100% Jewish and all of West Bank and Gaza would be 100% Palestinian. Homogeneity in both places. No occupation, no constant warfare. Each side minding its own business. And no Jewish paranoia about Arab birthrates in Israel proper. But Zionists acted like a bunch of dammies. So, now Jews have problems of diversity in both West Bank and in Israel. And bad international publicity.
  96. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @Greenstalk

    As usual, I’m interested in addressing American Jews who are liberal on immigration policy for conservative reasons (e.g., is it good for the Jews?).
     
    I'm not saying that issue is unworthy of examination, but what is far more worthy of discussion is why non-Jewish-white-Americans do not base their policy on a similar calculus i.e. "Is it good for us?".

    Kevin McDonald is guilty of greatly over-thinking matters. There's no need to delve into evolutionary theory to answer the question "Why do Jews seek to act in their own group interest?" That's the natural, default state of any and all groups of people. The intriguing question, and one which few people even ask, is why non-Jewish-white-Americans abhor group self interest as a guiding principle in their own affairs even while they expect or even demand group self interest to be uppermost in the minds of Jews, blacks, and essentially anyone who is NOT a non-Jewish-white-American. I'd like to see a thread here devoted to that conundrum.

    Gut level racial tribalism-racial nationalism…..nothing else required.

    • Replies: @Greenstalk
    I'm not seeing how "Gut level racial tribalism-racial nationalism" explains why your typical white secular American loves racialism, tribalism, and nationalism ... but only as long as these things are manifested by people not like himself. Typically he admires "black power" and is fiercely protective of the state of Israel. Much more protective than he is of America. Which is the sort of oddity which is deserving of much more commentary than it actually gets.
  97. @Reg Cæsar

    The authentically indigenous Palestinians…
     
    Inasmuch as Palestinians are indigenous (and the word does come from "Philistine"), then isn't their embrace of Islam and Araby a form of treason? Like Apaches calling themselves Anglo-Saxon.

    Some historians think that the non-Jews who were to be found in Palestine during the centuries after the suppression of Ben Kochbar’s revolt were actually descendants of Jews who fell away from Rabbinic Judaism and by default ended up as Christians.

    There is an interesting and constant struggle in early Jewish history between elites trying to impose some form or another of religious orthodoxy and the masses just trying to get by. It’s not as clean as some might be aware. If you read between the lines in various biblical texts you get glimpses of it. For example, it’s worth remembering that the Samaritans were comprised of Jews who stayed behind during the Babylonian exile. The elites were the exiles and when allowed back imposed temple Judaism on the masses who stayed behind.

    Anyhow, one of the main reasons so many Byzantine subjects converted so readily to Islam may be found in the monophysite persecutions that just preceded the Arab eruptions of the sixth and seventh centuries. Many of these people had just had an alien religion orthodoxy imposed on them with no benefit. Conversion with benefits to still another religion must have seemed like a pretty good deal.

  98. @Y.Ilan
    It's the other way around; the only place where Jews have a chance to continue their existence in the long-run is in Israel, because of birthrates and assimilation. Jews who come here from Europe are certainly giving up comforts and easy money for a life that is more expensive, more dangerous (especially if they enlist into combat units, as many young immigrants do), but also more fulfiling. While you may see Ashkenazi Jews as wholly European, we see ourselves as first and foremost Jewish, i.e. our roots lie in the Land of Israel and it is here where we truly belong. It is not that odd to wish to go back to one's ancestral homeland; I get that it's hard to understand since the Jewish story is a unique one, but that's how it is.

    Your warnings of doom are duly noted, and the comparison to the Crusader Kingdoms somewhat amusing, but I do believe there are many significant differences between us and the Crusaders. The first and most significant difference being the demographics; the Crusaders were always a small minority in the Holy Land, while the Jewish population between the river and the sea is a growing majority.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree. The Jews are a resilient people. My feeling is that the Jewish remnant in a half-millennium or so will have the same fond memories of zionism as today’s Jews have of Ben Kochbar.

  99. @bb753
    About half of french Jews are sephardic.

    I believe a lot less is known about the details of Sephardic history vis-a-vis Europe. I don’t feel qualified to respond to your remark. But thanks for the info.

  100. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    … especially if the Jewish state is perceived to sit on land holy to non-Jews.
     
    How holy is it to "non-Jews"? To Christians, Jerusalem is the holiest territory of all. But the criticism coming from Christendom isn't particularly Christian, and Christians haven't been particularly critical.

    To Moslems, it's only the third-holiest place. That presents a problem. You can hardly take an ace with a queen, and your opponents don't recognize your trump suit. But if they counter with, Jerusalem is almost as holy as Mecca and Medina, well, those cities are closed to infidels. Will Jerusalem be as well?

    Yes, and you can't have it. No, then it's not as holy as you claim, is it?

    “To Moslems, it’s only the third-holiest place. That presents a problem.”

    Don’t be a dammy(pronounced dah-mih and meaning a non-dumb person acting dumb).

    It’s not a religious issue with Arabs and especially Palestinians. Regardless of the religious significance of Palestine/Israel, countless generations of Palestinians/Arabs lived there. So when they were violently uprooted and ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands, they felt robbed of something holy to them ethnically.

    Of course, Israel has a holy significance to Jews as well, but having been away for 2000 yrs while traveling around in Europe and then returning to take it from people who’d long settled there is gonna be jarring. And unfair as Palestinians had nothing to do with communism, WWII, and the holocaust.

    Well, what’s done is done, and Israel is here to stay. If Jews had been smart, after the 1967 war, they should have driven all the Arabs in Israel to West Bank and Gaza. (You can do drastic things during or after war and get away with it.) That way, all of Israel would be 100% Jewish and all of West Bank and Gaza would be 100% Palestinian. Homogeneity in both places. No occupation, no constant warfare. Each side minding its own business. And no Jewish paranoia about Arab birthrates in Israel proper. But Zionists acted like a bunch of dammies. So, now Jews have problems of diversity in both West Bank and in Israel. And bad international publicity.

  101. @Art Deco
    to a dominant ideology that proceeded to crush and eliminate all effective opposition.

    You don't read newspapers much, do you?

    Actually I do. My very strong impression is that Jews who are sceptical of zionism are very much marginalized in the Jewish community. Probably a majority of my close friends are Jews and a slim majority of friends/close acquaintances. I’ve yet to hear one of these suggest that maybe zionism and/or the modern state of Israel might have been a bad idea for Ashkenaz Jews.

  102. MacDonald insists that his cherry-picked instances of Jewish “behavior” proves

    I don’t follow Occidental Observer, so this may have changed, but in his trilogy he doesn’t use words like “prove.” Ever. So it seems your ability to summarize him is for shit.

    As for cherry-picking, I see no evidence of that, either. Which may have something to do with why, despite the zillions of big-brained Jews and their smaller-brained goyische water-carriers out there who would love to drag him over the coals, I’ve never seen anyone show extensive counter-examples. There’s no anti-Frankfurt-School out there that MacDonald is ignoring. There’s no significant pro-western, anti-open-borders Jewish movement. Et cetera.

    Without group evolutionary strategy, which today is considered an unproven notion at best and more usually the province of pseudo-scientific fools, MacDonald’s “analyses” are just barroom ramblings

    Obviously wrong. The data’s important regardless of GES. Anyone who wants to know can just go read the guy and see for themselves.

    • Replies: @Ex Submarine Officer

    ...and their smaller-brained goyische water-carriers...
     
    No need to resort to ad hominem, insults, personalization of those with whom you disagree. Say, isn't that supposedly, according to the Kevin MacDonald School, one of the underhanded tactics employed by the Jews?
  103. @WhatEvvs

    Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group
     
    Hahaha. Except when they were being told "Go to Palestine!" by thugs and bullies. Which happened quite a lot, and culminated in the gas chambers.

    About those "indigenous Palestinians," I think the best thing Lawrence Auster ever wrote was this:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you'll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.

    I wasn’t aware that the Enlightenment occurred sometime after WW I. Pray enlighten me further.

    As regards indigenous Palestinians, see my response to Reg Caesar.

    After the suppression of Bar Kochbar’s revolt. The Romans punished the Jews severely. Part of this punishment included removing any autonomy from the political unit that had been called Judea and redividing the area. As part of this political/administrative reorganization the Romans renamed greater Judea as Phillistia. This is where the geographic term Palestine comes from. I’m surprised that you’re surprised that the Ottoman Empire didn’t organize along administrative guidelines set by the Romans and Byzantines. Rumi tended to be a pejorative term (the poet excepted) among the Ottomans.

    After reading Auster’s article, my conclusion is that the only historically and/or archaeologically documented people who have less claim to to current Israel than Ashkenaz Jews are the Canaanite settlers of circa 3000 bc

  104. For example, it’s worth remembering that the Samaritans were comprised of Jews who stayed behind during the Babylonian exile.

    I wish more people knew that Samaritans were Jews, or at least, the subject of a debate over whether they were “really” Jews. Makes the message of the Good Samaritan (which modern audiences get almost 180 degrees wrong) so much more obvious; a modern equivalent would be a White Nationalist story about a German who is helped by a Good Armenian, or something (and then liberals would deliberately misinterpret that story as meaning Kumbayah, because Armenians might as well be Bantus).

  105. Pretty sure Martin Luther was pre-Enlightenment.

    (Steve, by the way, Americans of Jewish descent are “Jewish Anericans” not, as you put it, “American Jews.”

    Either is acceptable English. I find “American Jews” to be a bit more accurate.

    Forgive me for stating this yet again, but when native hostility to massive uncontrolled third world immigration first reared its head way back in the 1960s – remember this was at a time when the number of third world immigrants in Europe was small, and could have been repatriated relatively harmlessly – some of the most ferocious opposition to nationalism came from Jews. Jews also sided very publicly with the immigrants and generally identified strongly with the immigrants and against natives.

    For example in Britain virtually all the so-called ‘race relations’ laws that were exclusively passed by Labour governments, and whose sole object is to legally protect and privilege third workers to a level above that of natives, were drafted and sponsored by Jewish politicians and jurists.

    Two of the many reasons that “American Jews” works better for me.

    He practices LePenism at home but doesn’t urge it on Europe.

    Which is why I’m always saying we should use Israel as a wedge, not side with it. Israeli ruling elite is bosom buddies with the people screwing us over.

    Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not. I’d say they have incomparably better odds than hungarian&polish jews had vs Godwin.

    Doesn’t matter. Jewish fingernail is more important than goyish scalp.

    They’ve got to wade through a lot of Svigorism.

    Help me out; how about a CTRL-C & CTRL-V of where I went wrong?

  106. Jews in Europe have three choices: 1. Stay. Bet that somehow Europeans will find the resolve to keep ever increasing amounts of Muslims from Jihad and ethnic cleansing of Jews. 2. Leave for Israel. 3. Leave for the US.

    Safety is unlikely to be found anywhere, and the US has a fairly obvious crypto Muslim as President, with itself ever increasing and more powerful politically, Muslim populations and conversion by Blacks, historically ever hostile to Jews (IQ differences being the driver of hostility there).

    However, compared to being dependent on others who are unlikely to be as motivated or diligent in protecting them, at least Israel offers independence of action. Yes in one sense it is far closer to Muslim hordes wishing to kill them. On the other hand, domestic considerations of Muslim votes and politics don’t apply in Israel.

    Certainly Netanyahu and his party benefits far more than Peacenik Labor, by having lots of Jews ethnically cleansed out of Europe in Israel.

    But when people’s safety is concerned, the option choices tend to count more than anything else. People prefer to drive than fly even though flying is statistically safer because when driving, the driver has more control and options (stay at a motel when tired, leave early, avoid certain roads, etc.)

    • Replies: @anonymous

    Blacks, historically ever hostile to Jews
     
    Don't overlook or underestimate the influence of Farrakhan on the mind of the average black. It's far more extensive than most people realize, being at the grass-roots, person-to-person level, flying under the radar.
    , @iSteveFan

    Jews in Europe have three choices: 1. Stay. Bet that somehow Europeans will find the resolve to keep ever increasing amounts of Muslims from Jihad and ethnic cleansing of Jews. 2. Leave for Israel. 3. Leave for the US.
     
    Interesting that those are the only choices you list for Jews. Why no mention of joining with patriotic Europeans to find the resolve to stop the muslim immivasion? Why no mention of refraining from condemning those patriotic Europeans who wish to fight back?
  107. My solution is simple and sensible, and therefore will never be considered, much less adopted.

    Harney County, Oregon is located in the high desert of the Great Basin. The climate is similar to that of Israel. The land area is almost exactly that of Israel and the West Bank combined. (Look it up. Google and Wikipedia are your friends on this.) I propose a Jews-for-cattle trade. There will be a water issue, and there are rattlesnakes and coyotes. But Jews are smart people and will figure out how to handle it.

    If they miss all the fighting, I doubt it’ll be too hard to convince the people of Idaho to launch an attack every now and then, for old time’s sake.

  108. If Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied, does this mean we can stop giving them our money?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied, does this mean we can stop giving them our money?

    First, you can stop referring to him as "Bibi." Baby steps.

    Jewish control of American discourse on display in this post and comments. What other national leader garners, in regular public usage, an affectionate, diminutive nickname before his last name? What other national leader even garners a formal first name?
  109. Btw, if Jews are necessary for liberal immigration policies, why are countries with tiny amounts of Jews (like Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium) overrun? What’s wrong with the WHITE people in these countries?

    *Yaaaawn*. Sorry, I’ve been reading this over and over for about 14 years now. This is probably the 50th time I’ve responded to this argument, just at Steve’s blog.

    This argument is self-defeating because the immigration problem is a hell of a lot less bad in Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium than it is in the US. So, the natural conclusion can easily be, “hmmm, more Jews and Jewish power in USA, bigger problem, fewer Jews and less Jewish power in Europe, smaller problem.”

    You guys should really circulate a memo about how this argument is a land mine blowing you guys’ legs off on a regular basis.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Interesting point. We should collect country..-by-country data and plot %Jewish against %Immigrant.
  110. @Svigor

    MacDonald insists that his cherry-picked instances of Jewish “behavior” proves
     
    I don't follow Occidental Observer, so this may have changed, but in his trilogy he doesn't use words like "prove." Ever. So it seems your ability to summarize him is for shit.

    As for cherry-picking, I see no evidence of that, either. Which may have something to do with why, despite the zillions of big-brained Jews and their smaller-brained goyische water-carriers out there who would love to drag him over the coals, I've never seen anyone show extensive counter-examples. There's no anti-Frankfurt-School out there that MacDonald is ignoring. There's no significant pro-western, anti-open-borders Jewish movement. Et cetera.

    Without group evolutionary strategy, which today is considered an unproven notion at best and more usually the province of pseudo-scientific fools, MacDonald’s “analyses” are just barroom ramblings
     
    Obviously wrong. The data's important regardless of GES. Anyone who wants to know can just go read the guy and see for themselves.

    …and their smaller-brained goyische water-carriers…

    No need to resort to ad hominem, insults, personalization of those with whom you disagree. Say, isn’t that supposedly, according to the Kevin MacDonald School, one of the underhanded tactics employed by the Jews?

  111. @War for Blair Mountain
    Gut level racial tribalism-racial nationalism.....nothing else required.

    I’m not seeing how “Gut level racial tribalism-racial nationalism” explains why your typical white secular American loves racialism, tribalism, and nationalism … but only as long as these things are manifested by people not like himself. Typically he admires “black power” and is fiercely protective of the state of Israel. Much more protective than he is of America. Which is the sort of oddity which is deserving of much more commentary than it actually gets.

  112. @Whiskey
    Jews in Europe have three choices: 1. Stay. Bet that somehow Europeans will find the resolve to keep ever increasing amounts of Muslims from Jihad and ethnic cleansing of Jews. 2. Leave for Israel. 3. Leave for the US.

    Safety is unlikely to be found anywhere, and the US has a fairly obvious crypto Muslim as President, with itself ever increasing and more powerful politically, Muslim populations and conversion by Blacks, historically ever hostile to Jews (IQ differences being the driver of hostility there).

    However, compared to being dependent on others who are unlikely to be as motivated or diligent in protecting them, at least Israel offers independence of action. Yes in one sense it is far closer to Muslim hordes wishing to kill them. On the other hand, domestic considerations of Muslim votes and politics don't apply in Israel.

    Certainly Netanyahu and his party benefits far more than Peacenik Labor, by having lots of Jews ethnically cleansed out of Europe in Israel.

    But when people's safety is concerned, the option choices tend to count more than anything else. People prefer to drive than fly even though flying is statistically safer because when driving, the driver has more control and options (stay at a motel when tired, leave early, avoid certain roads, etc.)

    Blacks, historically ever hostile to Jews

    Don’t overlook or underestimate the influence of Farrakhan on the mind of the average black. It’s far more extensive than most people realize, being at the grass-roots, person-to-person level, flying under the radar.

  113. Maybe Netanyahu has plans that endanger Euro Jews? Maybe he has plans to do something very very evil?

    Maybe he wants their bodies to fill the void of the existing Palestinians that live in Palestine?

    Who dares to bet against that?

    p.s. Hmm – Netanyahu now has nukes that threaten all of southern Europe.

  114. @Hal
    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel's rivals under false pretense,

    Iran threatens to establish a more prosperous society and this threatens Israeli pride. Iran promises to respond to a first strike, and this threatens Israeli plans to sabotage every other nattion in the region. Iran plans to continue its civilization even after Israel has disappeared from the sands of time (which was the statement that has been so frequently and maliciously misstated by Israeli puppets), and Israel is terrified their little experiment at having a nation will collapse under its own hubris.

    Israel threatens the US through its lies and manipulation. For this reason, we should stop giving the nasty little state however much we pay.

    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel’s rivals under false pretense

    You lie like a rug…Valerie Jarret is also an Iranian stooge

    • Replies: @Hal

    You lie like a rug…Valerie Jarret is also an Iranian stooge
     
    1. Not used to having your lies exposed, eh?

    2. Who the hell is Valerie Jarret?

    3. I don't care about Iran, care less about the jewish failed state, but do care what happens to this country.
    , @Father O'Hara
    We've been hearing about the Iranian stuff(withing 6 months they'll go nuclear!) for about 15 years. We have also heard about the evil Ahmajenidad being the next Hitler,and now he is gone and forgotten. "Oh Hitler..Next HITler where ARE you?? Are you building a gas chamber in the desert? Oh my!! He's got it in for us jews,come on goyim you just gonna stand there with those corn fed limbs of yours,ya wanna live forever ya shmucks,get the hell over here and die for us. You'll go to heaven and meet your Jesus! And more shiksies for us!" The morons who ran America under Bush started an insane war that tore apart the ME and created much of the chaos we are being told we have to go back and fix,in the first place. We should have war crimes trials for the boys and their neo-con scum puppet masters. The murder of Hussein was a JEWISH project that the Izzies did not have the balls to carry out. While training for a secret mission to murder Hussein,there was an accident which killed several Izzie soldiers. The Izzies were apoplectic,and Bibi decided,in his Jewish way,that goyim are the better part of valor. I say Izrael should be de-certified. Give all the weapons to America(we paid for the damn things anyway.) Create two states with rudimentary militias,give reperations to the Pallies,(half of Jewish Intel should buy a lot of olive trees) and let each live in his own state. Now of course the Pallies will try their little tricks(and the Jews will dress up as Pallies and pull red flag stuff) so maybe have a UN crew to provide security. I hear the boys from Kenya are very good!
  115. @Svigor

    Btw, if Jews are necessary for liberal immigration policies, why are countries with tiny amounts of Jews (like Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium) overrun? What’s wrong with the WHITE people in these countries?
     
    *Yaaaawn*. Sorry, I've been reading this over and over for about 14 years now. This is probably the 50th time I've responded to this argument, just at Steve's blog.

    This argument is self-defeating because the immigration problem is a hell of a lot less bad in Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium than it is in the US. So, the natural conclusion can easily be, "hmmm, more Jews and Jewish power in USA, bigger problem, fewer Jews and less Jewish power in Europe, smaller problem."

    You guys should really circulate a memo about how this argument is a land mine blowing you guys' legs off on a regular basis.

    Interesting point. We should collect country..-by-country data and plot %Jewish against %Immigrant.

    • Replies: @Marty T
    It's not that simple. For example, we have lots of Mexicans because we border Mexico.

    Sweden and Denmark are nowhere near the camel-porkers, yet they've found their way up there enough so that they're terrorising and raping.

    I am not defending many Jews' stupidity on this issue, but many people here don't want to accept the problem goes far beyond Jews.
  116. @Whiskey
    Jews in Europe have three choices: 1. Stay. Bet that somehow Europeans will find the resolve to keep ever increasing amounts of Muslims from Jihad and ethnic cleansing of Jews. 2. Leave for Israel. 3. Leave for the US.

    Safety is unlikely to be found anywhere, and the US has a fairly obvious crypto Muslim as President, with itself ever increasing and more powerful politically, Muslim populations and conversion by Blacks, historically ever hostile to Jews (IQ differences being the driver of hostility there).

    However, compared to being dependent on others who are unlikely to be as motivated or diligent in protecting them, at least Israel offers independence of action. Yes in one sense it is far closer to Muslim hordes wishing to kill them. On the other hand, domestic considerations of Muslim votes and politics don't apply in Israel.

    Certainly Netanyahu and his party benefits far more than Peacenik Labor, by having lots of Jews ethnically cleansed out of Europe in Israel.

    But when people's safety is concerned, the option choices tend to count more than anything else. People prefer to drive than fly even though flying is statistically safer because when driving, the driver has more control and options (stay at a motel when tired, leave early, avoid certain roads, etc.)

    Jews in Europe have three choices: 1. Stay. Bet that somehow Europeans will find the resolve to keep ever increasing amounts of Muslims from Jihad and ethnic cleansing of Jews. 2. Leave for Israel. 3. Leave for the US.

    Interesting that those are the only choices you list for Jews. Why no mention of joining with patriotic Europeans to find the resolve to stop the muslim immivasion? Why no mention of refraining from condemning those patriotic Europeans who wish to fight back?

  117. @WhatEvvs

    Prior to the Enlightenment Ashkenaz Jews were regarded as being as much a part of Europe as any other ethnic group
     
    Hahaha. Except when they were being told "Go to Palestine!" by thugs and bullies. Which happened quite a lot, and culminated in the gas chambers.

    About those "indigenous Palestinians," I think the best thing Lawrence Auster ever wrote was this:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11607

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you'll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you’ll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.

    What about Byzantine maps, or even earlier Roman ones?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    After the defeat of the Bar Kochba revolt (135) the Romans called what had been Judea, "Syria Palestina", merging it with Roman Syria to the north, but it was not an Arab country. It was Arab (as distinct from Turkish) ruled territory from around the 7th to the 11th century, but it was not a distinct self-ruled country then (or ever) - there never was a King of Palestine or Palestinian citizenship. It was a just one more corner of the vast Dar al Islam ( the Islamic world) that stretched from Spain to Indonesia. When Jordan ruled the West Bank, Arafat created the PLO not to get that territory but to get back Tel Aviv and Haifa.

    If Russia seized Alaska someday, it might make sense to fight to get it back as part of the US but not to make it an independent country that never existed. Logically it would make the most sense for Syria to try to rule the area of Palestine but they are not in shape to rule even themselves. Probably if the Palestinians ever managed to take it, it wouldn't last as an independent country but would sooner or later end up being ruled by Syria or some other regional power, just as the nation of Texas was only a brief stepping stone toward unification with the US.

    As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. Israel will belong to the Jews for as long as the Jews can defend it and not a day less or more, regardless of any historical claims. Every place on earth is subject to overlapping territorial claims and just because one side has a better historical claim than another means nothing. Konigsberg was German territory for 800 years but now it's Kaliningrad because Stalin wanted it. There's no historical justice in this, just reality. It's Russian territory now until someone kicks them out.

  118. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Gunnar von Cowtown
    I takes a long time to wrap your head around counterintuitive Jewish behavior. Kevin McDonald's group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense. When trying to understand the Jews, always think "diaspora" first. They have survived and largely thrived for millennia as strangers in strange lands while maintaining a separate and unique cultural identity. IIRC, after WWII they were offered Madagascar (a nice big safe secure island) as a homeland, but chose Israel (a crappy small territory surrounded by hostile enemies). To the minds of us Goyim, that sounds absolutely crazy. To the Jews that's business as usual.

    They can handle the Muslamists. They can out-think, out-fight and out-maneuver those chumps all day long. The only time the Jews lost big in the past thousand years or so was by Germanic Europeans. This is why in The West only Whites are denied an identity or any sort of ethnic solidarity.

    Is being surrounded by millions of hostile non-whites good for the Jews?

    It's not so bad.

    Is being surrounded by millions of racially conscious Whites good for the Jews?

    NEVER AGAIN!! BECAUSE HOLOCAUST!!!

    What is radically new, really since the Internet became a mass medium in the mid-90s, is that Jews have now been put under a microscope and are being systematically examined by Ph.D. level experts. The results of this research are widely disseminated through books, journal articles, conference papers, etc, and are easily accessible in many languages.

    Examples:

    1. Biblical criticism, basically a minor industry in Germany for several centuries, when combined with Middle Eastern archeology has undermined the credibility of many biblical stories, esp. in the Hebrew Bible, essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed or that the Exodus ever happened;

    2. The scrutiny of the experts has now moved to the Talmud(s), the dark side of Judaism, to understand the centuries-old venomous anti-Christian animus among particularly the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews, and why,for example, some of them would refer to Jesus of Nazareth as that “sick mamzer Yoshke, ” or “that bastard Jesus.” Wikipedia has an entry on Antisemitism, it needs an entry on Antichristianism to examine situations in which Jews acted as oppressors and victimizers by refusing to hire certain individuals or refusing to grant tenure to people whose views they find objectionable, or depriving people of their livelihood;

    3. The culpability of the Jews in imposing totalitarian Marxist systems on so much of Europe which resulted in millions of the dead, wounded, and tortured is being examined, along with the vehement Jewish opposition to the independence of many countries in the aftermath of the fall of empires during WW I. We have a strange situation in which Mein Kampf is freely available but Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together (focusing specifically on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution) has not yet been translated into English.

    The Jews have been examining Europe (and U.S.) critically for centuries. They appear to be very uncomfortable being subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Books and articles that could not have been published even 10 years ago are now, with some exceptions, reaching mass audiences and changing their views of the Jews and Jewish-Christian relations

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed"

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham? Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie "A Most Violent Year" that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.

  119. @Clyde

    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel’s rivals under false pretense
     
    You lie like a rug...Valerie Jarret is also an Iranian stooge

    You lie like a rug…Valerie Jarret is also an Iranian stooge

    1. Not used to having your lies exposed, eh?

    2. Who the hell is Valerie Jarret?

    3. I don’t care about Iran, care less about the jewish failed state, but do care what happens to this country.

  120. @Anonymous
    Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not. I'd say they have incomparably better odds than hungarian&polish jews had vs Godwin.

    Israel has nukes, and has second strike capable subs (gift from germany). Iran does not. I’d say they have incomparably better odds than hungarian&polish jews had vs Godwin.

    Iran has a huge capacity to disrupt and are doing exactly this. To disrupt the greater Middle East by proving they are the strong horse. A major goal is to topple wealthy Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia’s and to get millions of Sunni converting to Shite. Iran itself converted over to Shite Islam recently. In the 17th century.

    Wiping out the Jews (Israel) and converting Sunnis are their two goals. The greater Middle East is 30+% Shiite so they have a good shot at it as they build a stronger military and get nuked up. Nukes are great tools for backing up demands and threats to the Sunni Middle East

  121. @Clyde

    Iran does not threaten to destroy Israel, and never has. It is a lie told so well in this country where the Jewish lobby has such force that the US attacks Israel’s rivals under false pretense
     
    You lie like a rug...Valerie Jarret is also an Iranian stooge

    We’ve been hearing about the Iranian stuff(withing 6 months they’ll go nuclear!) for about 15 years. We have also heard about the evil Ahmajenidad being the next Hitler,and now he is gone and forgotten. “Oh Hitler..Next HITler where ARE you?? Are you building a gas chamber in the desert? Oh my!! He’s got it in for us jews,come on goyim you just gonna stand there with those corn fed limbs of yours,ya wanna live forever ya shmucks,get the hell over here and die for us. You’ll go to heaven and meet your Jesus! And more shiksies for us!” The morons who ran America under Bush started an insane war that tore apart the ME and created much of the chaos we are being told we have to go back and fix,in the first place. We should have war crimes trials for the boys and their neo-con scum puppet masters. The murder of Hussein was a JEWISH project that the Izzies did not have the balls to carry out. While training for a secret mission to murder Hussein,there was an accident which killed several Izzie soldiers. The Izzies were apoplectic,and Bibi decided,in his Jewish way,that goyim are the better part of valor. I say Izrael should be de-certified. Give all the weapons to America(we paid for the damn things anyway.) Create two states with rudimentary militias,give reperations to the Pallies,(half of Jewish Intel should buy a lot of olive trees) and let each live in his own state. Now of course the Pallies will try their little tricks(and the Jews will dress up as Pallies and pull red flag stuff) so maybe have a UN crew to provide security. I hear the boys from Kenya are very good!

  122. @Anonymous
    What is radically new, really since the Internet became a mass medium in the mid-90s, is that Jews have now been put under a microscope and are being systematically examined by Ph.D. level experts. The results of this research are widely disseminated through books, journal articles, conference papers, etc, and are easily accessible in many languages.

    Examples:

    1. Biblical criticism, basically a minor industry in Germany for several centuries, when combined with Middle Eastern archeology has undermined the credibility of many biblical stories, esp. in the Hebrew Bible, essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed or that the Exodus ever happened;

    2. The scrutiny of the experts has now moved to the Talmud(s), the dark side of Judaism, to understand the centuries-old venomous anti-Christian animus among particularly the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews, and why,for example, some of them would refer to Jesus of Nazareth as that "sick mamzer Yoshke, " or "that bastard Jesus." Wikipedia has an entry on Antisemitism, it needs an entry on Antichristianism to examine situations in which Jews acted as oppressors and victimizers by refusing to hire certain individuals or refusing to grant tenure to people whose views they find objectionable, or depriving people of their livelihood;

    3. The culpability of the Jews in imposing totalitarian Marxist systems on so much of Europe which resulted in millions of the dead, wounded, and tortured is being examined, along with the vehement Jewish opposition to the independence of many countries in the aftermath of the fall of empires during WW I. We have a strange situation in which Mein Kampf is freely available but Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together (focusing specifically on the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution) has not yet been translated into English.

    The Jews have been examining Europe (and U.S.) critically for centuries. They appear to be very uncomfortable being subjected to the same level of scrutiny. Books and articles that could not have been published even 10 years ago are now, with some exceptions, reaching mass audiences and changing their views of the Jews and Jewish-Christian relations

    “essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed”

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham? Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie “A Most Violent Year” that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.

    • Replies: @Hal
    Given your acute sense of false stories, Haven Monahan et al, this reaction from you must be deep satire, but it raises certain questions that need to be answered.

    Abraham as an individual most certainly did not exist, and at the time and place of a semites migration from Iraq to Palestine, a patriarch did not believe in one God anymore than other tribal peoples of the time. The stories attributed to him are probably a conflation of stories told about other men, different from each other. This puts the lie to any notion of a covenant or a divine right to any piece of land. The purpose of the story, as fitted in latter, is to distinguish between the good people of Judea during their exile, as they no longer murdered their babies unlike the heathens around them.

    Moses did not exist. The time of his so-called exodus does not match any other historical record, but more importantly, at the time of his so-called exodus, there were no Jewish people. The story of Moses was invented to give a history to a then recent development, the failure of two opposing kingdoms that left Palestine unconquered for a time, and allowed a home grown religious system that relied less on relics and more on practice. The Jewish people came into being as they developed their religion and created myths to back them up, a process that continues to this day.

    Oh yes, King David's temple was a MUD hut and his fabulous mines were a few scattered copper smelting pits.

    So why, again, must we support Israel's right to defend itself against imaginary enemies?

    , @Anonymous
    Re: Moses and the Exodus, I recommend The Bible Unearthed (2001) by two Israeli archeologists Finkelstein and Silberman, or at least the Wikipedia article about it.
    Re: Abraham, see, for example, Thompson's Historicity of Patriarchal Narratives from the 1970s. There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed.

    One can cite several reasons for these historical fabrications. One is status seeking. After all, we share status seeking, territoriality, inclination to violence and lustfulness, with other primates so it's a very powerful primordial drive. The ancient Hebrews were competing with the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians who all had great stories of divinely sanctioned origins (Iliad and Odyssey, etc). Now the story of the Babylonian exile just doesn't cut it in comparison, so a story of divinely sanctioned origins had to be invented. Finkelstein and Silberman effectively say so, and it makes excellent sense.

    In fact, the all too frequent Jewish falsification of the past is one of the areas being examined these days, and it's not just the usual themes (e.g., Jewish role in the slave trade in the last 1500 years or the Jewish monopoly of the medieval trade with Asia which the Crusades may have tried to break) but the massive falsification of the European history (esp. history of Russia)

    , @syonredux

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham?
     
    What's boring to you, Steve, might have been quite fascinating to earlier audiences.The Catalogue of Ships in Book Two of The Iliad is boring as Hell to modern readers (Argos sent this number of black ships; Ithaca sent this number of black ships, etc), but it was taken much more seriously in Antiquity.Indeed, we are even told that there was a controversy in Peisistratos' time over the Catalogue:

    Strabo reports an account by Hereas accusing Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens, r. 561-527 BCE, or Solon (638-558 BCE), sometime eponymous archon and lawgiver, starting 594 BCE, of altering the Iliad’s Catalogue of Ships to place the 12 ships from Salamis in the Athenian camp, proving that Athens owned Salamis in the Trojan War.[7] Others denied the theory, Strabo said.
     
    Hence, I'm quite sure that the Ancient Israelites loved hearing about how the Moabites and Ammonites (the traditional enemies of Israel) were the product of incest between Lot and his daughters

    Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie “A Most Violent Year” that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.
     
    Abraham's tale is not quite as mundane as all that, Steve.The destruction of Sodom with fire is quite OTT:

    The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

    24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

    25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

    26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

    27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord:

    28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

    29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

     

    Then, of course, there's the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born.


    And there's quite a bit of fascinating domestic tension in the household.Cf how Sarah demands that Hagar (the Egyptian slave whom Abraham impregnated and who bore Ishmael) and her son be expelled. Polygynous cultures must find that kind of stuff fascinating


    Jack D:

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur.

    Which is not saying much, seeing as how Arthur's historicity is quite doubtful.
  123. @Mark Green
    Whether or not Jews are 'safer' here or there doesn't matter and shouldn't matter at this time. Jews in the modern world are actually very safe. Take a look at the the wars. Count the bodies. Identify the dead. And after that, identify the killers and those who orchestrated the wars.

    Also, examine murder statistics in places where Jews live. Jews are savvy, well-connected and accomplished. Relatively speaking, they are very safe in and very well-insulated from violence in the modern world. And they are even very free to dish it out when it suits them.

    The actual state of Jewish 'safety' is not--and should not be--the real purpose of this TIMES story or Bibi's call for more Jewish emigration to Israel. After all, Israel is always clamoring for more Jews (and fewer gentiles). This latest headline is just one in an endless collection of tales involving 'Jewish security' and, implicitly, the threat posed to Jewish existence by non-Jews. That's the underlying theme of this concocted story and hundreds like it: what are the dreadful, anti-Semitic Christians and Muslims up to now?

    Another implied meaning here is this: Jews must self-segregate to survive. Go East young Jew!

    But this is slightly absurd. Sure, several Jews have been shot in France recently by a handful of disconnected, angry Muslim gunmen. But as many have probably died in traffic accidents.

    But what about the causes of these terror incidents?

    May we discuss 'Zionism' and it's dreadful impact on outsiders?

    How about the Iraq war?--and the Jewish role in it.

    Palestine?

    The economic war on Iran?

    They're all certainly relevant. And there are Jewish fingerprints on all these crises. But these subjects are treated very differently than stories where the victims are (or might be) Jewish.

    This 'news item' is simply more Jewish exceptionalism in everyday news. It is propaganda. Bibi should be ignored, if not arrested. And we should be discussing Zionist criminality, not Jewish insecurity.

    Jews, in fact, might be too secure right now; though they pretend otherwise. Jewish security (and Jewish power) breeds arrogance and excessive confidence. Even aggression.

    Do Muslims get to talk this way (and get sympathetic news coverage) when American or Israeli rockets rain down on their cities, leaving hundreds or even thousands dead? No.

    When will we discuss Palestinian or Muslim 'security' (and protection) from Zionist war-plotting?

    Meanwhile, the over-sized Jewish impact on gentiles is never covered in this story or so many others like it. So this 'news item' is actually another kosher insult directed at the non-Jewish world. We're supposed to take Jewish security problems seriously but ignore our own. No thank you.

    Headlines of this kind are designed to cement Jewish identity and the idea that there's a never ending conspiracy by the evil Goyim against innocent Jews. The poor dears.

    Meanwhile, much of the Middle East is in chaos due to Zionist machinations and Israeli-American wars of choice. Steve also needs to dig a little deeper on this subject.

    “Jews in the modern world are actually very safe.”

    Yes, yes, but it’s ‘who, whom’.

    One dead Jew is more tragic than 1000 dead Palestinians or 100,000 dead Christian Arabs.

  124. I always wondered why they have holocaust victim ads on Fox, just to hustle the warvangelicals?

  125. What is radically new, really since the Internet became a mass medium in the mid-90s, is that Jews have now been put under a microscope and are being systematically examined by Ph.D. level experts. The results of this research are widely disseminated through books, journal articles, conference papers, etc, and are easily accessible in many languages.

    Wow, soon there will be a Dan Brown book, “The Maimonides Code”? I’m sure that’ll turn ’em all Christian. And then you can wait 100 or 150 years, and have an Inquisition or three, just for the nostalgia of it all.

  126. This is what separate countries are for.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    "essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed"

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham? Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie "A Most Violent Year" that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.

    Given your acute sense of false stories, Haven Monahan et al, this reaction from you must be deep satire, but it raises certain questions that need to be answered.

    Abraham as an individual most certainly did not exist, and at the time and place of a semites migration from Iraq to Palestine, a patriarch did not believe in one God anymore than other tribal peoples of the time. The stories attributed to him are probably a conflation of stories told about other men, different from each other. This puts the lie to any notion of a covenant or a divine right to any piece of land. The purpose of the story, as fitted in latter, is to distinguish between the good people of Judea during their exile, as they no longer murdered their babies unlike the heathens around them.

    Moses did not exist. The time of his so-called exodus does not match any other historical record, but more importantly, at the time of his so-called exodus, there were no Jewish people. The story of Moses was invented to give a history to a then recent development, the failure of two opposing kingdoms that left Palestine unconquered for a time, and allowed a home grown religious system that relied less on relics and more on practice. The Jewish people came into being as they developed their religion and created myths to back them up, a process that continues to this day.

    Oh yes, King David’s temple was a MUD hut and his fabulous mines were a few scattered copper smelting pits.

    So why, again, must we support Israel’s right to defend itself against imaginary enemies?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    All religion is based on faith and not facts. Jesus (possibly unlike Moses) was probably a real person but most of the rest of the New Testament is not historically verifiable, to say the least. The Book of Mormon ain't too credible either, but that doesn't stop millions of people from believing in it.

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur. Arthur (supposedly) lived 2,000 years after when Moses (supposedly) lived but we know equally little about each man (even whether he was real) aside from what is written in the legendary accounts.

    As for mud huts and copper smelting pits, keep in mind that in the King David period, people in Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshiping trees.
  128. “Netanyahu Urges ‘Mass Immigration’ of Jews from Europe”

    Again, I can’t get over how much this sounds like something some dramatically-costumed German guys were saying three-quarters of a century ago.

    Theodor Herzl was urging Jews to emigrate from Europe before there was a National Zocialist German Arbeiters Partei. And where is a latter-day Marcus Garvey when we really need him now?

    Wonder if the dramatically-costumed German guys would have been less successful if their clothes and pageants weren’t as hip. If their uniforms were as unsexy as those of the contemporary US Army, the N___.’s might have flopped.

  129. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Btw, if Jews are necessary for liberal immigration policies, why are countries with tiny amounts of Jews (like Denmark, Sweden, and Belgium) overrun? What’s wrong with the WHITE people in these countries?”

    Aren’t Jews a tiny amount of the US population as well? As in around 2%? That’s not a lot. (And aren’t the big Swedish papers owned by one Jewish family in the newspaper business?)

    I don’t think these influence effects are linear with respect to population numbers. Probably influence over immigration policy descends to whoever feels most is at stake. For a long time native populations of these countries believed those who told them they didn’t have any reason to think they had anything at stake.

    One of my theories about white people is Europe is they haven’t been thinking about this problem numerically. It’s as if mentally all the other people in the world are a small amount, compared to “us” (whoever that is), so it doesn’t matter what our immigration policy is, we should just try and be nice.

  130. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed"

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham? Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie "A Most Violent Year" that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.

    Re: Moses and the Exodus, I recommend The Bible Unearthed (2001) by two Israeli archeologists Finkelstein and Silberman, or at least the Wikipedia article about it.
    Re: Abraham, see, for example, Thompson’s Historicity of Patriarchal Narratives from the 1970s. There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed.

    One can cite several reasons for these historical fabrications. One is status seeking. After all, we share status seeking, territoriality, inclination to violence and lustfulness, with other primates so it’s a very powerful primordial drive. The ancient Hebrews were competing with the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians who all had great stories of divinely sanctioned origins (Iliad and Odyssey, etc). Now the story of the Babylonian exile just doesn’t cut it in comparison, so a story of divinely sanctioned origins had to be invented. Finkelstein and Silberman effectively say so, and it makes excellent sense.

    In fact, the all too frequent Jewish falsification of the past is one of the areas being examined these days, and it’s not just the usual themes (e.g., Jewish role in the slave trade in the last 1500 years or the Jewish monopoly of the medieval trade with Asia which the Crusades may have tried to break) but the massive falsification of the European history (esp. history of Russia)

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed."

    Well what evidence would you expect to find? The story of Abraham as told in the Bible is simply not that jaw-dropping.The make a Hollywood blockbuster about Moses every generation because it's got visual pizazz, but Abraham is just a low budget indie drama with tents and goats.

  131. @Hal
    Given your acute sense of false stories, Haven Monahan et al, this reaction from you must be deep satire, but it raises certain questions that need to be answered.

    Abraham as an individual most certainly did not exist, and at the time and place of a semites migration from Iraq to Palestine, a patriarch did not believe in one God anymore than other tribal peoples of the time. The stories attributed to him are probably a conflation of stories told about other men, different from each other. This puts the lie to any notion of a covenant or a divine right to any piece of land. The purpose of the story, as fitted in latter, is to distinguish between the good people of Judea during their exile, as they no longer murdered their babies unlike the heathens around them.

    Moses did not exist. The time of his so-called exodus does not match any other historical record, but more importantly, at the time of his so-called exodus, there were no Jewish people. The story of Moses was invented to give a history to a then recent development, the failure of two opposing kingdoms that left Palestine unconquered for a time, and allowed a home grown religious system that relied less on relics and more on practice. The Jewish people came into being as they developed their religion and created myths to back them up, a process that continues to this day.

    Oh yes, King David's temple was a MUD hut and his fabulous mines were a few scattered copper smelting pits.

    So why, again, must we support Israel's right to defend itself against imaginary enemies?

    All religion is based on faith and not facts. Jesus (possibly unlike Moses) was probably a real person but most of the rest of the New Testament is not historically verifiable, to say the least. The Book of Mormon ain’t too credible either, but that doesn’t stop millions of people from believing in it.

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur. Arthur (supposedly) lived 2,000 years after when Moses (supposedly) lived but we know equally little about each man (even whether he was real) aside from what is written in the legendary accounts.

    As for mud huts and copper smelting pits, keep in mind that in the King David period, people in Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshiping trees.

    • Replies: @Hal

    ...keep in mind that in the King David period, people in Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshiping trees.

     

    During the Jesus period, people in Britain were painting themselves blue and worshiping trees. Caesar writes about it. The original Latin is hilarious. They had these chariots, the driver would bring it to a point, the guy in back would through his spear, and they would retreat.

    I'm not sure they had actually arrived on the island 2,000 years before Caesar.

    Also, the practice continues. Ever been to a [insert team name here] game?
  132. @International Jew
    Interesting point. We should collect country..-by-country data and plot %Jewish against %Immigrant.

    It’s not that simple. For example, we have lots of Mexicans because we border Mexico.

    Sweden and Denmark are nowhere near the camel-porkers, yet they’ve found their way up there enough so that they’re terrorising and raping.

    I am not defending many Jews’ stupidity on this issue, but many people here don’t want to accept the problem goes far beyond Jews.

  133. @Anonymous
    Re: Moses and the Exodus, I recommend The Bible Unearthed (2001) by two Israeli archeologists Finkelstein and Silberman, or at least the Wikipedia article about it.
    Re: Abraham, see, for example, Thompson's Historicity of Patriarchal Narratives from the 1970s. There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed.

    One can cite several reasons for these historical fabrications. One is status seeking. After all, we share status seeking, territoriality, inclination to violence and lustfulness, with other primates so it's a very powerful primordial drive. The ancient Hebrews were competing with the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians who all had great stories of divinely sanctioned origins (Iliad and Odyssey, etc). Now the story of the Babylonian exile just doesn't cut it in comparison, so a story of divinely sanctioned origins had to be invented. Finkelstein and Silberman effectively say so, and it makes excellent sense.

    In fact, the all too frequent Jewish falsification of the past is one of the areas being examined these days, and it's not just the usual themes (e.g., Jewish role in the slave trade in the last 1500 years or the Jewish monopoly of the medieval trade with Asia which the Crusades may have tried to break) but the massive falsification of the European history (esp. history of Russia)

    “There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed.”

    Well what evidence would you expect to find? The story of Abraham as told in the Bible is simply not that jaw-dropping.The make a Hollywood blockbuster about Moses every generation because it’s got visual pizazz, but Abraham is just a low budget indie drama with tents and goats.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The demolishing of the historical claims made in the Bible, esp. the Old Testament, has had devastating effects on Protestants. After all, Protestantism is based on "sola scriptura," and "sola fide," - mainline Protestant denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians have simply collapsed since the '60s. For the first time in U.S. history there is no Protestant on the Supreme Court (6 Catholics, 3 Jews). On the other hand, Catholicism is based on the Bible and tradition
    so it's made of sturdier stock. Moreover, Catholicism privileges the New Testament, the Old Testament (80% of the Bible) is largely regarded as irrelevant. Visit countries like Italy,France, or Poland, and you'll find yourself surrounded by Catholic culture - all the churches, saints, Lent, fasting, pilgrimages, philosophers, theologians, writers, poets, paintings, sculptures- it's all so beautiful that it's easy even for lapsed Catholics to remain culturally Catholic. Protestants seem to have none of that, and hence are more vulnerable to encroachments by Islam.
    , @syonredux

    Well what evidence would you expect to find? The story of Abraham as told in the Bible is simply not that jaw-dropping.The make a Hollywood blockbuster about Moses every generation because it’s got visual pizazz, but Abraham is just a low budget indie drama with tents and goats.
     
    Steve, Abraham's a phantom, a first millennium fairytale backdated for aetiological reasons to the Bronze Age.He has no more substance than Hellen, the mythical progenitor of the Greek tribes:

    In the early to mid-20th century, leading scholars such as William F. Albright and Albrecht Alt believed the patriarchs and matriarchs to be either real individuals or believable composite people living in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE. In the 1970s, however, new conclusions about Israel's past and the biblical texts challenged this portrait. The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson's argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations.[8] By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".[9]
     
    Authentic Israelite history begins in the 9th Century BC.
  134. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    If Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied, does this mean we can stop giving them our money?

    If Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied, does this mean we can stop giving them our money?

    First, you can stop referring to him as “Bibi.” Baby steps.

    Jewish control of American discourse on display in this post and comments. What other national leader garners, in regular public usage, an affectionate, diminutive nickname before his last name? What other national leader even garners a formal first name?

    • Replies: @Hal

    What other national leader even garners a formal first name?
     
    Jeb!
  135. @iSteveFan

    If you ever visit Topkapi Palace, you’ll see a map of the Ottoman Empire at its height on the inside of the gate. There is no Palestine on the map. I was surprised to see this. What we call Palestine was a group of other sections (vilayets) with different names.
     
    What about Byzantine maps, or even earlier Roman ones?

    After the defeat of the Bar Kochba revolt (135) the Romans called what had been Judea, “Syria Palestina”, merging it with Roman Syria to the north, but it was not an Arab country. It was Arab (as distinct from Turkish) ruled territory from around the 7th to the 11th century, but it was not a distinct self-ruled country then (or ever) – there never was a King of Palestine or Palestinian citizenship. It was a just one more corner of the vast Dar al Islam ( the Islamic world) that stretched from Spain to Indonesia. When Jordan ruled the West Bank, Arafat created the PLO not to get that territory but to get back Tel Aviv and Haifa.

    If Russia seized Alaska someday, it might make sense to fight to get it back as part of the US but not to make it an independent country that never existed. Logically it would make the most sense for Syria to try to rule the area of Palestine but they are not in shape to rule even themselves. Probably if the Palestinians ever managed to take it, it wouldn’t last as an independent country but would sooner or later end up being ruled by Syria or some other regional power, just as the nation of Texas was only a brief stepping stone toward unification with the US.

    As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. Israel will belong to the Jews for as long as the Jews can defend it and not a day less or more, regardless of any historical claims. Every place on earth is subject to overlapping territorial claims and just because one side has a better historical claim than another means nothing. Konigsberg was German territory for 800 years but now it’s Kaliningrad because Stalin wanted it. There’s no historical justice in this, just reality. It’s Russian territory now until someone kicks them out.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Israelis turned the Palestinians into a nation.
  136. @Jack D
    After the defeat of the Bar Kochba revolt (135) the Romans called what had been Judea, "Syria Palestina", merging it with Roman Syria to the north, but it was not an Arab country. It was Arab (as distinct from Turkish) ruled territory from around the 7th to the 11th century, but it was not a distinct self-ruled country then (or ever) - there never was a King of Palestine or Palestinian citizenship. It was a just one more corner of the vast Dar al Islam ( the Islamic world) that stretched from Spain to Indonesia. When Jordan ruled the West Bank, Arafat created the PLO not to get that territory but to get back Tel Aviv and Haifa.

    If Russia seized Alaska someday, it might make sense to fight to get it back as part of the US but not to make it an independent country that never existed. Logically it would make the most sense for Syria to try to rule the area of Palestine but they are not in shape to rule even themselves. Probably if the Palestinians ever managed to take it, it wouldn't last as an independent country but would sooner or later end up being ruled by Syria or some other regional power, just as the nation of Texas was only a brief stepping stone toward unification with the US.

    As Mao said, power comes from the barrel of a gun. Israel will belong to the Jews for as long as the Jews can defend it and not a day less or more, regardless of any historical claims. Every place on earth is subject to overlapping territorial claims and just because one side has a better historical claim than another means nothing. Konigsberg was German territory for 800 years but now it's Kaliningrad because Stalin wanted it. There's no historical justice in this, just reality. It's Russian territory now until someone kicks them out.

    The Israelis turned the Palestinians into a nation.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    UNRWA is one of two UN refugee organizations. One for the Pals & one for everyone else.

    Palestinians are the only "refugees" that inherit their refugee status.

    There were numerous, massive population transfers worldwide after WW2 of course, but this is the most important one. It is hard not to sympathize with the Palestinians, but you wouldn't want to call a South Syrian "Palestinian" anytime before the 60s. They would have tried to cut your throat. All contemporary mentions of 'Palestinians' prior to '48 referred to Jews.

    The Two State solution is mostly a fantasy of the West, which looks at the situation from the perspective of 'fairness' rather than total victory as the principals view it. Those rusty keys the Pals shake on Nakbar day aren't symbolic of keys to apartments in Gaza.

    It's a strange identity, 'Palestinian.' There isn't anything to distinguish the culture from any other Arabs in the region, so their identity is entirely connected with the struggle against Israel.

    They are 'refugees' from a country they've never seen, the don't really want, and never existed. There is no Two State Solution, no One State Solution, or any kind of solution. Israelis are a little funny about that word.
    , @Jack D
    With a lot of help from the UN and Western leftists.

    What choice did they have? Could they have managed it in a way that a "Palestinian" identity would not have coalesced (and still create Israel)? Would it have made any difference? Read about the Hebron massacre of 1929 , the revolt of '36 to '39 and the Arab invasions of 1948, '56, '67, and '73) - whether they called themselves Palestinians or not, the ARABs of that region were not going to accept a Jewish presence in the region.

    I don't think it's the same as France - the Arabs of "Palestine" speak the same language as neighboring Arabs, eat the same food, have the same branch of the same religion, etc. - there's just nothing to base a full national identity on, and even if they wanted one, in the long run they are too small to sustain it in a rough neighborhood. In "better" times, Assad Sr. would have eaten a "Palestinian" nation for breakfast and added it as his southernmost province, which actually would make more sense. But supporting the territorial ambitions of Arab dictators is a tough sell to Western liberals - much better to play this as some sort of victim/underdog story.
  137. What other national leader garners, in regular public usage, an affectionate, diminutive nickname before his last name?

    Hmm. Honest Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton? Didn’t they try to call Stalin “Uncle Joe” for a while? And if I had been sentient at the time, I’d have liked Ike. And maybe even Dick Nixon. I’ll skip antiquity, other than to say that leaders were called by lots of names.

    As for “Bibi,” maybe we ought to call him “That Damn Jew?” By the way, in case it matters, I’m quite far from a goyische water carrier, although it occurs to me that if we do my proposed cattle-for-Jews swap involving Harney County, Oregon, they’ll need some goyische water carriers. How much does that job pay?

  138. @Steve Sailer
    The Israelis turned the Palestinians into a nation.

    UNRWA is one of two UN refugee organizations. One for the Pals & one for everyone else.

    Palestinians are the only “refugees” that inherit their refugee status.

    There were numerous, massive population transfers worldwide after WW2 of course, but this is the most important one. It is hard not to sympathize with the Palestinians, but you wouldn’t want to call a South Syrian “Palestinian” anytime before the 60s. They would have tried to cut your throat. All contemporary mentions of ‘Palestinians’ prior to ’48 referred to Jews.

    The Two State solution is mostly a fantasy of the West, which looks at the situation from the perspective of ‘fairness’ rather than total victory as the principals view it. Those rusty keys the Pals shake on Nakbar day aren’t symbolic of keys to apartments in Gaza.

    It’s a strange identity, ‘Palestinian.’ There isn’t anything to distinguish the culture from any other Arabs in the region, so their identity is entirely connected with the struggle against Israel.

    They are ‘refugees’ from a country they’ve never seen, the don’t really want, and never existed. There is no Two State Solution, no One State Solution, or any kind of solution. Israelis are a little funny about that word.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "It’s a strange identity, ‘Palestinian.’ There isn’t anything to distinguish the culture from any other Arabs in the region, so their identity is entirely connected with the struggle against Israel."

    That's how most nations come into being: uniting to fight somebody else. If the Kings of England hadn't waged the 100 Years War on the Continent, the nation of France that we know today might never have coalesced. That's part of the explanation of Joan of Arc's unbelievable success: she had the idea of territorial French nationalism, of English Go Home!, of let's get together and kick the English out, that in retrospect is one of the obviously great ideas in history, but it wasn't obvious at the time.

  139. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    UNRWA is one of two UN refugee organizations. One for the Pals & one for everyone else.

    Palestinians are the only "refugees" that inherit their refugee status.

    There were numerous, massive population transfers worldwide after WW2 of course, but this is the most important one. It is hard not to sympathize with the Palestinians, but you wouldn't want to call a South Syrian "Palestinian" anytime before the 60s. They would have tried to cut your throat. All contemporary mentions of 'Palestinians' prior to '48 referred to Jews.

    The Two State solution is mostly a fantasy of the West, which looks at the situation from the perspective of 'fairness' rather than total victory as the principals view it. Those rusty keys the Pals shake on Nakbar day aren't symbolic of keys to apartments in Gaza.

    It's a strange identity, 'Palestinian.' There isn't anything to distinguish the culture from any other Arabs in the region, so their identity is entirely connected with the struggle against Israel.

    They are 'refugees' from a country they've never seen, the don't really want, and never existed. There is no Two State Solution, no One State Solution, or any kind of solution. Israelis are a little funny about that word.

    “It’s a strange identity, ‘Palestinian.’ There isn’t anything to distinguish the culture from any other Arabs in the region, so their identity is entirely connected with the struggle against Israel.”

    That’s how most nations come into being: uniting to fight somebody else. If the Kings of England hadn’t waged the 100 Years War on the Continent, the nation of France that we know today might never have coalesced. That’s part of the explanation of Joan of Arc’s unbelievable success: she had the idea of territorial French nationalism, of English Go Home!, of let’s get together and kick the English out, that in retrospect is one of the obviously great ideas in history, but it wasn’t obvious at the time.

    • Replies: @Ghost of Bull Moose
    That's a great point. Red Dawn is a great movie, and there's no arguing with "Because we live here," though "Because my family used to live there" isn't as good. That is a problem for Israel's claim, too. Possession counts for a lot, as usual.

    Maybe (one of) the problems with Hamas is that it isn't a Palestinian nationalist organization, it's an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nasr and a few others gave it a go, but nationalism to this point hasn't really caught on in the region. The various Iraqi factions don't seem all that interested. Maybe nationalism can save the Muslim world, though I don't see the imams any more willing to give up power than the popes were.

    Nobody ever talks about Christendom anymore, but the Muslim World persists.

    Thanks for responding Steve, as always you have insight that's hard to find elsewhere.

  140. It’s safe to say that non-East Asian (Thai) refugees brought to Nordic countries were brought for sexual reasons. White men do wage war against their own women in their own special little ways.

    East Asian women are usually white man hunters who then marry a weak-willed low-future time orientation Scandinavian man.

    And then of course there are the cheap labor companies and international companies that just like bringing in cheap labor any chance they get.

    But the latest wave of Immigration is definitely EU/US/Jewish interest-Refugee based for sure. It’s merely an extension of the U.S. lead dedication to a multicultural one-world future.

  141. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed."

    Well what evidence would you expect to find? The story of Abraham as told in the Bible is simply not that jaw-dropping.The make a Hollywood blockbuster about Moses every generation because it's got visual pizazz, but Abraham is just a low budget indie drama with tents and goats.

    The demolishing of the historical claims made in the Bible, esp. the Old Testament, has had devastating effects on Protestants. After all, Protestantism is based on “sola scriptura,” and “sola fide,” – mainline Protestant denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians have simply collapsed since the ’60s. For the first time in U.S. history there is no Protestant on the Supreme Court (6 Catholics, 3 Jews). On the other hand, Catholicism is based on the Bible and tradition
    so it’s made of sturdier stock. Moreover, Catholicism privileges the New Testament, the Old Testament (80% of the Bible) is largely regarded as irrelevant. Visit countries like Italy,France, or Poland, and you’ll find yourself surrounded by Catholic culture – all the churches, saints, Lent, fasting, pilgrimages, philosophers, theologians, writers, poets, paintings, sculptures- it’s all so beautiful that it’s easy even for lapsed Catholics to remain culturally Catholic. Protestants seem to have none of that, and hence are more vulnerable to encroachments by Islam.

    • Replies: @Hal

    On the other hand, Catholicism is based on the Bible and tradition
    so it’s made of sturdier stock.
     
    You really need to learn your real church history. The New Testament is a frabrication layered onto embellishment that barely allow's Jesus's message to be read. Jesus's message, BTW, was directed at his fellow Jews and basically allowed as they should all stop being jerks, forget the rules and ritual, and start to experience the Kingdom of God (heaven, aka spirituality) in their daily lives. That most "Christians" are angry, anal-retentive jerks who hate anyone who says that perhaps Jesus was not a demigod is a supreme irony

    Moreover, Catholicism privileges the New Testament, the Old Testament (80% of the Bible) is largely regarded as irrelevant. Visit countries like Italy,France, or Poland, and you’ll find yourself surrounded by Catholic culture – all the churches, saints, Lent, fasting, pilgrimages, philosophers, theologians, writers, poets, paintings, sculptures- it’s all so beautiful that it’s easy even for lapsed Catholics to remain culturally Catholic.
     
    It's all so beautiful? Really? A total fabrication is beautiful?

    Jesus did not start a complicated religion based on priests, saints, and holy water. He opposed such artifacts. The Roman Catholic Church is the anti-christ.
  142. @Ex Submarine Officer

    Kevin McDonald’s group evolutionary strategy makes the most sense.
     
    And so do Jared Diamond's Just So Stories in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

    But in both cases, one must accept various precepts that the authors created in order for it all to make sense. In MacDonald's case (note the spelling...), he relies completely upon the idea of "group evolutionary strategy".

    The notion of "group evolutionary strategy" is something that, as of this date, is completely discounted by evolutionary biologists. And one should note, by evolutionary biologists that are completely unrelated to, are perhaps unaware of Kevin MacDonald. The rejection of this concept, or rather, the non-adoption simply because it hasn't been proven, is pervasive/universal, not just by those disputing MacDonald.

    MacDonald insists that his cherry-picked instances of Jewish "behavior" proves the existence of something called "group evolutionary strategy". Incidentally, he first came at this ostensibly as an objective, budding sociobiologist, a questionable science at best, interested in proving this strategy exists, using Jewish people as an example.

    Somewhere along the line, he got personally/emotionally involved in the Jewish end of it, sort of flipped his focus, decided that group evolutionary strategy was a proven concept, went all red pill as folks would say today, and moved on with Jews as his primary focus, forthwith viewing them through the prism of his personal science/logic.

    Without group evolutionary strategy, which today is considered an unproven notion at best and more usually the province of pseudo-scientific fools, MacDonald's "analyses" are just barroom ramblings, fitting the data and theory to his personal preferences, just like climate change malpractitioners.

    Forget the Jews, show us the peer-reviewed science demonstrating the existence of "group evolutionary strategies". You know, math, genetics, degrees of relatedness and altruism, people model these things and so far, nada, at least to my understanding.

    Commentary on Kevin MacDonald’s work by David Sloan Wilson:

    http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/slate-wilson.html

  143. @Jack D
    All religion is based on faith and not facts. Jesus (possibly unlike Moses) was probably a real person but most of the rest of the New Testament is not historically verifiable, to say the least. The Book of Mormon ain't too credible either, but that doesn't stop millions of people from believing in it.

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur. Arthur (supposedly) lived 2,000 years after when Moses (supposedly) lived but we know equally little about each man (even whether he was real) aside from what is written in the legendary accounts.

    As for mud huts and copper smelting pits, keep in mind that in the King David period, people in Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshiping trees.

    …keep in mind that in the King David period, people in Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshiping trees.

    During the Jesus period, people in Britain were painting themselves blue and worshiping trees. Caesar writes about it. The original Latin is hilarious. They had these chariots, the driver would bring it to a point, the guy in back would through his spear, and they would retreat.

    I’m not sure they had actually arrived on the island 2,000 years before Caesar.

    Also, the practice continues. Ever been to a [insert team name here] game?

  144. @Steve Sailer
    The Israelis turned the Palestinians into a nation.

    With a lot of help from the UN and Western leftists.

    What choice did they have? Could they have managed it in a way that a “Palestinian” identity would not have coalesced (and still create Israel)? Would it have made any difference? Read about the Hebron massacre of 1929 , the revolt of ’36 to ’39 and the Arab invasions of 1948, ’56, ’67, and ’73) – whether they called themselves Palestinians or not, the ARABs of that region were not going to accept a Jewish presence in the region.

    I don’t think it’s the same as France – the Arabs of “Palestine” speak the same language as neighboring Arabs, eat the same food, have the same branch of the same religion, etc. – there’s just nothing to base a full national identity on, and even if they wanted one, in the long run they are too small to sustain it in a rough neighborhood. In “better” times, Assad Sr. would have eaten a “Palestinian” nation for breakfast and added it as his southernmost province, which actually would make more sense. But supporting the territorial ambitions of Arab dictators is a tough sell to Western liberals – much better to play this as some sort of victim/underdog story.

  145. @Anonymous
    If Jews in Israel are safe, as Bibi Netanyahu has implied, does this mean we can stop giving them our money?

    First, you can stop referring to him as "Bibi." Baby steps.

    Jewish control of American discourse on display in this post and comments. What other national leader garners, in regular public usage, an affectionate, diminutive nickname before his last name? What other national leader even garners a formal first name?

    What other national leader even garners a formal first name?

    Jeb!

  146. @Anonymous
    The demolishing of the historical claims made in the Bible, esp. the Old Testament, has had devastating effects on Protestants. After all, Protestantism is based on "sola scriptura," and "sola fide," - mainline Protestant denominations like Episcopalians and Presbyterians have simply collapsed since the '60s. For the first time in U.S. history there is no Protestant on the Supreme Court (6 Catholics, 3 Jews). On the other hand, Catholicism is based on the Bible and tradition
    so it's made of sturdier stock. Moreover, Catholicism privileges the New Testament, the Old Testament (80% of the Bible) is largely regarded as irrelevant. Visit countries like Italy,France, or Poland, and you'll find yourself surrounded by Catholic culture - all the churches, saints, Lent, fasting, pilgrimages, philosophers, theologians, writers, poets, paintings, sculptures- it's all so beautiful that it's easy even for lapsed Catholics to remain culturally Catholic. Protestants seem to have none of that, and hence are more vulnerable to encroachments by Islam.

    On the other hand, Catholicism is based on the Bible and tradition
    so it’s made of sturdier stock.

    You really need to learn your real church history. The New Testament is a frabrication layered onto embellishment that barely allow’s Jesus’s message to be read. Jesus’s message, BTW, was directed at his fellow Jews and basically allowed as they should all stop being jerks, forget the rules and ritual, and start to experience the Kingdom of God (heaven, aka spirituality) in their daily lives. That most “Christians” are angry, anal-retentive jerks who hate anyone who says that perhaps Jesus was not a demigod is a supreme irony

    Moreover, Catholicism privileges the New Testament, the Old Testament (80% of the Bible) is largely regarded as irrelevant. Visit countries like Italy,France, or Poland, and you’ll find yourself surrounded by Catholic culture – all the churches, saints, Lent, fasting, pilgrimages, philosophers, theologians, writers, poets, paintings, sculptures- it’s all so beautiful that it’s easy even for lapsed Catholics to remain culturally Catholic.

    It’s all so beautiful? Really? A total fabrication is beautiful?

    Jesus did not start a complicated religion based on priests, saints, and holy water. He opposed such artifacts. The Roman Catholic Church is the anti-christ.

    • Replies: @HA
    "Jesus did not start a complicated religion based on priests, saints, and holy water. He opposed such artifacts."

    Ah, one more reformer who not only thinks the New Testament is a "fabrication layered onto embellishment" but is also convinced he can decipher what Jesus' real message was. Good luck selling that.

    Then again, that was Muhammad's approach, and he got pretty far with it. And look how well that turned out.

  147. @Steve Sailer
    "It’s a strange identity, ‘Palestinian.’ There isn’t anything to distinguish the culture from any other Arabs in the region, so their identity is entirely connected with the struggle against Israel."

    That's how most nations come into being: uniting to fight somebody else. If the Kings of England hadn't waged the 100 Years War on the Continent, the nation of France that we know today might never have coalesced. That's part of the explanation of Joan of Arc's unbelievable success: she had the idea of territorial French nationalism, of English Go Home!, of let's get together and kick the English out, that in retrospect is one of the obviously great ideas in history, but it wasn't obvious at the time.

    That’s a great point. Red Dawn is a great movie, and there’s no arguing with “Because we live here,” though “Because my family used to live there” isn’t as good. That is a problem for Israel’s claim, too. Possession counts for a lot, as usual.

    Maybe (one of) the problems with Hamas is that it isn’t a Palestinian nationalist organization, it’s an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nasr and a few others gave it a go, but nationalism to this point hasn’t really caught on in the region. The various Iraqi factions don’t seem all that interested. Maybe nationalism can save the Muslim world, though I don’t see the imams any more willing to give up power than the popes were.

    Nobody ever talks about Christendom anymore, but the Muslim World persists.

    Thanks for responding Steve, as always you have insight that’s hard to find elsewhere.

  148. people in Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshiping trees

    Who knew?! Where do I sign up?



  149. @K. Arujo
    I suppose this is another benefit of discussing forbidden topics; we help each other get our forbidden facts straight. I’ve got some reading to do. Thanks.

    K. Arujo says:

    They can out-think, out-fight, and out-maneuver the Muslims but they cannot conquer them. And they cannot guilt-bait them….

    Yeah, but do they really need to? My assertion was that The Tribe is capable if thriving indefinitely while outnumbered and surrounded by enemies. It’s kinda their thing.
    The rest of your post was awesome and very informative. See above.

    Hibernian says:

    In Madagascar their just MIGHT have been a problem with the indigenous people

    .
    Heh. Sure, but if you had to put money on it, which side has the better odds?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The French killed something like 80,000 Madagascarenes taking back their island colony in 1946. (That's long struck me as one of the most pointless conflicts in history.)
  150. @Gunnar von Cowtown
    @Ex Submarine Officer
    @affenkopf
    @K. Arujo
    I suppose this is another benefit of discussing forbidden topics; we help each other get our forbidden facts straight. I've got some reading to do. Thanks.

    K. Arujo says:

    They can out-think, out-fight, and out-maneuver the Muslims but they cannot conquer them. And they cannot guilt-bait them....

     

    Yeah, but do they really need to? My assertion was that The Tribe is capable if thriving indefinitely while outnumbered and surrounded by enemies. It's kinda their thing.
    The rest of your post was awesome and very informative. See above.

    Hibernian says:

    In Madagascar their just MIGHT have been a problem with the indigenous people
     
    .
    Heh. Sure, but if you had to put money on it, which side has the better odds?

    The French killed something like 80,000 Madagascarenes taking back their island colony in 1946. (That’s long struck me as one of the most pointless conflicts in history.)

  151. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    What is the advantage of Arab presence IN Israel? Does it unite all Jews together?
    Without Arabs playing the equivalent role of ‘evil racist southern whites’ in US politics, there might less of KKKrazy glue to hold all the Jews together.
    Jews in Israel came from all over, and there are real divisions among secular, leftist, rightist, orthodox, ashkenazim, sephardim, north african, Russian, etc etc Jews.

    Their fear of Arabs brings them all together.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What is the advantage of Arab presence IN Israel? Does it unite all Jews together?
    Without Arabs playing the equivalent role of ‘evil racist southern whites’ in US politics, there might less of KKKrazy glue to hold all the Jews together.
    Jews in Israel came from all over, and there are real divisions among secular, leftist, rightist, orthodox, ashkenazim, sephardim, north african, Russian, etc etc Jews.

    Their fear of Arabs brings them all together.


    Jews need to be in conflict with others in order to remain Jews. This is true even if we are talking only about the Ashkenazim population.
  152. @Steve Sailer
    "There is zero archeological evidence that a specific individual named Abraham, as described in the Hebrew Bible, who presumably would have lived around 2000 B.C., ever existed."

    Well what evidence would you expect to find? The story of Abraham as told in the Bible is simply not that jaw-dropping.The make a Hollywood blockbuster about Moses every generation because it's got visual pizazz, but Abraham is just a low budget indie drama with tents and goats.

    Well what evidence would you expect to find? The story of Abraham as told in the Bible is simply not that jaw-dropping.The make a Hollywood blockbuster about Moses every generation because it’s got visual pizazz, but Abraham is just a low budget indie drama with tents and goats.

    Steve, Abraham’s a phantom, a first millennium fairytale backdated for aetiological reasons to the Bronze Age.He has no more substance than Hellen, the mythical progenitor of the Greek tribes:

    In the early to mid-20th century, leading scholars such as William F. Albright and Albrecht Alt believed the patriarchs and matriarchs to be either real individuals or believable composite people living in the “patriarchal age”, the 2nd millennium BCE. In the 1970s, however, new conclusions about Israel’s past and the biblical texts challenged this portrait. The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson’s The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters’ Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson’s argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations.[8] By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had “given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible ‘historical figures’”.[9]

    Authentic Israelite history begins in the 9th Century BC.

  153. @Steve Sailer
    "essentially demolishing the claim that Abraham or Moses ever existed"

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham? Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie "A Most Violent Year" that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham?

    What’s boring to you, Steve, might have been quite fascinating to earlier audiences.The Catalogue of Ships in Book Two of The Iliad is boring as Hell to modern readers (Argos sent this number of black ships; Ithaca sent this number of black ships, etc), but it was taken much more seriously in Antiquity.Indeed, we are even told that there was a controversy in Peisistratos’ time over the Catalogue:

    Strabo reports an account by Hereas accusing Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens, r. 561-527 BCE, or Solon (638-558 BCE), sometime eponymous archon and lawgiver, starting 594 BCE, of altering the Iliad’s Catalogue of Ships to place the 12 ships from Salamis in the Athenian camp, proving that Athens owned Salamis in the Trojan War.[7] Others denied the theory, Strabo said.

    Hence, I’m quite sure that the Ancient Israelites loved hearing about how the Moabites and Ammonites (the traditional enemies of Israel) were the product of incest between Lot and his daughters

    Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie “A Most Violent Year” that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.

    Abraham’s tale is not quite as mundane as all that, Steve.The destruction of Sodom with fire is quite OTT:

    The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

    24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

    25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

    26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

    27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord:

    28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

    29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

    Then, of course, there’s the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born.

    And there’s quite a bit of fascinating domestic tension in the household.Cf how Sarah demands that Hagar (the Egyptian slave whom Abraham impregnated and who bore Ishmael) and her son be expelled. Polygynous cultures must find that kind of stuff fascinating

    Jack D:

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur.

    Which is not saying much, seeing as how Arthur’s historicity is quite doubtful.

    • Replies: @HA
    "Then, of course, there’s the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born."

    Again, the fact that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a dollar across the Potomac does not mean that he never existed. And the fact that reindeer do not fly does not mean that Saint Nicholas was not a historical figure.
    , @Jack D
    What it shows is how quickly history can be distorted into legend. Even 600 years after the time of Arthur, no one knew anymore whether he was real or not (keeping in mind that the Dark Ages were a particularly bad time for record keeping) - if you wait 600 years to write something down, the story is going to get changed a lot in the historical game of telephone as the knowledge passses from generation to generation, until what comes out may bear little resemblance to the original story. Magical elements get added - swords imbedded in stones, rocks that you strike and water gushes forth, etc. On the other hand, many Biblical authorities believe that the earliest writings in the Bible were written down right around the time of Moses so there was less of a gap. On the third hand, the Gospels were written down probably less than a century after the death of Jesus and already there are all sorts of magical embellishments. My guess is that in all three cases there really was a person (or maybe a couple of people - sometimes legendary figures get merged together, the way that characters in a biographical movie are often composites of several real people) who did some important stuff but over time as you retell the story around the campfire, more and more miraculous elements get added.
  154. @Hal

    On the other hand, Catholicism is based on the Bible and tradition
    so it’s made of sturdier stock.
     
    You really need to learn your real church history. The New Testament is a frabrication layered onto embellishment that barely allow's Jesus's message to be read. Jesus's message, BTW, was directed at his fellow Jews and basically allowed as they should all stop being jerks, forget the rules and ritual, and start to experience the Kingdom of God (heaven, aka spirituality) in their daily lives. That most "Christians" are angry, anal-retentive jerks who hate anyone who says that perhaps Jesus was not a demigod is a supreme irony

    Moreover, Catholicism privileges the New Testament, the Old Testament (80% of the Bible) is largely regarded as irrelevant. Visit countries like Italy,France, or Poland, and you’ll find yourself surrounded by Catholic culture – all the churches, saints, Lent, fasting, pilgrimages, philosophers, theologians, writers, poets, paintings, sculptures- it’s all so beautiful that it’s easy even for lapsed Catholics to remain culturally Catholic.
     
    It's all so beautiful? Really? A total fabrication is beautiful?

    Jesus did not start a complicated religion based on priests, saints, and holy water. He opposed such artifacts. The Roman Catholic Church is the anti-christ.

    “Jesus did not start a complicated religion based on priests, saints, and holy water. He opposed such artifacts.”

    Ah, one more reformer who not only thinks the New Testament is a “fabrication layered onto embellishment” but is also convinced he can decipher what Jesus’ real message was. Good luck selling that.

    Then again, that was Muhammad’s approach, and he got pretty far with it. And look how well that turned out.

  155. @syonredux

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham?
     
    What's boring to you, Steve, might have been quite fascinating to earlier audiences.The Catalogue of Ships in Book Two of The Iliad is boring as Hell to modern readers (Argos sent this number of black ships; Ithaca sent this number of black ships, etc), but it was taken much more seriously in Antiquity.Indeed, we are even told that there was a controversy in Peisistratos' time over the Catalogue:

    Strabo reports an account by Hereas accusing Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens, r. 561-527 BCE, or Solon (638-558 BCE), sometime eponymous archon and lawgiver, starting 594 BCE, of altering the Iliad’s Catalogue of Ships to place the 12 ships from Salamis in the Athenian camp, proving that Athens owned Salamis in the Trojan War.[7] Others denied the theory, Strabo said.
     
    Hence, I'm quite sure that the Ancient Israelites loved hearing about how the Moabites and Ammonites (the traditional enemies of Israel) were the product of incest between Lot and his daughters

    Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie “A Most Violent Year” that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.
     
    Abraham's tale is not quite as mundane as all that, Steve.The destruction of Sodom with fire is quite OTT:

    The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

    24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

    25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

    26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

    27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord:

    28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

    29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

     

    Then, of course, there's the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born.


    And there's quite a bit of fascinating domestic tension in the household.Cf how Sarah demands that Hagar (the Egyptian slave whom Abraham impregnated and who bore Ishmael) and her son be expelled. Polygynous cultures must find that kind of stuff fascinating


    Jack D:

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur.

    Which is not saying much, seeing as how Arthur's historicity is quite doubtful.

    “Then, of course, there’s the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born.”

    Again, the fact that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a dollar across the Potomac does not mean that he never existed. And the fact that reindeer do not fly does not mean that Saint Nicholas was not a historical figure.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Again, the fact that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a dollar across the Potomac does not mean that he never existed. And the fact that reindeer do not fly does not mean that Saint Nicholas was not a historical figure.
     
    But, dear fellow, once one descends into that maze, where may the exit be found?After all, the fact that the Minotaur never existed doesn't mean that Theseus is unreal.And the fact that winged horses don't exist doesn't mean that Bellerophon didn't walk the Earth in the days when Mycenae was a going concern.

    Euhemerization is seductive.We all would like to think that beloved figures of myth and legend might be real.Just remove the detritus of folklore, and hey!presto! Zeus was a king of Crete who got turned into a god.

    Abraham is no more real than Theseus.
  156. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor
    What is the advantage of Arab presence IN Israel? Does it unite all Jews together?
    Without Arabs playing the equivalent role of 'evil racist southern whites' in US politics, there might less of KKKrazy glue to hold all the Jews together.
    Jews in Israel came from all over, and there are real divisions among secular, leftist, rightist, orthodox, ashkenazim, sephardim, north african, Russian, etc etc Jews.

    Their fear of Arabs brings them all together.

    What is the advantage of Arab presence IN Israel? Does it unite all Jews together?
    Without Arabs playing the equivalent role of ‘evil racist southern whites’ in US politics, there might less of KKKrazy glue to hold all the Jews together.
    Jews in Israel came from all over, and there are real divisions among secular, leftist, rightist, orthodox, ashkenazim, sephardim, north african, Russian, etc etc Jews.

    Their fear of Arabs brings them all together.

    Jews need to be in conflict with others in order to remain Jews. This is true even if we are talking only about the Ashkenazim population.

  157. @Clyde
    Jewish birthrates (Israel) are very good and are outdoing the Muslims in their historic tactics of demographic warfare. Israel fights and resists them while Europe takes in more and more and cowers. There is nothing more perverse than funding your own demise by paying (via European welfare systems) for your own displacement. Euro-White IQ is high but comes with fatal flaws. This European loss of future orientation, they are becoming more like blacks.
    Northern winters make one future oriented while technology and comfortable living standards weaken winters impact. Weaken future orientation/////
    Technology has freed women from lives of household drudgery has spoiled them and made them mad. Kinder, Küche, Kirche was good for them and fit their natural psychology. While The men.......

    The birthrates of the Jews who do matter are not so great. The ‘wrong’ kind of Jews who add little to Israel’s net worth are multiplying.

    • Replies: @Y.Ilan
    Bullshit. Secular families here in Israel aim for 3-4 children, while Religious Zionists who are certainly not inferior in their contribution and abilities have even more children. It's true that the Haredim have even more children, but they as well are going into the workforce and they're not going to survive on welfare for much longer.
  158. @HA
    "Then, of course, there’s the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born."

    Again, the fact that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a dollar across the Potomac does not mean that he never existed. And the fact that reindeer do not fly does not mean that Saint Nicholas was not a historical figure.

    Again, the fact that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a dollar across the Potomac does not mean that he never existed. And the fact that reindeer do not fly does not mean that Saint Nicholas was not a historical figure.

    But, dear fellow, once one descends into that maze, where may the exit be found?After all, the fact that the Minotaur never existed doesn’t mean that Theseus is unreal.And the fact that winged horses don’t exist doesn’t mean that Bellerophon didn’t walk the Earth in the days when Mycenae was a going concern.

    Euhemerization is seductive.We all would like to think that beloved figures of myth and legend might be real.Just remove the detritus of folklore, and hey!presto! Zeus was a king of Crete who got turned into a god.

    Abraham is no more real than Theseus.

    • Replies: @HA
    ”But, dear fellow, once one descends into that maze, where may the exit be found?”

    Wherever the analysis leads you. No one I know is saying that juncture is easily located, but diligently searching it out wherever it may be found is certainly saner than discarding every historical account which had inconsistencies and tall tales tacked on. By that reckoning, we lose Herodotus, Bede, and for that matter, every historical figure whose life was ‘dramatized into a novel, play, or movie.

    I’m not sure that there is anything left of Theseus or Zeus or Thor once all the embellishments have been stripped away -- if anyone claims that Zeus was once a king of Crete or anywhere else, well, it's news to me. As for Arthur, he seems to have been a conflation of at least two figures back before the telephone tag began and the chalices, swords and chivalry began creeping in. With regard to Abraham, I wouldn’t claim that what was written about him amounts to a notarized real estate filing – however much some wish to regard it that way – but I see no reason to claim he never existed, century-plus lifespans notwithstanding.
  159. Steve Sailer assumes:

    either: No Iranian threat exists, thus safely gather Europe’s Jews into Israel
    or: There exists the Threat: Leave European Jews in Europe, they will escape the nukes
    and some remnant of the Jewish people survives.

    My experience:

    Israeli politicians can hold conflicting beliefs in their head without being bothered by it.

    “Gather all Jews into Israel”, is a holly mantra for Zionism. Politicians mouth it reflexively.

    Netaniahu is sincerely worried about Iranian nukes.

    He just has not worked out yet the conflict between the two principles.

  160. @Y.Ilan
    It's the other way around; the only place where Jews have a chance to continue their existence in the long-run is in Israel, because of birthrates and assimilation. Jews who come here from Europe are certainly giving up comforts and easy money for a life that is more expensive, more dangerous (especially if they enlist into combat units, as many young immigrants do), but also more fulfiling. While you may see Ashkenazi Jews as wholly European, we see ourselves as first and foremost Jewish, i.e. our roots lie in the Land of Israel and it is here where we truly belong. It is not that odd to wish to go back to one's ancestral homeland; I get that it's hard to understand since the Jewish story is a unique one, but that's how it is.

    Your warnings of doom are duly noted, and the comparison to the Crusader Kingdoms somewhat amusing, but I do believe there are many significant differences between us and the Crusaders. The first and most significant difference being the demographics; the Crusaders were always a small minority in the Holy Land, while the Jewish population between the river and the sea is a growing majority.

    It’s sort of a self selected group – the people there think of it as their ancestral homeland because only people who felt that way moved there in the first place. I understand on an intellectual level that Israel is supposed to be my ancestral homeland, but when freckled pale me visited and burned under the hot Middle Eastern sun, I didn’t feel in my gut at all like I was “home” – it felt like a very alien place to me. The fact that it was “home” 2,000 years ago is a pretty distant connection. A lot of Europeans’ ancestors, 2,000 years ago were somewhere out on the steppes of Asia but they don’t feel connected to Kazakhstan. I WANTED to feel connected, the same way some people crave to be “born again”, but the connection just didn’t come. The bonds had been broken (or frayed to a few weak threads) literally thousands of years ago.

    When I visited E. Europe, despite the fact that the people who live there now are not “my people” (in fact many behaved abominably toward my people), still it felt more like home – the climate, the food (except the local love of pork in every conceivable form), the architecture, the landscape, everything felt more familiar to me than that alien sliver of the Middle East.

    • Replies: @Y.Ilan
    Understandably Israel remains an exotic locale to many Ashkenazi Jews, who would feel more at home in Germany or Eastern Europe. I am wholly Ashkenazi myself, and if my great-grandfathers didn't make their way to Palestine would probably feel more at home in Berlin than anywhere else. Zionism is a drastic, extreme movement, but when viewing the legacy of Judaism one can only conclude that Israel is the only place where we have much of a future. I may be biased, but factually this is the only place where we can continue to prosper and grow. For me, at least, the desert calls.
  161. @syonredux

    If Abraham never existed, why would anybody go to all the trouble of making up the pretty boring stories in the Bible about Abraham?
     
    What's boring to you, Steve, might have been quite fascinating to earlier audiences.The Catalogue of Ships in Book Two of The Iliad is boring as Hell to modern readers (Argos sent this number of black ships; Ithaca sent this number of black ships, etc), but it was taken much more seriously in Antiquity.Indeed, we are even told that there was a controversy in Peisistratos' time over the Catalogue:

    Strabo reports an account by Hereas accusing Peisistratos, tyrant of Athens, r. 561-527 BCE, or Solon (638-558 BCE), sometime eponymous archon and lawgiver, starting 594 BCE, of altering the Iliad’s Catalogue of Ships to place the 12 ships from Salamis in the Athenian camp, proving that Athens owned Salamis in the Trojan War.[7] Others denied the theory, Strabo said.
     
    Hence, I'm quite sure that the Ancient Israelites loved hearing about how the Moabites and Ammonites (the traditional enemies of Israel) were the product of incest between Lot and his daughters

    Moses is awesome, of course, in a Hollywood blockbuster way, but the story of Abraham reminds me of that unsuccessful recent movie “A Most Violent Year” that fairly authentically portrays a real-estate transaction in the tri-state heating oil business in 1981.
     
    Abraham's tale is not quite as mundane as all that, Steve.The destruction of Sodom with fire is quite OTT:

    The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.

    24 Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

    25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

    26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

    27 And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord:

    28 And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

    29 And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.

     

    Then, of course, there's the little matter of Sarah being around 90 and Abraham nearly 100 when Isaac is born.


    And there's quite a bit of fascinating domestic tension in the household.Cf how Sarah demands that Hagar (the Egyptian slave whom Abraham impregnated and who bore Ishmael) and her son be expelled. Polygynous cultures must find that kind of stuff fascinating


    Jack D:

    Moses is at least as real as King Arthur.

    Which is not saying much, seeing as how Arthur's historicity is quite doubtful.

    What it shows is how quickly history can be distorted into legend. Even 600 years after the time of Arthur, no one knew anymore whether he was real or not (keeping in mind that the Dark Ages were a particularly bad time for record keeping) – if you wait 600 years to write something down, the story is going to get changed a lot in the historical game of telephone as the knowledge passses from generation to generation, until what comes out may bear little resemblance to the original story. Magical elements get added – swords imbedded in stones, rocks that you strike and water gushes forth, etc. On the other hand, many Biblical authorities believe that the earliest writings in the Bible were written down right around the time of Moses so there was less of a gap. On the third hand, the Gospels were written down probably less than a century after the death of Jesus and already there are all sorts of magical embellishments. My guess is that in all three cases there really was a person (or maybe a couple of people – sometimes legendary figures get merged together, the way that characters in a biographical movie are often composites of several real people) who did some important stuff but over time as you retell the story around the campfire, more and more miraculous elements get added.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    On the other hand, many Biblical authorities believe that the earliest writings in the Bible were written down right around the time of Moses so there was less of a gap.
     
    Mainstream scholars don't believe in the historicity of either Moses or of the Exodus.Furthermore, mainstream scholars don't believe that the Pentateuchal narratives go back that far, either.Some scholars trace the "J" text of the Pentateuch the 1oth Century BC, most most nowadays would place it significantly later.

    On the third hand, the Gospels were written down probably less than a century after the death of Jesus and already there are all sorts of magical embellishments.
     
    Which shows how unreliable oral sources are.Mainstream scholars would argue that the only definite thing that we know about Jesus is that he was crucified.

    My guess is that in all three cases there really was a person (or maybe a couple of people – sometimes legendary figures get merged together, the way that characters in a biographical movie are often composites of several real people) who did some important stuff but over time as you retell the story around the campfire, more and more miraculous elements get added.
     
    Or maybe it's all invented in the case of Moses and Abraham. I've mentioned the example of The Nibelungenlied before, but it seems on point here.Unlike the Pentateuch or The Iliad, we now the historical origins of The Nibelungenlied. The kernel of the tale is the destruction of the Kingdom of the Burgundians by Hun mercenaries working for the Roman general Flavius Aetius in AD 436-37.To this was added the fact that Attila, just prior to his death in AD 453 married a Germanic princess.

    Now, here are the main events in the Song of the Nibelungs: the Kingdom of the Burgundians is destroyed by Attila at the instigation of the widow of Siegfried.

    1.The chronology is scrambled.The marriage is made to occur before the downfall of the Burgundians, not after.

    2.Attila's wife was not a Burgundian.

    3.Attila had nothing to do with the Fall of the Burgundians.

    4.Flavius Aetius is unmentioned.

    5.Siegfried, the legendary dragon-slayer, is shoehorned into the tale.

    6.Theodoric the Great is present at the wedding of Attila, despite the fact that he was born in AD 454.....

    7.Attila's wife was not Siegfried's widow.

    And I could go on.
  162. @syonredux

    Again, the fact that George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree or threw a dollar across the Potomac does not mean that he never existed. And the fact that reindeer do not fly does not mean that Saint Nicholas was not a historical figure.
     
    But, dear fellow, once one descends into that maze, where may the exit be found?After all, the fact that the Minotaur never existed doesn't mean that Theseus is unreal.And the fact that winged horses don't exist doesn't mean that Bellerophon didn't walk the Earth in the days when Mycenae was a going concern.

    Euhemerization is seductive.We all would like to think that beloved figures of myth and legend might be real.Just remove the detritus of folklore, and hey!presto! Zeus was a king of Crete who got turned into a god.

    Abraham is no more real than Theseus.

    ”But, dear fellow, once one descends into that maze, where may the exit be found?”

    Wherever the analysis leads you. No one I know is saying that juncture is easily located, but diligently searching it out wherever it may be found is certainly saner than discarding every historical account which had inconsistencies and tall tales tacked on. By that reckoning, we lose Herodotus, Bede, and for that matter, every historical figure whose life was ‘dramatized into a novel, play, or movie.

    I’m not sure that there is anything left of Theseus or Zeus or Thor once all the embellishments have been stripped away — if anyone claims that Zeus was once a king of Crete or anywhere else, well, it’s news to me. As for Arthur, he seems to have been a conflation of at least two figures back before the telephone tag began and the chalices, swords and chivalry began creeping in. With regard to Abraham, I wouldn’t claim that what was written about him amounts to a notarized real estate filing – however much some wish to regard it that way – but I see no reason to claim he never existed, century-plus lifespans notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    Wherever the analysis leads you.
     
    Which is nowhere

    No one I know is saying that juncture is easily located, but diligently searching it out wherever it may be found
     
    People have done so.No one has been able to find any element of truth in the Patriarchal age.It's as illusory as Aeneas voyaging to Italy.

    is certainly saner than discarding every historical account which had inconsistencies and tall tales tacked on.
     
    But we don't know what was tacked on.You say that Abraham's ludicrous age was tacked on.Why? Because it is obviously unreal.But plausible things can also be unreal.After all, there's nothing impossible about a Trojan refugee sailing to Italy....

    By that reckoning, we lose Herodotus, Bede, and for that matter, every historical figure whose life was ‘dramatized into a novel, play, or movie.
     
    No one uses Herodotus as as source for the Bronze Age.Historians value him for what he tells us about the Persian Wars, conflicts which overlapped with his own lifetime (c. 484–425 BC).The same holds with Bede.Historians place greater reliability on the events that are closer to his own time.Genesis, in contrast, was written many centuries after Abraham's alleged period.

    I’m not sure that there is anything left of Theseus or Zeus or Thor once all the embellishments have been stripped away —
     
    Quite a bit is left:Theseus, king of Bronze Age Athens, leader of a raid on Crete, etc.Mary Renault wrote two novels about the "historical" Theseus: The King Must Die and The Bull From the Sea

    if anyone claims that Zeus was once a king of Crete or anywhere else, well, it’s news to me.
     
    Euhemerus did.The man from whose name the term Euhemerism is derived:

    Euhemerism is a process whereby initial mythological accounts come to be treated as real historical events or historical personages; later accounts were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. It was named for its creator Euhemerus. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.[1] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology and history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[2][3] However, Euhemerus is credited as considering history in his times to be mythology in disguise.[

     

    He claimed that Zeus was a king of Crete and that the deeds of the Olympians were just distorted accounts of actual historical events.

    As for Arthur, he seems to have been a conflation of at least two figures back before the telephone tag began and the chalices, swords and chivalry began creeping in.
     
    Which means that there was no "Arthur."

    With regard to Abraham, I wouldn’t claim that what was written about him amounts to a notarized real estate filing – however much some wish to regard it that way – but I see no reason to claim he never existed, century-plus lifespans notwithstanding.
     
    Then I see no reason to claim that Aeneas never existed, divine birth notwithstanding.
  163. @candid_observer
    Of course the deep irony is that the true threat to Jews outside of Israel comes entirely from the predictable results of a liberal immigration policy -- which so many of them support -- rather than from Native Great-Great-Grandsons.

    So it's rather backfiring; they've imported their own monsters.

    But will they ever Notice?

    “So it’s rather backfiring; they’ve imported their own monsters.”

    But as Muslim misbehaviour (and native resentment of it) in Europe increases, so a “robust” Israeli response against Muslim misbehaviour in Israel/Palestine increasingly gets a free pass from many Europeans. “At least somebody knows how to respond” .

  164. Speaking of mythology, let’s examine the story of Joe Smith, the moneydigging circus fraud who, along with Bring ‘Em Young had 89 wives. You know those golden plates that he found and then ran through the forest carrying them under his arm? They weighed about 225 pounds.

    Conclusion: Never start a religion during modern times, when facts can be checked.

    On the other hand, have facts ever mattered to religious believers? In addition to the Mormons, we have the Scientologists and the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, two cults founded since World War II. Whoever said religion was a security blanket for weak minds nailed it.

    Amended conclusion: People need to believe. So, in the end, it’s a matter of the consequences, along with a secular counterweight. The only thing that keeps the Christians from boiling people in oil is the separation of church and state, and our commitment to maximum individual freedom. The story is never over, and we must be ever on guard for those who will take our freedom away from us, no matter what their reasons might be.

  165. “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” — Thomas Jefferson.

    Yes, he was a hypocrite, but aren’t we all?

    No matter how bad it seems, no one should ever forget that we have a damn good thing going in this country. The celestial probability tables dealt us a royal flush.

  166. @colm
    The birthrates of the Jews who do matter are not so great. The 'wrong' kind of Jews who add little to Israel's net worth are multiplying.

    Bullshit. Secular families here in Israel aim for 3-4 children, while Religious Zionists who are certainly not inferior in their contribution and abilities have even more children. It’s true that the Haredim have even more children, but they as well are going into the workforce and they’re not going to survive on welfare for much longer.

  167. @Jack D
    It's sort of a self selected group - the people there think of it as their ancestral homeland because only people who felt that way moved there in the first place. I understand on an intellectual level that Israel is supposed to be my ancestral homeland, but when freckled pale me visited and burned under the hot Middle Eastern sun, I didn't feel in my gut at all like I was "home" - it felt like a very alien place to me. The fact that it was "home" 2,000 years ago is a pretty distant connection. A lot of Europeans' ancestors, 2,000 years ago were somewhere out on the steppes of Asia but they don't feel connected to Kazakhstan. I WANTED to feel connected, the same way some people crave to be "born again", but the connection just didn't come. The bonds had been broken (or frayed to a few weak threads) literally thousands of years ago.

    When I visited E. Europe, despite the fact that the people who live there now are not "my people" (in fact many behaved abominably toward my people), still it felt more like home - the climate, the food (except the local love of pork in every conceivable form), the architecture, the landscape, everything felt more familiar to me than that alien sliver of the Middle East.

    Understandably Israel remains an exotic locale to many Ashkenazi Jews, who would feel more at home in Germany or Eastern Europe. I am wholly Ashkenazi myself, and if my great-grandfathers didn’t make their way to Palestine would probably feel more at home in Berlin than anywhere else. Zionism is a drastic, extreme movement, but when viewing the legacy of Judaism one can only conclude that Israel is the only place where we have much of a future. I may be biased, but factually this is the only place where we can continue to prosper and grow. For me, at least, the desert calls.

  168. @HA
    ”But, dear fellow, once one descends into that maze, where may the exit be found?”

    Wherever the analysis leads you. No one I know is saying that juncture is easily located, but diligently searching it out wherever it may be found is certainly saner than discarding every historical account which had inconsistencies and tall tales tacked on. By that reckoning, we lose Herodotus, Bede, and for that matter, every historical figure whose life was ‘dramatized into a novel, play, or movie.

    I’m not sure that there is anything left of Theseus or Zeus or Thor once all the embellishments have been stripped away -- if anyone claims that Zeus was once a king of Crete or anywhere else, well, it's news to me. As for Arthur, he seems to have been a conflation of at least two figures back before the telephone tag began and the chalices, swords and chivalry began creeping in. With regard to Abraham, I wouldn’t claim that what was written about him amounts to a notarized real estate filing – however much some wish to regard it that way – but I see no reason to claim he never existed, century-plus lifespans notwithstanding.

    Wherever the analysis leads you.

    Which is nowhere

    No one I know is saying that juncture is easily located, but diligently searching it out wherever it may be found

    People have done so.No one has been able to find any element of truth in the Patriarchal age.It’s as illusory as Aeneas voyaging to Italy.

    is certainly saner than discarding every historical account which had inconsistencies and tall tales tacked on.

    But we don’t know what was tacked on.You say that Abraham’s ludicrous age was tacked on.Why? Because it is obviously unreal.But plausible things can also be unreal.After all, there’s nothing impossible about a Trojan refugee sailing to Italy….

    By that reckoning, we lose Herodotus, Bede, and for that matter, every historical figure whose life was ‘dramatized into a novel, play, or movie.

    No one uses Herodotus as as source for the Bronze Age.Historians value him for what he tells us about the Persian Wars, conflicts which overlapped with his own lifetime (c. 484–425 BC).The same holds with Bede.Historians place greater reliability on the events that are closer to his own time.Genesis, in contrast, was written many centuries after Abraham’s alleged period.

    I’m not sure that there is anything left of Theseus or Zeus or Thor once all the embellishments have been stripped away —

    Quite a bit is left:Theseus, king of Bronze Age Athens, leader of a raid on Crete, etc.Mary Renault wrote two novels about the “historical” Theseus: The King Must Die and The Bull From the Sea

    if anyone claims that Zeus was once a king of Crete or anywhere else, well, it’s news to me.

    Euhemerus did.The man from whose name the term Euhemerism is derived:

    Euhemerism is a process whereby initial mythological accounts come to be treated as real historical events or historical personages; later accounts were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. It was named for its creator Euhemerus. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch’s Mythology, Euhemerism is called the “historical interpretation” of mythology.[1] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology and history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[2][3] However, Euhemerus is credited as considering history in his times to be mythology in disguise.[

    He claimed that Zeus was a king of Crete and that the deeds of the Olympians were just distorted accounts of actual historical events.

    As for Arthur, he seems to have been a conflation of at least two figures back before the telephone tag began and the chalices, swords and chivalry began creeping in.

    Which means that there was no “Arthur.”

    With regard to Abraham, I wouldn’t claim that what was written about him amounts to a notarized real estate filing – however much some wish to regard it that way – but I see no reason to claim he never existed, century-plus lifespans notwithstanding.

    Then I see no reason to claim that Aeneas never existed, divine birth notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @HA
    "People have done so.No one has been able to find any element of truth in the Patriarchal age.It’s as illusory as Aeneas voyaging to Italy."

    No one found any evidence of Troy either, right up until they found it. As the moderator has already noted, the story of Abraham has numerous details (often against the interests of those who want to honor him as a patriarch, or at the least exculpate him) that are clearly not the kind of literary fodder one finds in, say, Gilgamesh and the Illiad and the Mahabharata (and, for that matter, the story of the Garden of Eden).

    That ancient Jews would be able to come up with details like that is hard to square with the absence of anything similar being recorded around that time (or considerably after). When we find other such texts, I'll revise my opinion. Until then, that text itself (in the context of what others were recording contemporaneously) is plenty enough evidence that it was based on oral history as opposed to something intended primarily to be rousing good entertainment.

  169. @Jack D
    What it shows is how quickly history can be distorted into legend. Even 600 years after the time of Arthur, no one knew anymore whether he was real or not (keeping in mind that the Dark Ages were a particularly bad time for record keeping) - if you wait 600 years to write something down, the story is going to get changed a lot in the historical game of telephone as the knowledge passses from generation to generation, until what comes out may bear little resemblance to the original story. Magical elements get added - swords imbedded in stones, rocks that you strike and water gushes forth, etc. On the other hand, many Biblical authorities believe that the earliest writings in the Bible were written down right around the time of Moses so there was less of a gap. On the third hand, the Gospels were written down probably less than a century after the death of Jesus and already there are all sorts of magical embellishments. My guess is that in all three cases there really was a person (or maybe a couple of people - sometimes legendary figures get merged together, the way that characters in a biographical movie are often composites of several real people) who did some important stuff but over time as you retell the story around the campfire, more and more miraculous elements get added.

    On the other hand, many Biblical authorities believe that the earliest writings in the Bible were written down right around the time of Moses so there was less of a gap.

    Mainstream scholars don’t believe in the historicity of either Moses or of the Exodus.Furthermore, mainstream scholars don’t believe that the Pentateuchal narratives go back that far, either.Some scholars trace the “J” text of the Pentateuch the 1oth Century BC, most most nowadays would place it significantly later.

    On the third hand, the Gospels were written down probably less than a century after the death of Jesus and already there are all sorts of magical embellishments.

    Which shows how unreliable oral sources are.Mainstream scholars would argue that the only definite thing that we know about Jesus is that he was crucified.

    My guess is that in all three cases there really was a person (or maybe a couple of people – sometimes legendary figures get merged together, the way that characters in a biographical movie are often composites of several real people) who did some important stuff but over time as you retell the story around the campfire, more and more miraculous elements get added.

    Or maybe it’s all invented in the case of Moses and Abraham. I’ve mentioned the example of The Nibelungenlied before, but it seems on point here.Unlike the Pentateuch or The Iliad, we now the historical origins of The Nibelungenlied. The kernel of the tale is the destruction of the Kingdom of the Burgundians by Hun mercenaries working for the Roman general Flavius Aetius in AD 436-37.To this was added the fact that Attila, just prior to his death in AD 453 married a Germanic princess.

    Now, here are the main events in the Song of the Nibelungs: the Kingdom of the Burgundians is destroyed by Attila at the instigation of the widow of Siegfried.

    1.The chronology is scrambled.The marriage is made to occur before the downfall of the Burgundians, not after.

    2.Attila’s wife was not a Burgundian.

    3.Attila had nothing to do with the Fall of the Burgundians.

    4.Flavius Aetius is unmentioned.

    5.Siegfried, the legendary dragon-slayer, is shoehorned into the tale.

    6.Theodoric the Great is present at the wedding of Attila, despite the fact that he was born in AD 454…..

    7.Attila’s wife was not Siegfried’s widow.

    And I could go on.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    If you have ever read a news story concerning events of which you have personal knowledge, 9 times out of 10 (if not more) the reporters scramble up the facts in some way, despite the event having just occurred yesterday. So you can imagine how much things get scrambled after hundreds of years.

    Add to that the element of spin - in the past, Washington and Jefferson were the fathers of our country, now they are evil dead white male slave holders. The gospels were written at a time when it was clear that the Christians were going to get nowhere converting the Jews but were seeking converts among the Romans. Therefore, even though the Roman occupiers are the ones doing the crucifying, it gets spun that they were just going along with local wishes - because we know that Roman prefects always do whatever the locals ask.
  170. @syonredux

    Wherever the analysis leads you.
     
    Which is nowhere

    No one I know is saying that juncture is easily located, but diligently searching it out wherever it may be found
     
    People have done so.No one has been able to find any element of truth in the Patriarchal age.It's as illusory as Aeneas voyaging to Italy.

    is certainly saner than discarding every historical account which had inconsistencies and tall tales tacked on.
     
    But we don't know what was tacked on.You say that Abraham's ludicrous age was tacked on.Why? Because it is obviously unreal.But plausible things can also be unreal.After all, there's nothing impossible about a Trojan refugee sailing to Italy....

    By that reckoning, we lose Herodotus, Bede, and for that matter, every historical figure whose life was ‘dramatized into a novel, play, or movie.
     
    No one uses Herodotus as as source for the Bronze Age.Historians value him for what he tells us about the Persian Wars, conflicts which overlapped with his own lifetime (c. 484–425 BC).The same holds with Bede.Historians place greater reliability on the events that are closer to his own time.Genesis, in contrast, was written many centuries after Abraham's alleged period.

    I’m not sure that there is anything left of Theseus or Zeus or Thor once all the embellishments have been stripped away —
     
    Quite a bit is left:Theseus, king of Bronze Age Athens, leader of a raid on Crete, etc.Mary Renault wrote two novels about the "historical" Theseus: The King Must Die and The Bull From the Sea

    if anyone claims that Zeus was once a king of Crete or anywhere else, well, it’s news to me.
     
    Euhemerus did.The man from whose name the term Euhemerism is derived:

    Euhemerism is a process whereby initial mythological accounts come to be treated as real historical events or historical personages; later accounts were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. It was named for its creator Euhemerus. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.[1] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology and history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[2][3] However, Euhemerus is credited as considering history in his times to be mythology in disguise.[

     

    He claimed that Zeus was a king of Crete and that the deeds of the Olympians were just distorted accounts of actual historical events.

    As for Arthur, he seems to have been a conflation of at least two figures back before the telephone tag began and the chalices, swords and chivalry began creeping in.
     
    Which means that there was no "Arthur."

    With regard to Abraham, I wouldn’t claim that what was written about him amounts to a notarized real estate filing – however much some wish to regard it that way – but I see no reason to claim he never existed, century-plus lifespans notwithstanding.
     
    Then I see no reason to claim that Aeneas never existed, divine birth notwithstanding.

    “People have done so.No one has been able to find any element of truth in the Patriarchal age.It’s as illusory as Aeneas voyaging to Italy.”

    No one found any evidence of Troy either, right up until they found it. As the moderator has already noted, the story of Abraham has numerous details (often against the interests of those who want to honor him as a patriarch, or at the least exculpate him) that are clearly not the kind of literary fodder one finds in, say, Gilgamesh and the Illiad and the Mahabharata (and, for that matter, the story of the Garden of Eden).

    That ancient Jews would be able to come up with details like that is hard to square with the absence of anything similar being recorded around that time (or considerably after). When we find other such texts, I’ll revise my opinion. Until then, that text itself (in the context of what others were recording contemporaneously) is plenty enough evidence that it was based on oral history as opposed to something intended primarily to be rousing good entertainment.

  171. @syonredux

    On the other hand, many Biblical authorities believe that the earliest writings in the Bible were written down right around the time of Moses so there was less of a gap.
     
    Mainstream scholars don't believe in the historicity of either Moses or of the Exodus.Furthermore, mainstream scholars don't believe that the Pentateuchal narratives go back that far, either.Some scholars trace the "J" text of the Pentateuch the 1oth Century BC, most most nowadays would place it significantly later.

    On the third hand, the Gospels were written down probably less than a century after the death of Jesus and already there are all sorts of magical embellishments.
     
    Which shows how unreliable oral sources are.Mainstream scholars would argue that the only definite thing that we know about Jesus is that he was crucified.

    My guess is that in all three cases there really was a person (or maybe a couple of people – sometimes legendary figures get merged together, the way that characters in a biographical movie are often composites of several real people) who did some important stuff but over time as you retell the story around the campfire, more and more miraculous elements get added.
     
    Or maybe it's all invented in the case of Moses and Abraham. I've mentioned the example of The Nibelungenlied before, but it seems on point here.Unlike the Pentateuch or The Iliad, we now the historical origins of The Nibelungenlied. The kernel of the tale is the destruction of the Kingdom of the Burgundians by Hun mercenaries working for the Roman general Flavius Aetius in AD 436-37.To this was added the fact that Attila, just prior to his death in AD 453 married a Germanic princess.

    Now, here are the main events in the Song of the Nibelungs: the Kingdom of the Burgundians is destroyed by Attila at the instigation of the widow of Siegfried.

    1.The chronology is scrambled.The marriage is made to occur before the downfall of the Burgundians, not after.

    2.Attila's wife was not a Burgundian.

    3.Attila had nothing to do with the Fall of the Burgundians.

    4.Flavius Aetius is unmentioned.

    5.Siegfried, the legendary dragon-slayer, is shoehorned into the tale.

    6.Theodoric the Great is present at the wedding of Attila, despite the fact that he was born in AD 454.....

    7.Attila's wife was not Siegfried's widow.

    And I could go on.

    If you have ever read a news story concerning events of which you have personal knowledge, 9 times out of 10 (if not more) the reporters scramble up the facts in some way, despite the event having just occurred yesterday. So you can imagine how much things get scrambled after hundreds of years.

    Add to that the element of spin – in the past, Washington and Jefferson were the fathers of our country, now they are evil dead white male slave holders. The gospels were written at a time when it was clear that the Christians were going to get nowhere converting the Jews but were seeking converts among the Romans. Therefore, even though the Roman occupiers are the ones doing the crucifying, it gets spun that they were just going along with local wishes – because we know that Roman prefects always do whatever the locals ask.

  172. This thread is demented. Steve, you’re a film critic, one of the best. Surely we’ve added something…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS