October 4, 2007

"Don't mention The Lobby"

One of the funnier aspect of the furious denunciations of Mearsheimer and Walt's article and book on the power of The Israel Lobby is that professional ethnic activists all admire the consummate skill with which Jewish organizations wield their vast -- yet unmentionable -- power. (Well, to be precise, the lobbies mention how powerful they are all the time. But nobody else is supposed to mention it.)

Back in 2000, I interviewed Armenian, Arab, and Turkish lobbyists for a UPI article ("Arab and Armenian Immigrants Gain Clout") on how immigration was complicating American foreign policy by introducing new ethnic lobbies with ties to new Old Countries. Each of the Middle Eastern lobbyists expressed intense professional admiration for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. They all hoped to become AIPAC when their lobbies grew up.

Now, the NYT has an article on Asian Indians:

In Jews, Indian-Americans See a Role Model in Activism

By Neela Banerjee

When Anil Godhwani and his brother, Gautam, looked into creating a community center for Indian-Americans in Silicon Valley, they turned to the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco as a model.

When the Hindu American Foundation began, it looked to groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for guidance with its advocacy and lobbying efforts.

Indian-Americans, who now number 2.4 million in this country, are turning to American Jews as role models and partners in areas like establishing community centers, advocating on civil rights issues and lobbying Congress.

Indians often say they see a version of themselves and what they hope to be in the experience of Jews in American politics: a small minority that has succeeded in combating prejudice and building political clout.

Sanjay Puri, the chairman of the U.S. India Political Action Committee, said: “What the Jewish community has achieved politically is tremendous, and members of Congress definitely pay a lot of attention to issues that are important to them. We will use our own model to get to where we want, but we have used them as a benchmark.”

One instance of Indians following the example of Jews occurred last year when Indian-American groups, including associations of doctors and hotel owners, banded together with political activists to win passage of the United States-India Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Act, which allows New Delhi to buy fuel, reactors and other technology to expand its civilian nuclear program.

Pro-immigration Republicans are constantly surprised when new immigrant elites turn out to be liberal Democrats. For example, in September, the Wall Street Journal editorial page denounced "Political bias at America's biggest Spanish-language TV network." The sheer ingratitude of Univision, after all the WSJ editorial page had done to boost their profits by importing more viewers to watch Sabado Gigante!

But this pro-Democratic leaning among immigrant elites shouldn't surprise anybody, because all professional ethnics model themselves upon the two heavyweight champion ethnic lobbies, the blacks and the Jews, who both vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

35 comments:

John of London said...

Hi Steve
"all professional ethnics model themselves upon the two heavyweight champion ethnic lobbies, the blacks and the

Jews". First off, the Blacks are not just another ethnic group; racism against Black Americans is one of the

defining issues in the whole of American history. More surprising is your total ignoring of the real ethnic lobbies

in the US - namely White Roman or Orthodox Catholic immigrant natinalities. Why do you call Blacks and Jews

"ethnics" and not your fellow White Christians who campaign as groups? The Irish were of course the first and

probably most capable ethnic lobby, and the others tried to copy them. The Irish do appear to have had a unique

genius for working the american political system for group advantage, even the first generation immigrants. Other

groups had the additional hurdle of having to fight the Irish (often literally) for control of the local Democratic

party machine.This all makes an extraordinarily interesting story which you ignore in favour of boring politically-

correct sentimalisation of White immigration to the US.
This is related to how you ignore the phenomen of White group self-pity in the US. You frequently accuse Black

Americans of dwelling too much on little things like slavery, lynching, race riots, Jim Crow and racism in general,

but completely ignore what appears to me to be the widespread phenomenon in America of White Whining. This has two

branches: White Ethnic Whining and White Southern Whining. The White Ethnic narrative has two parts: first

oppression in the old country by some politically acceptable villains, such as British, Russians or Turks. This can

vary from substantially true to mainly false, but it doesn't matter because it's an article of faith. The second

part is completely false allegations of discrimination by "Protestants" (ie Americans). A recent example was how

Kerry thought he'd gain White Ethnic votes in the last election by saying "my English ancestors wouldn't give my

Irish ancestors jobs". I was surprised you didn't pick up on that, Steve: I'm guessing you weren't a Kerry

supporter.
Even more ridiculous, in fact deserving of some sort of Nobel Prize for self-pity, is the White Southern Whine. This

is pretty well described in your review of "American Outlaw". In addition, the whiners seem to regard any attempt by

the Federal Government to protect the democratic rights of Southern Blacks as oppression of Southern Whites. There is

a saying "history is written by the victors"; if only that were true of the Civil War!
So it seems that the only group of White Gentile Americans who don't go in for group self-pity is Northern

Protestants; but maybe they've got some whine I don't know about.

Mark said...

I have a childhood friend I went to school with for 12 years. His parents are Indian immigrants, but he was born and raised in the US. He grew up in white neighborhhoods, dated white girls, and attended the same overwhelmingly white schools that I did.

Then he went off to college - a college with a fairly substantial ethnic Indian component. Since that time he has gone ethnocentric, joining Indian professional and political interest groups and even allowing his parents to arrange his marriage - with a girl brought over from India.

To what extent my friend is the norm or the exception I do not know. All I know is that there seem to be a lot of these Indian political and professional organizations, and many (perhaps most) of their members are American born and raised.

Unlike blacks, Indians have never suffered overt discrimination in the US, and yet we see them forming these racially exclusive professional societies and lobbying for the purpose of advancing their ethnic interests. High levels of immigration by people from their own native land is one of their principal demands.

Whites, it goes without saying, could not do any such thing. Even if we could get away with it, most whites are so long removed from the lands of our ancestors that we have few if any ties to them and no sense of being anything other than "American."

But this is the future the diversity and cheap labor crowds have brought us: a future based on the presumption that a particular hypothesis - untested ever in the history of the world (except for the case of the Soviet Union, where it failed). We have staked the most important thing we have on it - our very nation. To make matters worse, the multiculti nuts have banned any evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

The particularly important thing about Indians is that, of all the non-white ethnic groups in the country, they are by far the closest to whites. Our assumption that every new group of immigrants will assimilate is based entirely on the white, European immigrant groups who made up most of the pre-1965 immigration. Differences between European ethnic groups can be pretty subtle, so the barriers were bound to come down. Indians are mostly of the same race as whites. If they can't assimilate, what does that say about everyone else?

Peewee said...

Armenians and other dark-looking nationalities are running away from being white as best they can. I had a friend who despite being of similar ethnic makeup as me had noticeably darker skin and only very reluctantly once admitted that he could not legally call himself nonwhite.

Anonymous said...

8008809024

It’s doubtful any lobby, especially foreign, can grow as powerful as the Israeli lobby is in the US. Countries like Taiwan and Saudi Arabia have powerful US lobbies, but are forever limited by size and declining importance relative to the PRC in the case of Taiwan and a culture and religion that is fundamentally at odds with the US, the West and especially Israel in the case of Saudi Arabia.

Of the world’s most influential countries with significant US immigration, Russia, China and India would be logical candidates to build powerful US lobbies. Russia is a mess, focused on internal problems and still something of a undemocratic competitor. China is queued up as the next superpower and threat to the US so any lobbying efforts are inherently limited. Only India stands a chance of successfully building a powerful US lobby.

Three factors limit the power of the Indian lobby, especially in comparison to the Israeli lobby. First, unlike Jews who are fascinated and strengthen by miscegenation usually along markers of education, wealth, power and status (beauty, family name, etc), Indians who out-marry often along the same markers have significantly diminished standing in the tribe. This is one of the unique characteristics of the Jews that have made them ever more powerful and successful throughout history. Second, Jews are unified by genetics, culture and religion while Indians are fragmented by genetics, culture (language, tribes, caste, etc) and religion.

Third, Jews are a much smaller group of more uniformly talented individuals with similar views on a wide range of issues in numbers that do not significantly diminish opportunities in the US for other tribal members. Americans have a much distorted view of the average Indian (and Chinese) based upon the elite of India that come to the West for education and go on to successful careers in medicine, high tech and finance. One of the main reasons the talented middle-class Indians leave home is because the relative lack of opportunity in a corrupt, inefficient socialist system that largely benefits the well-to-do born into powerful networks and the masses of low-skilled, low-IQ Indians.

David Davenport said...

Steve, will you post this? It’s a very good piece linked to from Instapundit:
( No, I’m not invariably a fan of Mr. Kaplan. Some of his stuff is too Neocon-ish for me. )

Modern Heroes
Our soldiers like what they do. They want our respect, not pity.

BY ROBERT D. KAPLAN
Thursday, October 4, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT


In particular, there is Fox News's occasional series on war heroes, whose apparent strangeness is a manifestation of the distance the media has traveled away from the nation-state in the intervening decades. Fox's war coverage is less right-wing than it is simply old-fashioned, antediluvian almost. Fox's commercial success may be less a factor of its ideological base than of something more primal: a yearning among a large segment of the public for a real national media once again--as opposed to an international one. Nationalism means patriotism, and patriotism requires heroes, not victims.




Rather than hated, like during Vietnam, now the troops are "loved." But the best units don't want love; they want respect. The dilemma is that the safer the administration keeps us at home, the more disconnected the citizenry is from its own military posted abroad. An army at war and a nation at the mall do not encounter each other except through the refractive medium of news and entertainment.
That medium is refractive because while the U.S. still has a national military, it no longer has a national media to quite the same extent. The media is increasingly representative of an international society, whose loyalty to a particular territory is more and more diluted. That international society has ideas to defend--ideas of universal justice--but little actual ground. And without ground to defend, it has little need of heroes. Thus, future news cycles will also be dominated by victims.

The media is but one example of the slow crumbling of the nation-state at the upper layers of the social crust--a process that because it is so gradual, is also deniable by those in the midst of it. It will take another event on the order of 9/11 or greater to change the direction we are headed. Contrary to popular belief, the events of 9/11--which are perceived as an isolated incident--did not fundamentally change our nation. They merely interrupted an ongoing trend toward the decay of nationalism and the devaluation of heroism.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010686

Anonymous said...

Indians proudly say they have one of the highest percaptia incomes in the US...yet they still complain about discrimination and want to practice identity politics.....seems whites are the only ones stupid enough to still be 'color blind' or willingly cede power - or, more accurately our leaders have...what more needs to be said eh?

Anonymous said...

This matter was discussed on a South Asian blog, Sepiamutiny, a few weeks ago.

The costs of lobbying
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004716.html

tommy said...

According to a July 2006 study of previous elections by the New Democratic Network, English-speaking Hispanics are more reliably Democratic, and "the movement towards Bush has come from the Spanish-dominant, as they have gone from 82%-18% Clinton-Dole in 1996 to 52%-48% Kerry-Bush."

That sounds bad. So what should Republicans do about this?

Republicans should counteract that by participating in [Spanish-speaking] Univision's debate, if only so they can speak over the heads of biased reporters and directly to the network's audience.

That'll win those English-speaking Hispanics over!

As a group, Latinos are more pro-life and more supportive of traditional family values than non-Hispanic whites, less likely to divorce and three times as likely to have started a business in the past decade. Given that all of these are strong Republican identifiers, GOP strategists are asking themselves why they vote so lopsidedly Democratic.

Things like lower divorce rates and the ability to mouth platitudes about family values don't mean much when weighed against incredibly high illegitimacy rates. The fact that Hispanics have been many times more likely than whites to start landscaping and cleaning companies, operate fruit stands, or start businesses catering to Spanish speakers over the past decade should surprise nobody. That the owners of small, low-skilled, conventional, cash-intensive businesses should be less attracted to and donate less to Republicans than the owners of larger, technical, innovative companies should surprise nobody as well.

Jewish Atheist said...

Are you kidding?

But this pro-Democratic leaning among immigrant elites shouldn't surprise anybody, because all professional ethnics model themselves upon the two heavyweight champion ethnic lobbies"

You don't think it has anything to do with how the Republican base despises and fears them? They're just mindlessly following the playbook of the Jews and the blacks?

Anonymous said...

That Don Francisco on Sabado Gigante is ageless. He looks the same as when I was learning Spanish 20 years ago at community college.

DYork said...

John Mearsheimer interview with Stephen Colbert:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/
the_colbert_report/videos/
most_recent/index.jhtml

Ron Guhname said...

For a conservative, this is an argument against all types of immigrants: high IQ, European, and legal, as well as low IQ, non-white, and illegal.

Greg said...

Jewish Atheist wrote:

"You don't think it has anything to do with how the Republican base despises and fears them? They're just mindlessly following the playbook of the Jews and the blacks?"

The Republican base is largely composed of whites, who in their sheer numbers, possess the power to turn off the immigration valve. However, they have not turned off the valve. Therefore, how can you claim that Republican base hates the very people they are letting in?

No one in the elite media seems to have heart strings for the "normal American", but I can say with certainty that the average American is decent and tries to do the "right" thing. As a business consultant I have seen this time and again. Much of the problem comes from immigration and ethnic interests undermining the sense of decency within the greater community.

As an example, I (a half-Jew no less!) recently concluded a consulting project for a business owned by Orthodox Jews and the differences between the office staff and and your average American were significant. The differences are so great that I do not see how it is possible for the Orthodox people to get along with anyone in greater society. The amount of ethnic favoritism and championing by the Orthodox staff was easily, and I sincerely mean this, easily ten times greater than in any office I have previously worked (at least 50 examples). It was sickening and the attitude of the workers was so opposite to many attitudes espoused by the average American. As an example, the words "f--- them" and "who cares" when referencing customers (of all faiths) was common as was failing to timely deliver after making the promise to do so. My experience is only a snapshot and may not be representative of the greater reality. Plus, the Rabbi's were the worst. Their attitude was disgusting: mean, snappy, and indifferent.

I love many Jewish people and my post is not a refutation of faith or any group. However, I find repulsive the notion that the average Republican is hateful. Instead, in my experience, it is the ethnics that are hateful and racist. I challenge anyone to prove differently.

Greg

Anonymous said...

Ron Guhname said...

For a conservative, this is an argument against all types of immigrants: high IQ, European, and legal, as well as low IQ, non-white, and illegal.


AMEN!

I don't know if the Jewish model would be one I would want to follow, the ADL et al have pissed off a LOT of people and the animosity is growing, as is increasing awareness of Jewish American influence on foreign policy which often runs counter to American interests. If all those families across the US who are receiving their sons in body bags knew the Iraq war was pushed by AIPAC.....I wouldn't want to be associated with anything remotely Israeli. Really Jewish America's relationship with America is the New World version of a sad story repeated in country after country - undue influence, awareness of that influence, conflict of interest, and conflict.

Secondly, Indians will not have the power of the Holocaust to shield them nor dominance (thus far) in the media - plenty of Indians work in journalism, but not nearly with the cohesiveness and frequency of Jews.

Third, if another group with 'positive' demographics starts lobbying not as Americans, but as their ethnic group, how long until whites finally get fed up? I know I am getting there.

Zarathustra said...

You don't think it has anything to do with how the Republican base despises and fears them? They're just mindlessly following the playbook of the Jews and the blacks?

And would you please care to show us where the GOP has showered hate upon South Asians? If you're going to throw out accusations of racism upon tens of millions of people whom you do not now, at least you could provide some evidence.

Michael Blowhard said...

If you type "Mearsheimer" and "Walt" into the YouTube search box you'll get a lot of hits.

Here's one good long interview with them.

Fred said...

Steve,

I've got to disagree with your conclusion on this one. Most Jews aren't Democrats because of Israel or AIPAC, they are Democrats because they are liberals. Hence you get liberal Jews like your pal Matt Yglesias who largely agree with W&M about AIPAC, but nevertheless vote Democrat.

To whatever extent that Indians are affiliating with the Democrats, it's probably for the same reason that white businessmen like John Mack of Morgan Stanley are migrating over to Hillary's camp: dissatisfaction with Republican governance. Nevertheless, when the GOP rights itself, I suspect you will find Indians becoming a reliable Republican constituency. Even today, the most prominent Indian-American politician, Bobby Jindal, is an Indian.

All ethnic minorities aren't the same. It doesn't make sense, from the standpoint of self-interest, for either Jews or Indians to vote Democratic: as high-achieving groups, neither will be beneficiaries of Democratic government largess. Liberal Jews know this, but are still happy to see benefits accrue to blacks and Latinos, due to notions they have about "social justice". I doubt Indians will feel as motivated to subsidize under-achieving blacks and Latinos.

"That Don Francisco on Sabado Gigante is ageless."

Incidentally, he happens to be a Jew. His father was a refugee from Germany who settled in Central America, I think. Had he settled here and gone into show business, he probably wouldn't have been as successful. Political correctness would have caused him to overestimate the taste of the Spanish-speaking audience.

Anonymous said...

John -- it may shock you, but political power is a zero sum game. The more a certain group has power, the less of it has another group. White ethnic (East Coast) groups such as Italians, Germans, Poles, Irish etc. formed big surprise ethnic power groups (and were solidly Democratic even before the Civil War). One of the legacies of Republicanism is "good governent" which aims explicitly to break up Tammany Hall style political machines.

This in and of itself GUARANTEES that any ethnic group rationally seeking to maximize it's own power will vote Democratic. Political power MATTERS because it's how ethnic groups extract money from the public for patronage jobs. Think the Black ladies at the DMV, who move at a glacier's pace. Or an Irish guy in the 1890's in a similar make-work job.

Ethnic Whites don't like the diminuation of political power, any more than Black people do in LA (where Mexicans have swept them from many offices). Black people don't like the reality of New Orleans -- a formerly Black city is rapidly becoming a Mexican one. As for Southern Whites, they rationally feared political payback for slavery and segregation. Dr. King's political genius was in recognizing that suburbia (de-facto segregation) allowed for Civil Rights presented in a non-threatening manner (allowing Whites to conclude they would not be politically "punished").

Steve -- Jews very likely will NOT be voting Democrat any longer. Blacks of course will (because of patronage and Affirmative Action). Jews face real and hard-core anti-Semitism among the Left which dominates the Democratic Party. Jews find in America, patriotism and nationalism as a shield and sword FOR THEM rather than against them (Barack Obama won't wear the flag pin in his lapel). Jews find Affirmative Action to be hurtful to their economic advancement, particularly middle-class Jews. Jews find themselves demonized by the Black and Latino factions of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile the Republican Party is committed to ending Affirmative Action, is opposed to anti-Semitism, and embraces patriotism and nationalism.

Jews largely vote Democratic out of habit, and are perceived to be uniformly Leftist given the amount of coverage of rich, upper-class, anti-Nationalist/anti-Patriot types who endorse "international identities" like George Soros or those who crave approval of same (Steven Spielberg). Meanwhile there has been a dramatic shift rightward towards Republicans. Most of the "conservative" Hollywood Republicans are Jews. Particularly when speaking of the younger actors, writers, directors, etc.

Interestingly, there has been a strong Southward drift of Jewish kids priced out of NorthEast schools by Affirmative Action and rising tuition costs. Emory, Tulane, Ole Miss, Georgia Tech, and Georgia have increasing numbers of New York - Northeast Jewish students seeking a bargain. As they mingle with more overtly religious Southern whites, and find acceptance (and intriguingly, mates) at schools like these, it's possible that we'll see a shift in Jewish votes to Republicans.

After all, which mayor of NYC escorted Yasser Arafat out of the Lincoln Center (to the fury of Bill Clinton)? Was that David Dinkins? Nope. Rudy. That RUDY is leading in some national polls among Republicans tells you it's not Pat Buchanon's party anymore, and hasn't been for decades.

Anonymous said...

You don't think it has anything to do with how the Republican base despises and fears them? They're just mindlessly following the playbook of the Jews and the blacks?

Sounds like JA is suffering from Philip Roth Syndrome: the delusion that the American Heartland is seething with barely restrained Kluxery and crypto-nazism.

I wonder how much more welcoming the traditional American majority would have to have been to satisfy a certain type of paranoid Jew? The main problem Jews seem to have had was with the elites of the Eastern establishment and their quotas and other exclusionary practices. Their descendants now share JA's bigoted attitudes that towards traditionalist whites.

Fred said...

"Even today, the most prominent Indian-American politician, Bobby Jindal, is an Indian."

Whoops. That last word should have been "Republican".

Ron Guhname said...

John: Steve, who is trying to explain current ethnic lobby formation, is right to focus on blacks and Jews. You look to the current scene, not Tammany Hall, to figure out what to do.

Jewish Atheist: Utah, the purest example of the Republican base that you speak of, adores Hispanics because Mormons believe American Indians are a chosen people. The otherwise hard-core conservative state almost passed a law granting the children of illegals in-state tuition. Both Senators Bennett and Hatch are part of the open borders crowd. So, does this theologically-based respect convince Hispanics that it is safe to vote Republican? No, they are majority Democrat in the most Republican state in the country. The we-don't-vote-for-you-because-you-don't-like-us story is bogus. Hispanics, or any other group, vote Democratic because they see some material advantage in it. Latinos see generous social programs and racial preferences.

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2007/05/only-stupid-people-believe-latinos-will.html

interval said...

That was a highly relevant anecdote about the Indian guy becoming more ethnocentric upon reaching adulthood. Interesting and not uncommon.

"Indians proudly say they have one of the highest percaptia incomes in the US...yet they still complain about discrimination and want to practice identity politics....."

So do many Jews. Minorities will employ ingroup strategies to generate political power as sure as the sun rises. So there should be no surprise. Financial success seems to erode Asian ingroup solidarity only slightly. I wonder if this might be rooted in Asian males difficulties in attracting white women (or other high status women) no matter how wealthy they may become.

If people are surprised by Indian ethno-activism it is likely out of ignorance of the long slow assimilation process of the great wave white ethnic immigrant communities. Also it is true that financial success seems to have drastically reduced ingroup solidarity among the various European tribes. But assimilating the Irish, Germans, Italians etc. was very difficult. Let's not be surprised by the ingroup strategies of the new immigrant groups. It is perfectly logical and expected.

The solution for the native population is an immigration timeout -- as has been done before several times in American history. Otherwise highly capable Asian and Latin ethnic "mafias" such as the Indians, Chinese and Cubans who emulate the Jews are going to force whites to circle the wagons. That point will be the "endgame" stage for the USA as we know it, as our entire ethno political system is based on the current bizarre historical aberration of mass white passivity - underneath which lurks a growing rage that is thinly suppressed by relative affluence.

Steve has described the tipping point nearly being reached in certain parts of the country as far as tax base goes. It's hard to digest, but, unfortunately, this is all actually happening on our watch. It's not just loose talk around the campfire anymore.

Yugoslavia was apparently civil through the 1984 Sarajevo Olympic era. Later people were astonished by the ferocity shown by previously polite neighbors.

tommy said...

Plus, the Rabbi's were the worst. Their attitude was disgusting: mean, snappy, and indifferent.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has noticed this kind of thing. Working at a call center for a cell phone provider during summers handling corporate and government accounts and providing worldwide service for traveling customers, I can tell you that some of my rudest callers have been people associated with yeshiva schools in the Northeast. Brusque doesn't begin to describe these creeps and they really work hard to live up to the cheap Jew stereotype. By way of contrast, I don't seem to have too many problems with secular Jews overseeing their companies telecom accounts. In fact, I've got some very nice commendations to supervisors from Jewish customers in the corporate sector in the NY/NJ/CT/PA area. Orthodox Jews are another story.

I had one yeshiva rep. who paid $15 per phone (plus shipping) so that he could mail his units directly to Motorola for repair. That was the only way he could get his obsolete phones fixed. These phones were cheap even when they were originally purchased and now they were several years old. Since his account type was government/education, he wasn't bound by any service agreement when purchasing new phones and he could have bought newer phones for as little as $0.99 a piece. I tried to make the guy understand he was just throwing money away by constantly fixing his old phones, but the cheap bastard couldn't seem to grasp the notion that buying new phones might really be cheaper in some cases than repairing old ones. He was stuck on stupid or at least stuck with some really stupid-looking old phones.

tommy said...

You don't think it has anything to do with how the Republican base despises and fears them?

It is odd that JA, a frequent visitor to this blog, cannot see that Republicans who even think much about race are a distinct minority. "Despising and fearing" is how I would describe liberal Jewish feelings toward Republicans. There seems to be a certain paranoia among liberals Jews over what the Republican base/white Southerners/whites living in the Midwest/religious fundamentalists (including pro-Israel evangelicals)/corn farmers in Nebraska/wheat farmers in Kansas might just be capable of if given the political opportunity. Pogroms and lynchings are assumed to be the best that Jews and nonwhites can expect if the WASP prevails. Gas chambers and the reinstitution of slavery might even be lurking around that dark corner. Thank God there is AIPAC, the ADL, and the SPLC to protect society from the fate evil Republicans have long desired for all those who fail to measure up racially.

Mr. Noah said...

So you think Jews are an ethnic group and not a religious group like Evangelicals?

hey steve said...

... it's possible that we'll see a shift in Jewish votes to Republicans ... Most of the "conservative" Hollywood Republicans are Jews.

Oh, no. Here it comes again. Every four years the Jews-will-vote-more-conservative meme appears. This BS meme is promoted by a wide cross-section of people who are a mix of naive and deceptive.

Jews vote 80-85% for the Left in every election. Actually, in 2004 I believe it was closer to 90%.

Jews may vote Republican someday, but only after the party moves far to the Left. A majority of diaspora Jews will never, ever vote for a true conservative. Jews as a group simply do not seek to conserve American traditions. They have made that very clear.

And Jewish "neo-conservatives" are pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-thought crime, pro-multiculturalism, pro-open borders, pro-Spanish language etc. etc. etc.

Jews as a group dream of a future America that is minority white, non-Christian and socialist. That is their goal. Could it be any clearer?

tommy said...

Sorry for the typos in my last two posts.

So you think Jews are an ethnic group and not a religious group like Evangelicals?

There are far more Jews who are Jews simply by virtue of having Jewish parents alone than there are people who were born to non-Jewish parents who became Jews by practicing Judaism. Everyone knows that Judaism discourages conversion. Rabbinic tradition even holds that potential converts should be discouraged three times before being accepted into the fold. I think ethnicity is a far better description of Jews overall than religion is.

Anonymous said...

Hindu Nationalists and many Indians are vehemently anti-Christian, as are many east european jews as evidenced by the ADL, ACLU, SPLC, ect. So I do see a natural alliance here. Jewish groups like the ADL have always tried to create the illusion that opposition to Christmas carols, trees, saying "merry christmas" (who could find this offensive!) came from a broad coalition when, if fact it was almost always just Jewish groups.

The KnickerBlogger said...

Small numbers of tightly knit ethnic groups - as long as they are well educated and industrious, seem to do better than the indigenous populations. The Parse in India, Jews in Europe and the US, Indians in the US, Chinese ...everywhere.... even seemingly similar peoples - the Scottish are and were disproportional represented in parliament, as Prime ministers and were the doctor/lawyer class in England.

Perhaps resisting assimilation is more an economic model than a cultural one? Or do they have an advantage, like a global corporation with no interest in the welfare of locals? For example, my fairly educated WASP family devotes much of its time and resources into money losing pursuits like natural and historic preservation. Obviously an immigrant family, generally speaking, did not move here to save the local species of warbler. If the assimilate, chances are they will start to take interest into the long term well being of an area. A migrant peoples, by definition will not.

Svigor said...

Three factors limit the power of the Indian lobby, especially in comparison to the Israeli lobby. First, unlike Jews who are fascinated and strengthen by miscegenation usually along markers of education, wealth, power and status (beauty, family name, etc), Indians who out-marry often along the same markers have significantly diminished standing in the tribe. This is one of the unique characteristics of the Jews that have made them ever more powerful and successful throughout history. Second, Jews are unified by genetics, culture and religion while Indians are fragmented by genetics, culture (language, tribes, caste, etc) and religion.


The jewish fascination with miscegenation is in promoting it for whites. The jewish fascination with outmarriage is in putting a stop to it within the tribe.

Maybe you have some genetic data I haven't seen? Everything I've seen shows jewish populations throughout the world are more similar to one another than to their host populations, even after thousands of years of separation. That seems to me like the opposite of a fascination with miscegenation.

As far as I know, in a historical sense the only people jews have pursued for conversion have been the highly exceptional (generally the very wealthy).

Mark said...

The jewish fascination with miscegenation is in promoting it for whites. The jewish fascination with outmarriage is in putting a stop to it within the tribe.

A few years ago, Alan Dershowitz came out with a book lamenting the high rate of Jewish intermarriage and calling for Jews to start marrying each other. So far as I know, he suffered no crticism for suggesting such a thing.

On the other hand, can you imagine all the grief that Rush Limbaugh would get if he suggested whites marry only whites?

The fact is, Judaism is not a proselyting religion, and has no desire to be a proselyting religion. It is an ethnic group masquerading as a religion. If the members of a white, Christian church were as unwelcoming to potential converts of different ethnicity as Jews are it would lose its tax exempt status and the members would be decried as white nationalists.

Personally, I'm glad Jews can get away with it. I just wish that we could, too. It's not their behavior I resent - it's the double standard.

David said...

hey steve wrote:

Oh, no. Here it comes again. Every four years the Jews-will-vote-more-conservative meme appears. This BS meme is promoted by a wide cross-section of people who are a mix of naive and deceptive.

But this meme could be true, depending on what "conservative" means.

If "conservative" means Fox News/Limbaugh/neocon - i.e., bombastic support of wars for Israel overseas, plutocracy-promotion at home, and adopting the former "liberal" line on everything else - then yes indeed: Jews will vote "conservative" in ever-greater numbers.

They are already doing so. The current conservative movement is tremendously Trotskyite. Here for an analysis at Taki.

Vote Ron Paul! :)

Anonymous said...

Ethnic networking, positions in academia, over representation at ivy league universities, contributions to political campaigns, religious exemption from intermarrying with lower IQ ethnic groups, control of the media and control of the Federal Reserve Bank help the lobby in ways the Indians won't match. There is a healthy ethnocentrism among the Indians and Chinese but it doesn't rise to the same fanatic levels.

Hindu Convert said...

Mark said,

Unlike blacks, Indians have never suffered overt discrimination in the US, and yet we see them forming these racially exclusive professional societies and lobbying for the purpose of advancing their ethnic interests. High levels of immigration by people from their own native land is one of their principal demands.

Whites, it goes without saying, could not do any such thing. Even if we could get away with it, most whites are so long removed from the lands of our ancestors that we have few if any ties to them and no sense of being anything other than "American."

But this is the future the diversity and cheap labor crowds have brought us: a future based on the presumption that a particular hypothesis - untested ever in the history of the world (except for the case of the Soviet Union, where it failed). We have staked the most important thing we have on it - our very nation. To make matters worse, the multiculti nuts have banned any evidence that contradicts their hypothesis.

The particularly important thing about Indians is that, of all the non-white ethnic groups in the country, they are by far the closest to whites. Our assumption that every new group of immigrants will assimilate is based entirely on the white, European immigrant groups who made up most of the pre-1965 immigration. Differences between European ethnic groups can be pretty subtle, so the barriers were bound to come down. Indians are mostly of the same race as whites. If they can't assimilate, what does that say about everyone else?

-----------

Perhaps I can explain. I'm not Indian but I might as well be in a sense. I'm a convert to Hinduism and have spent considerable time in South Asia.

South Asian religions, cultures and traditions set Indians apart from from mainstream White Americans who still largely identify with Christianity, if not religiously, at least culturally.

I don't know about politics but socially in the States, Christians still perceive themselves as controlling the cultural narrative.

Heck, I was born and raised here and I find this disconcerting and difficult to relate to.

Of course Indians should hold on to their great cultural traditions and customs (including arranged marriage if they so chose). "Assimilation" means learning the language (they already speak English in India anyway), working, paying taxes and not committing crimes.

Beyond that, their ancient Indian religions, traditions and customs should be continued.

Not only does it provide them with culture, it provided me with a cultural alternative that I am so grateful at having been introduced to.

I hope more and more Indians share their great cultures and traditions with the world.

Hindu Convert said...

Mark, I forgot to mention, if we White Americans reconnect with our pre-Christian indigenous root than we can also lobby. Unfortunately so much of traditional European religions and customs had been wiped out by Christianity that we can't even piece the broken bits together.

That's one reason I converted to Hinduism. Had my family retained their pre-Christian European religion and culture then I would not have had to.

But we white Euro folks WILLINGLY sold out our religions and cultures to a foreign one and now we're going to complain that we can't lobby like Hindus and Jews can?

We should have thought of that before we supplanted our natural, indigenous ways with foreign fabricated ones.

Anyway, at least now we can convert to Hinduism and Buddhism to make up for it.