June 2, 2013

Djoe Unchained: VP Biden apparently a "Larry Sanders" fan

The "D" is silent; I'm not.
Garry Shandling's 1990s HBO sitcom The Larry Sanders Show about a neurotic late night talk show host and his staff who keep him semi-functional offered this insight into contemporary cultural power, as summarized in a 1998 Los Angeles Times article: 
[Producer] Artie chews out [writer] Phil after his repeated homophobic jokes prompt a gay assistant (Scott Thompson) to hit the show with a sexual harassment lawsuit. “You know who runs this town?” Artie growls at Phil. 
“The Jews?” Phil says. 
“No,” Artie retorts. “The gay Jews.”

(The LA Times' recollection of Phil's reply that sets up Artie's retort is a little different from mine, which is that Phil replied something like: "The Jews, of course" without a question mark. If there was anything quizzical about how Phil responded, it would have been his implication: "Why are you bothering to ask me a question, Artie, that obviously I know the answer to?")

From Politico:
Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage'

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 5/21/13 8:18 PM EDT 
Vice President Joe Biden spoke at length Tuesday night about the influence of Judaism on the United States, dating back to the country's founding and to the present day as Jews helped shape views on gay rights. 
... "No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.” 
Biden spoke for nearly 20 minutes at the American Institute of Architects building in Washington, at times improvising after asking that the teleprompter machine that had been set up in the event space be taken down.

Djoe Unchained!
... “The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements. 
... “I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” he said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.” 
“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage, Biden said. 
“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry.

(Here's Joel Stein's 2008 column in the Los Angeles Times "How Jewish Is Hollywood?" giving demographic numbers on the ethnicity of studio bosses. And here's Ben Stein's essay on the same subject from 1996. A casual reading of the two Steins' articles would suggest that the top jobs in Hollywood became more monolithically Jewish from 1996 to 2008, but of course the actual trend, whatever it is, should be researched in greater depth by ... by ... uh, by some  careful social scientist who is independently wealthy and who never eats lunch.)
"The influence is immense, the influence is immense.

Fortunately for Joe's post-VP career prospects, he can not only talk himself into trouble, but, since he never shuts up, he can also talk himself out of trouble as well:
"And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said. 

In other news, former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez now has found a variety of part-time jobs after merely a couple of years or so of unemployment.

87 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shades of Michael Ovitz

Anonymous said...

American morality changed by sitcoms.

Triumph of Reason!

Hunsdon said...

NAJALT. There's, umm, Paul Gottfried, and then there's . . . wait, no. There's Paul Gottfried and then there's . . . umm.

There's Paul Gottfried.

Anonymous said...

"There's, umm, Paul Gottfried, and then there's . ."

Robert Weissberg.

Anonymous said...

Biden knows who runs Hollywood because he's had to raise a lot of campaign funds during his career, not because he watches obscure cable shows.

Hunsdon said...

A more reasoned response. This, ladies and gentlemen, lies at the root of my "anti-semitism."

I do not object to Jewish over-representation in the media, in law, in the FIRE economy, and in government, per se. A skilled people, a clever people, a smart people. If they're that good (ok, I have my doubts), then let the cream rise to the top.

It's the tikkun olam thing: heal the world, according to their lights. By world standards, America was always a pretty decent place. By world historical standards, America pretty much always kicked ass in terms of being a good place to live.

But it seems that Jews looked at America and thought it needed change, and not just change, but radical change. Gay marriage! Driving Christianity from the public square! (As if America was a theocracy, as if the GOP was the "Taliban wing of American politics.") Affirmative action! (Always, somehow, excluding recognizing Jews as a classifiable category, just lumping them under "plain ol' gringo-type American whites.") Ruinous wars in the Middle East, fought with a combination of far too much savagery and, simultaneously, not nearly enough savagery!

Quick, name me five prominent Jewish politicians or pundits who are opposed to mass immigration and gay marriage.

Wait, I shouldn't have said, "quick." Take your time.

Quick, name me five prominent Jewish politicians or pundits who have served in the US military.

I'll tell you what, I'll spot you Michael Ledeen on the second, and Paul Gottfried on the first, so name me four in answer to either of the foregoing. (Michael Ledeen has two sons serving, the last I recall, as officers in the USMC.)

For objecting to these radical, radical changes, made to the country of my birth without much, if any, role for the people to comment, approve or reject said aforementioned changes, I am denounced as anti-semitic, as a Nazi, I must suffer from the (age old) irrational, baseless hatred of the Jews.

As I mentioned recently, I think "tikkun olam" is Hebrew for "jihad."

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 5:14 PM said: Robert Weissberg.

Hunsdon said: Thanks. Purged as well, wasn't he?

Anonymous said...

Very OT:

I watched a Pacers vs. Heat playoff game last night. I'm not a fan at all, just came upon it by accident. At the end they interviewed Roy Hibbert. He was surprisingly articulate. Modest, even. Said, among other things, that it was his father's birthday and pointed to his actual dad in the stands. Hmm... So I just looked him up in the Wikipedia.

"Roy Hibbert was born in Queens, New York to Roy, Sr. and Patty Hibbert. His father is originally from Jamaica and his mother from Trinidad."

That almost NEVER fails. No Caribbean accent since he was born here, but it still shows.

Cail Corishev said...

Is there some way we could take up a collection to pay Biden to just keep talking and talking and talking? Some wealthy conservative should offer to set him up with his own 3-hour talk radio show.

Luke Lea said...

Meanwhile, in the Onion: Family Worried as McCain Wanders into Syria

Anonymous said...

"There's, umm, Paul Gottfried, and then there's . ."

the late Lawrence Auster and Prof. Jonathan Katz (Washington University)

Anonymous said...

"Quick, name me five prominent Jewish politicians or pundits who have served in the US military.

I'll tell you what, I'll spot you Michael Ledeen on the second, and Paul Gottfried on the first, so name me four in answer to either of the foregoing. (Michael Ledeen has two sons serving, the last I recall, as officers in the USMC.)"

In the past three decades Hollywood produced a number of World War Two- themed movies based on heroic ethnic groups from the Navaho (Windtalkers,)to African Americans (two Tuskegee Airmen films, Miracle at St. Anna.) All faced not just enemies abroad but unspeakable bigotry from their own countrymen!

Curiously, when you don't count Inglorious Basterds, there has yet to be a film made about the extraordinary measures Jewish Americans took to rescue their European cousins.

Daybreaker said...

But Rick Sanchez is going to bounce back, just as soon as the Hispanic Mafia proves its power.

Remember, this is a system of pluralism. That means that demolishing individual rights and the WASP establishment created true democracy by enabling the rise of plural ethnic establishments that balance each other. If you don't get the truth of that, you don't understand why the whole system is just and democratic.

Whiskey said...

Benjamin P. Judah certainly doesn't stand in History as a Jew who was hooray for immigration. Or Hollywood.

And yeah, Michael Ovitz, a Jew, was defenstrated by the Lavender Mafia, quite a few of whom are non Jews. Like, or former WB head Garth Ancier.

The real influence in Hollywood follows the money. These days, foreign rights sales particularly in CHINA influence storylines heavily, such as the remake of Red Dawn. Where the Chinese villains were replaced by North Koreans. Or ME money from the Gulf made jihadi/terrorist villains a non-starter.

As for the "most" influence in Hollywood, if you look at hours shown/eyeballs seeing, that would be TV. Which dominates movies, in terms of how many people see things and how powerful the impact is, week after week, and where the money is: a show like Big Bang Theory can make over a billion in revenues for a quite modest cost.

And there, the Harvard Mafia is more powerful than Ari Emmanuel. If you want to know what is wrong with America's culture, look to TV, and look to Harvard dominating everything from the Simpsons to SNL to your average sitcom.

The most important people in Hollywood are the proven showrunners, who can launch show after show after show. Followed by the people they hire to write the stuff. Which in practice comes down to Harvard people.

Inane Rambler said...

My beef with many Jews isn't their politics, while I oppose them I'm more live and let live.

What annoys me the most is their insistence that they're not white.

Sure, give me a Sephardi Jew and tell me he's not white, I'll go with it. But if he looks indistinguishable from Germanic/Anglo whites, he's white. The David Sirota's of the world and their persecution complexes are tiresome.

Mr. Anon said...

"No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.”

Given that some jews introduced into this country a crass huckersterism and vituperative argumentativeness characteristic of their ethnic group, I can see where Biden feels a debt to them.

"Djoe Unchained!"

Djoe......pronounced "Doh!"



"That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.” “It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage, Biden said."

I hope all those liberal soccer moms remember that when they find out that their sons have become rent-boys for wealthy homosexuals.

Harry Baldwin said...

the late Lawrence Auster and Prof. Jonathan Katz (Washington University)

Auster would have been the first to tell you that he was marginalized. Not at all prominent. Not a single media outlet other than his website after he was expunged from Horowitz's site Front Page.

Jewish talk show hosts Michael Savage and Mark Levin oppose the immigration bill. BTW Horowitz also opposes it.

Harry Baldwin said...

Biden should remember to add "Just sayin'" after every major utterance. I understand that provides indemnity.

New York New York said...

Steve,

Gay man here. Have always lived on the East Coast, and my two cents...

Gays and Jews have had a strained relationship. But now, as you have noted, gays have been granted a most favored minority status, supplanting blacks, since we are the shock troops of gentrification and bring in better cuisine than Mixtec drywallers.

Gays who have any sort of historical memory longer than the last summer at Herring Cove (so, precious few, but still...) remember the 1980s, when the New York Times viewed HIV as beneath notice because it was assumed to be a homosexual's disease (which is true); it wasn't really until the early 1990s that they were running stories on it. In the 1980s, the Jews had just recently succeeded in pushing the WASPs off the society pages and the editorial board, and had run many of the other white ethnic reporters out -- because, by then, all the cub reporters had to be properly credentialed (i.e., Ivy League) and connected, so all the street-savvy Italians and Irish, who had worked their way up from covering crime or the labor beat, were retiring, and their replacements were being overlooked in favor of 1500+ SAT scorers.

So the Times would not cover the HIV story because they were too busy congratulating themselves over having finally made it AND there was an aversion to anything that seemed to humanize homosexuality; they were afraid of homosexuals, because of the fantasies of power and leather etc., it smacked of a pagan fascism, death worship.

The East Coast fashion and art world is, unsurprisingly, full of gay men. Historically, the Jews controlled the garment workers union and the production side of mass fashion (at least until the 1970s, when it moved South and then overseas in the late 1990s), as well as the very high-end galleries and art criticism, but many of the actual designers and artists were homosexuals and did (unironically!) have a taste for the Aryan aesthetic...so you can imagine there is some amount of tension.

Another note, Larry Kramer pissed off his brother Arthur Kramer (of power litigators Kramer Levin) because Larry (who, importantly, acknowledges his homosexuality BEFORE his Judaism), was given to comparing AIDS to a Holocaust, a deliberate genocide (see his 1989 work, Reports from the Holocaust). Arthur Kramer and many Jewish pundits went ballistic.

This is pieced together from conversations and reading -- I didn't live it, having been born in the late 80s, but it's true.

Harry Baldwin said...

It's a shame Leslie Nielsen died before he could play Joe Biden.

Daybreaker said...

Inane Rambler: "What annoys me the most is their insistence that they're not white."

Is the conquest of Palestine a white and thus colonialist project, or is it the return of a native Middle Eastern people to its own home and thus not colonialist and legitimate?

There's no way out. You have to answer that question. Jews have been very active in making white rule illegitimate, so you can't say, "sure Jews are white, but Jewish rule in Palestine is legitimate anyway". For Jewish supremacy in Palestine to be legitimate, Jewish have to be non-white.

I accept that they are.

Do you? Are you questioning Israel's legitimacy and right to exist? If so, where do you live and who employs you; they should know about your unacceptable views etc....

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 6:44 PM said: the late Lawrence Auster and Prof. Jonathan Katz (Washington University)

Hunsdon said: the late "they're not Jews they're leftists" Lawrence Auster? the late "unprincipled exception" Lawrence Auster? Prof. Katz seems opposed to gay marriage. Can you give me a cite on his opposition to immigration? (I'm mixing my two posts somewhat, but there you go!)

FleshEatingMonkey said...

What "conservatives" need now is to realize we've lost.

And to start sowing the seeds--culturally, socially, politically-- for what we need to do next--split the country.

We can't convert these folks. But we must refuse to be their slaves, and demand a place where white gentiles can just live as ... white gentiles.

Our patch of turf will have a border. We'll have traditional Christian marriage practices and relations between the sexes. We'll have traditional western\Anglo-Saxon notions of fairness, law, and freedoms. Including the now lost freedom of association. Most of all we'll have a border.

The Democrats--Jews, blacks, muslimsl, single moms, illegal immigrants--can have their country, i expect it's most of the country. But ... they don't get to live off of us. (Boring straight white guys.) And we'll see which place prospers.

Anonymous said...

Litmus test: Whether the video of the speech makes it to Youtube and stays there.

I bet that it does not.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

Triumph of the Will and Grace.

Anonymous said...

So the lesson is if you are complimenting jews for using their inordinate power and influence to do what you (and the jew-enforced elite opinion) believe is good, then that's NOT anti-Semitism. Got it.

FWG said...

Anonymous at 5:38,

Hibbert was later lambasted over his comments later in the evening.

VFW vet said...

There are many Jewish veterans, many of them KIA, buried at Arlington cemetery, and other military cemeteries across this country. Very few, if any, of the anti-Semitic
commenters on this site will qualify to be buried there, any more than Joe Biden will be so qualified, or would be so qualified if given the opportunity over and over again.
And, by the way, sarcastic use of the term "Scotch-Irish" does not hurt anybody's feelings, as much as the Jew-hater crowd would like to think differently. I could list a hundred people of the Scotch or Irish heritage (in the non-sarcastic sense -and, by the way, real Scots and real Irish usually don't care much for each other ) who have harmed this country to an immense degree.

Anonymous said...

Mickey Kaus is a good jewish guy when it comes to immigration. He puts the interests of the mass of flyover goyim (i.e. his country) over that of his tribe. As for his view on gay marriage, I don't care.

Anonymous said...

Katz is opposed to the cult of diversity. I don't think he has weighed in on immigration (website is not updated often), but the cult of diversity is one of the drivers of immigration reform.

Anonymous said...

Steven Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies deserves a place on the list.

Dave Pinsen said...

"Mickey Kaus is a good jewish guy when it comes to immigration."

Also David Frum, Stephen Steinlight, Sarah Epstein, Daniel Stein, etc.

As for who made gay marriage happen, a couple of thoughts. This piece by Brandon O'Neil is worth reading, "Congratulations, gay marriage campaigners – you have completely destroyed the meaning of social progress", but he elides a key point: public opinion (in the US at least) has started to swing in favor of gay marriage too, recently. If the answer is the actions of gays and Jews in Hollywood, it's an incomplete one, since Hollywood wasn't any less Jewish a few years ago.

I think gay marriage has sort of been the capstone of a PR makeover of sorts by gays over the last few decades. A commenter above mentions the 1980s and AIDS. As I noted in a Disqus comment a few months back, the confrontational, transgressive tacks taken by gay activists in the 1980s were pretty much the opposite of what led to the widespread acceptance of homosexuality in recent years, to the point where gay marriage became a thing. And as I noted there, I think it was Queer Eye For The Straight Guy that helped boost the image of gays among the masses. Will & Grace was preaching to the choir.

preempt said...

In case anyone wondered, the Ben Stein op-ed isn't taken from his occasional "Monday Night at Morton's" series formerly hosted by E, this was from some special one-off thing not carried over to the new site when they overhauled eonline.com post-Disney in 2006. Thus the text only survives among a mere 500,000 different links to WN, jihadi, or general-tinfoil sites eagerly mirroring it; Steve naturally went with the tinfoil source.

Harry Baldwin said...

Hunsdon said: the late "they're not Jews they're leftists" Lawrence Auster? the late "unprincipled exception" Lawrence Auster?

I can't make sense of this comment. Are you saying that Lawrence Auster, author of the seminal anti-immigration tract "The Path to National Suicide," was squishy on the immigration question? Or are we now talking about some other question?

Steve Sailer said...

"Steve naturally went with the tinfoil source."

It's by Ben Stein -- I remember reading the original.

Anonymous said...

What annoys me the most is their insistence that they're not white.

That annoys you more than the claim that they are white? For example, it is asserted they are white, in order to avoid being classed in a separate racial category for affirmative action/racial representative purposes. (Better to enjoy the largest quota.)

Non-white for purposes of claiming rights in a coveted piece of real estate in western Asia. White for purposes of claiming rights in the U.S. academy and economy.

As always, the key question in describing the word is, Is it good for the Jews?

Anonymous said...

"There's, umm, Paul Gottfried, and then there's . ."

Steve Sailer. Sailer is a Righteous Jew.

Anonymous said...

You can almost summarize Biden's speech by this quote from Charles De Gaulle:"Jews remain what they have been at all times: an elite people, self-confident and domineering"

BrokenSymmetry said...

"... "No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.” "

Didn't Bilbo Bagggins say this at his birthday party?

Anonymous said...

I've always said: the WASP establishment fucked up.

They should have done away with ancestral and class privileges to the Ivy League much, much sooner.

What happened was that the vast majority of bright WASPs came up towards university with most Jews.

The WASP establishment never went away, it just changed colors, became more meritocratic.

But it is still, fundamentally, serving an agenda made for another people.

America has been persuing a policy based on the preferences of 2% or so of the population these past 50 years.

The fundamental flaw with this conversation is that it should have been had 50 years ago, but WASPs are whimpy. Their natural state is appeasement, which Hitler understood very well exploited for his own sake. Well, more people than him understands this fundamental truth. WASPs always try to appease as a first reflex.

Make it a gag reflex and you got yourself a winning system.

P.S. Nixon knew what was going on, judging from the transcript coming from the white house, but that he was powerless to do anything is a testament that true power in a democracy lies in the media.

WASPs still don't understand that. Want to change the direction of the country? Focus all your efforts on maximizing your media influence. Politics will follow.

Anonymous said...

"You can almost summarize Biden's speech by this quote from Charles De Gaulle:"Jews remain what they have been at all times: an elite people, self-confident and domineering"


Really? So Jews, who have been ultra-Orthodox for most of the past 4000 years and been enslaved and butchered in a Holocaust have "always been an elite people"?

This is a very new phenomenom and happened only due to the Haskalah, namely the explicit abandonment of Jewish tradition(which is Orthodox at it's core) in favour of white gentile secularism and englightenment.

The result has been a demographic wipeout due to intermarriage and very low birth rates in Western countries.

The only Jewish demographics that are growing today are either non-white, low-performing Jews like the Arab Jews(Mizrahi) or the ultra-Orthodox, once again, in places like Jerusalmen or New York/London.

Also, de Gaulle's statement is problematic precisely because it is fatalistic, aside from the historical inaccuracy(which is really epic).

Just because that was the situation when he said it didn't mean it was always the case, which a quick cursory look would reveal. Nor that it would always be such.

De Gaulle and other Western elites are weak. That is the problem. When you are weak, everyone else is strong.

We can litigate all day who did what, but fundamentally, if you are weak you are inviting attacks. It's not fair but who said life was? De Gaulle wasn't forced to open France to mass immigration nor any of his successors. But they did. And they should've taken responsibility for that. But they didn't and they won't.

Anonymous said...

"There are many Jewish veterans, many of them KIA, buried at Arlington cemetery, and other military cemeteries across this country."

Jews were overrepresented among the WWII vets, which is an honorable thing, but also not very hard to understand why that was the case.

Less a matter of patriotism and more a matter of self-interest(Hitler, duh).

In every war since then, you've been underrepresented. Personally, I wouldn't have supported going into say, Vietnam or Iraq for that matter.

But let's take Iraq. Who were the driving force of that war? The neoconservatives. And who controls that movement and what is their primary concern? Israel.

Remember the PNAC letter in the 1990 when it took up the issue from Syria, to Iraq to Iran. It openly admitted that Israel was a big part of the reasoning behind why they were pushing for those wars.

You have no moral authority on this issue. When American blood is spilled it is disproportionally white European blood. Not your tribe. But when it comes to chickenhawks, your tribe takes 1st, 2nd and 3rd place and then some.

In time, we'll sort these issues out. But first we gotta stop all these senseless wars.

Anonymous said...

The problems with wealthy WASPs is that they're lazy, weak, fragile, given to perversion, addicted to drugs and alcohol, and feminized. So they were easily pushed aside by hungrier and more ruthless groups.

Read this article from Vdare about what WASPs are really like.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/report-from-newport-american-wasps-dispossessed-degenerate-or-both

Mr. Anon said...

"Harry Baldwin said...

It's a shame Leslie Nielsen died before he could play Joe Biden."

James Caan is still available for the role. I don't think that Caan is stupid, but he can play stupid, and he kinda looks like Biden.

Anonymous said...

Add Byron Roth, author of The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature; Edwin S. Rubenstein, regular contributor at VDare; as well as Nicholas Stix to the Gottfried List.

Hunsdon said...

Harry Baldwin asked: Are you saying that Lawrence Auster, author of the seminal anti-immigration tract "The Path to National Suicide," was squishy on the immigration question? Or are we now talking about some other question?

Hunsdon said: I grant you Auster on immigration. (Happily.) However, Auster was quite defensive of Jews, and that's where the "they're not Jews they're leftists" thing came from. If I'm wrong about him, I'll cop to it.

However, bringing up Auster raises the "how many bad apples is enough?" issue. He sure seemed to have written off blacks, and the presence of a Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly or Thomas Sowell cut no ice with him.

VFW vet said: Very few, if any, of the anti-Semitic
commenters on this site will qualify to be buried (in a military cemetery).

Hunsdon said: I'm qualified.

VFW vet said: And, by the way, sarcastic use of the term "Scotch-Irish" does not hurt anybody's feelings, as much as the Jew-hater crowd would like to think differently.

Hunsdon said: IIRC the use of the term "Scotch-Irish" arose simply as code for the tribe. And I notice you bring out the "Jew-hater" guns right away. Objecting to a new elite transforming my country in radical ways MUST mean I'm a "Jew-hater."

Also, the Scotch-Irish are an actual group---Scots who were resettled in Ireland during James VI/I's reign.

Your argument seems to be: "They didn't do it, lots of other groups do it to, you're a hater for noticing that they do it."

And if we want to talk about wars, we can wonder just how closely PNAC tracks A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

Anonymous said...

New York New York, you're leaving out one very important part of the turn in journalism in the late 70s: said 1500-SAT cub reporters were also the children of privilege who could eschew the meager salary at the Podunk Post to spend 3 years as an unpaid intern at a major daily.

Spending four years as a token (scholarship) goy at the school with (at the time, early 80s) the only accredited journalism program in New England, I met enough of these entitled spawn to form my General Theory of Journalistic Relativity: if you're a wealthy East Coast Jew and your kid is brilliant, you send him to Harvard or Yale to be a doctor or lawyer; if they're not so smart, you send them to journalism school.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, I don't like the idea of a politician boosting one particular ethnic group in America over others. Rather flies in the face of the 'equality' meme that has been *the* dominating political zeitgeist of recent times.
Secondly, surely it is the descendants of the British old colonial stock, the founders of the USA, the people who first conquered and settled that territory, who gave it its laws its government, its culture, everything in short the 'motherland' of the USA, (here the term is truly applied, it is simply ridiculous to call Britain the 'motherland' of India), who should be described as the 'heart and soul' of the USA

Anonymous said...

American Jewish service in World War 1:
"The number of Jews who served in the American military during World War I was disproportionate to their representation in the American population at large. The 250,000 Jews who served represented approximately 5% of the American armed forces whereas Jews only constituted 3% of the general population."(via WIKIPEDIA)

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

De Gaulle and other Western elites are weak. That is the problem. When you are weak, everyone else is strong."

Sounds like the position of a domineering elite.

Svigor said...

There are many Jewish veterans, many of them KIA, buried at Arlington cemetery, and other military cemeteries across this country. Very few, if any, of the anti-Semitic commenters on this site will qualify to be buried there, any more than Joe Biden will be so qualified, or would be so qualified if given the opportunity over and over again.

I don't want to pile on too hard in this thread (at least, not at the moment :P ), but American Jewish participation in America's military is pretty much negligible, and has been since Vietnam. I say this in more of an informational role than in a critical one, since I'm no military booster; I tell young white men with brains to find something better to do, I see our military as little more than Janissaries given a good sales pitch at this point, and would like to pare down our military budget by, oh, 90% or so.

In every war since then, you've been underrepresented. Personally, I wouldn't have supported going into say, Vietnam or Iraq for that matter.

I think their participation rates were pretty good for Korea, too. I think they were overrepresented, but I'm going by memory and it's been years since I looked at the numbers.

And, by the way, sarcastic use of the term "Scotch-Irish" does not hurt anybody's feelings, as much as the Jew-hater crowd would like to think differently. I could list a hundred people of the Scotch or Irish heritage (in the non-sarcastic sense -and, by the way, real Scots and real Irish usually don't care much for each other ) who have harmed this country to an immense degree.

I for one have always assumed it had more to do with sparing Goyishe feelings than it did with sparing Yiddish ones; even many anti-Semites have hangups about naming the Jew and "Scots-Irish" gives them a way to technically avoid doing so. I'm not partial to the practice, even though I engage in it myself now and then (I do wish people would at least consistently scare-quote the term to minimize confusion).

"Steve naturally went with the tinfoil source."

It's by Ben Stein -- I remember reading the original.


I have the original html file from eonline saved on my hard drive, IIRC.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really? So Jews, who have been ultra-Orthodox for most of the past 4000 years and been enslaved and butchered in a Holocaust have "always been an elite people"?"

I would think that the concept of "elite" is implied by the term "chosen people". Their term, not ours. So, yes, they have always viewed themselves as an elite.

Seneca said...

"Cail Corishev said...
Is there some way we could take up a collection to pay Biden to just keep talking and talking and talking? Some wealthy conservative should offer to set him up with his own 3-hour talk radio show."

Sir, your idea is pure brilliance ... please somebody give Biden a talk show after his term is finished... or better yet give it to him now.

I would pay for the privilege of watching ....it would be like watching for a liberal train wreck to happen in slow motion...

From your keyboard to God's ears amen...

Anonymous said...

If anyone doubts the authenticity of the Ben Stein piece, here is an authoritative archive. But it's split into many pages, so it's better to link elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

"I think their participation rates were pretty good for Korea, too. I think they were overrepresented, but I'm going by memory and it's been years since I looked at the numbers."

They were subject to the draft just like everybody else.

How many were killed in combat? Anyone know? Where's the Spielberg movie?

Taxpayers support a massive Holocaust Museum just off the National Mall. Their liberators had to wait three more decades to get their monument.

Anonymous said...

"There are many Jewish veterans, many of them KIA, buried at Arlington cemetery, and other military cemeteries across this country."

During the Vietnam war, Jews served in disproportionately small numbers. As Michael Lind wrote in Vietnam: The Necessary War: “Although Jews accounted for 2.5 percent of the U.S. population, Jewish men accounted for only 0.46 percent of the war-related deaths in the Vietnam War. The evident explanation for this discrepancy is the use of college deferments by the higher than average proportion of Jewish men in college to avoid military service." (pp.109-110)

Jews, like the children of wealthy or influential WASPs, received medical, hardship, and college deferments largely denied to similarly situated working-class and ethnic Whites (e.g., Poles, Italians), Blacks, and Hispanics. As this 1967 article in Stars & Stripes explained, many college students were drafted despite their college attendance: http://www.stripes.com/news/is-the-draft-unfair-1.141416 (There were no objective standards; draft boards could arbitrarily decide who went to college and who went to Vietnam.) Hardship and medical deferments were also granted or denied arbitrarily. Jewish political clout and emotional manipulation regarding the Holocaust ensured that draft boards were receptive to Jews' claims.

After Jewish antiwar activists (with draft exemptions) took up Black and Hispanic complaints that too many Blacks and Hispanics were being sent to Vietnam, the WASP establishment “solved” the problem by sending more non-WASPish, non-Jewish Whites in their place. American Catholics were, according to Lind, the only US religious group to die in disproportionately high numbers during the war as whole.

Cail Corishev said...

And, by the way, sarcastic use of the term "Scotch-Irish" does not hurt anybody's feelings, as much as the Jew-hater crowd would like to think differently.

I seem to remember when someone first recommended that practice here (though it might have started elsewhere), and that wasn't the point. The suggestion was that, since many blogs and forums seem to ban any use of the word "Jew," people should start replacing it with "Scotch-Irish." This had two purposes:

1) To allow such messages to get past any automated filters and possibly any moderators who weren't paying attention, so the conversation could take place.

2) To make the point that statements that will get you banned if you say them about certain groups (or a certain group) are perfectly acceptable if you say them about a non-protected group like the Scotch-Irish (the real ones).

It wasn't about hurting anyone's feelings, and it wasn't about the Scotch-Irish at all; that was just a convenient label for making the point because they're considered about as far from ethnically protected as you can get.

Anonymous said...

Since people seem obsessed by this, here is a Vietnam death list, sorted by religion:
Assemblies of God 117
Baptist - American 4
Baptist - Southern 121
Baptist - Other 9,478
Brethren, Dunkers 63
Buddhism 53
Christian Science 63
Church of Christ 528
Church of God 238
Congregational Christian 145
Disciples of Christ 34
Episcopal, Anglican 825
Evangelical, United Brethren 39
Evangelical, Reformed 11
Friends, Quakers 12
Jehovah's Witnesses 26
Jewish 269
Mormon Latter Day Saints 589
Lutheran & Missouri Synod 2,251
Methodist 4,079
Mission Covenant 1
Moslem, Muslim 12
Nazarene 132
Orthodox, Greek 58
Orthodox, Russian 22
Pentecostal 182
Presbyterian 1,303
Protestant - Other 559
Protestant - No Preference 16,644
Reformed 45
Roman Catholic 16,815
7th Day Adventist 116
Unitarian Universalist 45
United Church of Christ 11
No Religious Preference 1,284
Other Religions 210

syon

Anonymous said...

RE: Jewish deaths in Vietnam,

Some comparisons that seem on point:

Greek Orthodox:58
Russian Orthodox:22
Southern Baptist:121
Pentecostal:182

Jews:269

syon

Anonymous said...

Jewish Civil War info:

"Some 150,000 Jews lived in the United States at the time of the American Civil War, about 0.5 percent of the population.[10] One academic estimate was that at least 8,000 Jewish soldiers fought for the Union and Confederate during the Civil War.[11] Donald Altschiller estimates that at least 10,000 Jews served, about 7,000 for the Union and 3,000 for the Confederacy, with some 600 Jewish soldiers killed in battle.[10]"

(via WIKIPEDIA)

syon

Stafford James said...

"This is a very new phenomenom and happened only due to the Haskalah, namely the explicit abandonment of Jewish tradition(which is Orthodox at it's core) in favour of *white gentile secularism and englightenment.*"

See here:

"In this wide-ranging volume, Jonathan Israel offers a novel interpretation of the Radical Enlightenment down to La Mettie and Diderot, two of its key exponents. Particular emphasis is placed on the pivotal role of Spinoza and the widespread underground international philosophical movement known before 1750 as Spinozism."

More here.

"Also, de Gaulle's statement is problematic precisely because it is fatalistic, aside from the historical inaccuracy(which is really epic)."

Really epic.

pat said...

Jefferson and Franklin did not believe in Darwin but only because they lived a bit too early. Both I'm sure would have accepted 'The Origin of the Species' and welcomed its answers to all the mysteries that surrounded them. They were pre-adapted.

That's how I feel. I'm ready to accept that political orientation is based in biology but as yet no genius has arisen to explain it all to the world.

Judaism is a different religion in that it has a strong genetic component. Those born Jews are quite bright. But Sammy Davis Jr. didn't get smarter when he converted.

Jews are also predominantly liberal. I think that's genetic too - but I can't prove it - hell I can't even suggest a plausible mechanism.

Jews have long been associated with media. They were among the first peoples to be literate thousands of years ago so I'm not surprised that they are associated strongly with the 'new media' of cinema. I strongly suspect that this too is in their genes. Please don't ask me how. I live a bit to early to know.

Albertosaurus

Anonymous said...

(Here's Joel Stein's 2008 column in the Los Angeles Times "How Jewish Is Hollywood?" giving demographic numbers on the ethnicity of studio bosses. And here's Ben Stein's essay on the same subject from 1996. A casual reading of the two Steins' articles would suggest that the top jobs in Hollywood became more monolithically Jewish from 1996 to 2008, but of course the actual trend, whatever it is, should be researched in greater depth by ... by ... uh, by some careful social scientist who is independently wealthy and who never eats lunch.)

Or perhaps a tenured Cal State psychology professor. I've heard one of them is an expert on matters Hebraic.

Svigor said...

They were subject to the draft just like everybody else.

Indeed. On the other hand, there was a draft during Vietnam, too.

How many were killed in combat? Anyone know? Where's the Spielberg movie?

Jews and the Armed Forces of the U.S.A.

That's more than a few years old, but it was all I could dredge up at the time. No, no casualty figures. I guess it's safe to say their death rates were relatively low (Jews tend to be smart and educated and thus to test out of stuff like dying in the infantry).

Anonymous said...

According to this site, 9% of New York state is Jewish.

So much for ever ridding the state of this guy before his natural death.


Tribal voting is as popular as ever. Hilary, white Episcopalian though she may be, was simply a proxy for a Jewess senator when she ran and won the NY seat. She's every bit as conniving as Schumer, although if the sunlight continues to be focused on that travesty, she might not survive it as she's no where near as bright as Schumer.

Amused said...

"Sounds like the position of a domineering elite.

6/3/13, 7:21 AM"

Sounds like the whining of a weak WASP. I'm a WASP. Get over yourself, your weakness disgusts me.


"I would think that the concept of "elite" is implied by the term "chosen people". Their term, not ours. So, yes, they have always viewed themselves as an elite."

And Christians who went into untold amount of lands and converted people at the tip of the sword? What about Manifest Destintiny? Oh well, it's those reds(or whoever of them is left anyway), who cares!

We don't even need to go into the problematic teachings of Islam.

Is the 'Chosen people' elitist, arrogant and racist? You bet. But so does very long tradition of Christian - and specfically Western Christian - exceptionalism. Or, if we are more honest, supremacism.

How did Christianity spread to, say, Latin America or for that matter large parts of Asia like the philippines?

Well, with the help of the Western Empires of their 'divine mission'. Or let's not forget the Spanish inquisition!

I mean, the delusion here among you people is amazing. Religion is fundamentally a dangerous and reactionary thing. I'm not going to say that either Christianity or Judaism today is as or more violent than Islam - which has deep problems. That'd be measly to argue. But in a historical context, in the medieval era it's not a hard case at all to build that Christianity is the most violent, messianic and, yes, domineering and elitist religion.

People are so blinded by their own biases. Jew or Gentile.

ATBOTL said...

The issue is not just with what Jews do with power, but that Jewish over-representation among Hollywood and Wall St. executives and many other sections of the elite is far greater than what can be explained by merit. These industries are ethnic cartels.

Hunsdon said...

syon: I know in my case, my "anti-semitism" is really "anti-ashkenazism." Sephardic Jews like Judah Benjamin seemed to fit in a lot better.

Look, I can understand how Ashkenazi Jews would bring certain cultural biases and resentments with them. It would be almost superhuman of them not to, and Jews ain't Superman (Siegel and Shuster notwithstanding).

But that doesn't give them a pass to destroy my country.

syon said:

Greek Orthodox:58
Russian Orthodox:22
Southern Baptist:121
Pentecostal:182

Jews:269

Hunsdon said:

Baptist - Other 9,478
Protestant - No Preference 16,644
Roman Catholic 16,815

I guess it's all really in how you slant the numbers, isn't it?

Anonydroid at 2:42 PM said: Or let's not forget the Spanish inquisition!

Hunsdon said: No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Latin America and the Philippines, that sounds like a Spanish game to me. (Hey, where's Nick Diaz when you need him?) I'd argue that was as much glory and gold as God, but you have a point.

Otherwise, Christianity was spread by the sword pretty much in, umm, the Baltic Crusades (which conveniently carried on against Catholic Poland, but let's not pick nits).

Hey, who now remembers the Amalakites? (Godwin's Law does not apply: it's not a direct quote.)

Thank goodness there are no atheistic murderous regimes to rebut your point about religion being uniquely vile.

Carlin Banks said...

Leslie Nielsen is a good call. (Except Frank Drebin was a likeable guy who tried to uphold the law).

The Trading Places president and the Naked Gun VP. Yeesh.

Why doesn't Obama fire Biden and replace him with someone better? He doesn't need him any more, for anything.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Since people seem obsessed by this, here is a Vietnam death list, sorted by religion:
Assemblies of God 117
Baptist - American 4
Baptist - Southern 121
Baptist - Other 9,478
Brethren, Dunkers 63
Buddhism 53
Christian Science 63
Church of Christ 528
Church of God 238
Congregational Christian 145
Disciples of Christ 34
Episcopal, Anglican 825
Evangelical, United Brethren 39
Evangelical, Reformed 11
Friends, Quakers 12
Jehovah's Witnesses 26
Jewish 269
Mormon Latter Day Saints 589
Lutheran & Missouri Synod 2,251
Methodist 4,079
Mission Covenant 1
Moslem, Muslim 12
Nazarene 132
Orthodox, Greek 58
Orthodox, Russian 22
Pentecostal 182
Presbyterian 1,303
Protestant - Other 559
Protestant - No Preference 16,644
Reformed 45
Roman Catholic 16,815
7th Day Adventist 116
Unitarian Universalist 45
United Church of Christ 11
No Religious Preference 1,284
Other Religions 210


According to modern conventional wisdom, most of these guys were either bigots, racists, sexual harassers or rapists. Memorial Day services only encourage them.

Anonymous said...

"Hunsdon said:

Baptist - Other 9,478
Protestant - No Preference 16,644
Roman Catholic 16,815

I guess it's all really in how you slant the numbers, isn't it?"

Well, yes, Hunsdon. That's why I did not compare Jewish Vietnam deaths to Protestant (no pref ) deaths, Roman Catholic deaths, or Baptist deaths. All three of those faiths vastly outnumber Jews. Hence,by that fact alone, their death numbers do not offer a useful point of comparison.


Actually, I tend to think that the Greek and Russian Orthodox numbers offer a particularly apt point of comparison.Both faiths are closer to Judaism as a share of the American population, and, like Judaism, both faiths have a strong ethnic component. Indeed, during the Vietnam War era, I would place a very high probability on the assumption that practically all Greek and Russian Orthodox believers in the military were born into the faith. So, in the interest of the best possible comparison, here are the relevant numbers again:

Greek Orthodox:58
Russian Orthodox:22
Jews:269

syon

Anonymous said...

Hunsdon:"syon: I know in my case, my "anti-semitism" is really "anti-ashkenazism." Sephardic Jews like Judah Benjamin seemed to fit in a lot better.

Look, I can understand how Ashkenazi Jews would bring certain cultural biases and resentments with them. It would be almost superhuman of them not to, and Jews ain't Superman (Siegel and Shuster notwithstanding).

But that doesn't give them a pass to destroy my country."


Actually, the differing political preferences of the Sephardic and Ashkenazic varieties of Judaism in America simply illustrate the importance of keeping immigrant numbers low. The Sephardic Jews ( small in number) were completely Americanized. The Ashkenazi Jews, in contrast, had numbers that allowed them to maintain ethnic enclaves. Hence, as with the Catholic Irish, they were able to preserve, to a certain degree, a non Anglo-Protestant mindset.

Anonymous said...

Francis Salvador (1747-1776), Sephardic Jew and Patriot:


"After arriving in Charleston in December 1773, Salvador at once entered into the American cause, and became close friends with the leaders of the Revolution in the South, including Pinckney, Rutledge, Drayton, Laurens, and Hammond.[4] Salvador was elected to South Carolina's General Assembly within a year of arriving, the first Jew to hold that office in any of the English colonies in North America.[1] He was just 27, and would hold the post until his death.[3]
Although Jews legally could neither hold office nor vote, no one objected when Salvador was elected, along with his friend and fellow planter Richard Rapley, as the two frontier representatives from Ninety-Six to the provincial congress. He was chosen for important committee assignments: drawing up the declaration of the purpose of the congress to the people; obtaining ammunition; assessing the safety of the frontier, and working on the state constitution.[5]
In 1774, Salvador was chosen to be a delegate to the revolutionary Provincial Congress of the colony, which first met in Charleston in January 1775. The group framed a bill of rights and composed an address to South Carolina's royal governor setting forth the colonists' complaints against the Crown. Salvador was appointed to a commission that tried to convince the Tories in the northern and western parts of the colony to join the American cause.
The second Provincial Congress assembled in November 1775. Salvador was one of the champions for Independence. He urged his fellow delegates to instruct the colony's delegation to the Continental Congress to cast their vote for independence. Salvador chaired the ways and means committee of this second Congress, at the same time serving on a select committee authorized to issue bills of credit as payment to members of the militia. He was also made part of a commission established to preserve the peace in the interior parts of South Carolina.[1]
Fighting in the American Revolution [edit]

Early in 1776 the British had induced the Indians to attack the South Carolina frontier to create a diversion in favor of British operations on the sea-coast; and on July 1, 1776, the Indians began attacking frontier families. Salvador mounted his horse and galloped to Major Williamson, 28 miles (45 km) away, and gave the alarm. Salvador took part in the engagements that followed. On July 31, Major Andrew Williamson captured two white loyalists, who led his 330 men into an ambush prepared by their fellow Tories and Seneca Indians on the Keowee River.[6] Salvador was shot. Falling among the bushes, he was discovered by the Indians and scalped. He died from his wounds, age 29.
Concerning his death, Colonel William Thomson wrote to William Henry Drayton, in a letter dated "Camp, two miles below Keowee, August 4th, 1775", as follows: "Here, Mr. Salvador received three wounds; and, fell by my side. . . . I desired [Lieutenant Farar], to take care of Mr. Salvador; but, before he could find him in the dark, the enemy unfortunately got his scalp: which, was the only one taken. . . . He died, about half after two o'clock in the morning: forty-five minutes after he received the wounds, sensible to the last. When I came up to him, after dislodging the enemy, and speaking to him, he asked, whether I had beat the enemy? I told him yes. He said he was glad of it, and shook me by the hand – and bade me farewell – and said, he would die in a few minutes."[7]
A patriot journal, The Rememerance, wrote: "he was universally loved and esteemed."[4][8]
Salvador probably never learned that the delegation in Philadelphia had heeded his advice and voted for independence.
In 1950, to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charleston's Jewish congregation, the City of Charleston erected a memorial to Francis Salvador, the first Jew to die for the American Revolution." (Wikipedia)

Hunsdon said...

syon: and the Southern Baptists kind of just slipped in there? And the Pentecostals? I get your point about the Russian and Greek Orthodox. Indeed, sir, I accept it as valid.

But you didn't restrict your analysis to Russian and Greek Orthodox, didjer? You mixed in "Southern Baptist" and "Pentecostal" as well. Would it be rude of me to point out that you rephrased the category from "Baptist---Southern" to "Southern Baptist"? Not so that the inquiring mind might look over total Baptist figures, I'm sure.

Maybe svigor will come along and say something about slippery Talmudic bullshit, I don't know.

Besides, why quibble about numbers of the honored dead in Vietnam? Let's discuss my larger point: Ashkenazi Jews think America needs to be radically changed, and now that they've got the power, they're going to change it.

Gay marriage, driving Christianity from the public square, ruinous wars against perceived enemies of Israel, and massive immigration from the Third World. While we're at it, let's discuss sexual licentiousness.

Please, let's discuss.

Anonymous said...

Hunsdon:"Let's discuss my larger point: Ashkenazi Jews think America needs to be radically changed, and now that they've got the power, they're going to change it."

Well, clearly some Ashkenazi Jews think so, but clearly not all...None of my maternal relatives (the Jewish half of my family), for example, believe in large scale immigration. Indeed, both of my uncles are in favor of a moratorium.Oh, and they also opposed Bush's Iraq invasion as well..




Hunsdon:"Gay marriage, driving Christianity from the public square, ruinous wars against perceived enemies of Israel, and massive immigration from the Third World."

Does Ashkenazi public opinion on same sex marriage differ from elite gentile opinion?

Christianity from the public square: Doesn't that have more to do with historical trends in Anglo thought (Thomas Jefferson, etc)?

Massive immigration:Well, Ashkenazi Jewry seem to have some potent allies on that score. Off hand, I can't think of too many Gentile business leaders who are in favor of restricting immigration...

Ruinous wars: What is the polling data on Jewish support for the invasion of Iraq?Clearly, some elite Jews were in favor of it, but were the majority?


Hunsdon:" While we're at it, let's discuss sexual licentiousness."

In what fashion?Personal conduct?Public standards of behavior?

syon

Anonymous said...

Hunsdon:"But you didn't restrict your analysis to Russian and Greek Orthodox, didjer? You mixed in "Southern Baptist" and "Pentecostal" as well."

Well, no, I did not. I was poking around for a Protestant group of appropriate size. However, as my subsequent post indicates, I changed my mind on that. Greek and Russian Orthodoxy seem to offer better points of comparison.


Hunsdun:" Would it be rude of me to point out that you rephrased the category from "Baptist---Southern" to "Southern Baptist"? Not so that the inquiring mind might look over total Baptist figures, I'm sure."

MMM, I think that my "rephrasing" of "Baptist-Southern" to "Southern Baptist" was in the interests of euphony.Do they mean different things? If they do, I apologize.

Hunsdon:"Maybe svigor will come along and say something about slippery Talmudic bullshit, I don't know."

MMM, seeing as how I have never read the Talmud (and have no desire to do so), I'm not sure how I can be accused of "slippery Talmudic bullshit" (though that is a fine sounding phrase, I must admit).

syon

Mr. Anon said...

"VFW vet said..."

There are many Jewish veterans, many of them KIA, buried at Arlington cemetery, and other military cemeteries across this country."

There are more people who so served and are so buried who would be described by you as anti-semites. More anti-semites fought against nazism than did jews - by far.

"Very few, if any, of the anti-Semitic commenters on this site will qualify to be buried there, any more than Joe Biden will be so qualified, or would be so qualified if given the opportunity over and over again."

And? This nation was not founded as a militaristic nation. For most of it's history, military service was not seen as some kind of unique qualifier for one to have an opinion on matters of war, peace, and foreign affairs. It is only since WWII that America suffered that distortion of it's national character.

Are you a combat veteran, or just a veteran? The fact is, a lot of people in the modern military are not much different than civil servants, and are exposed to no more danger than are regular civilians. I'm not impressed with neo-con military boosterism. The "support-our-troops" meme is just a shabby, deceitful bit of trickery to get the populace to support the elite in whatever dangerous, hair-brained schemes with which they see fit to wreck our nation.

"And, by the way, sarcastic use of the term "Scotch-Irish" does not hurt anybody's feelings, as much as the Jew-hater crowd would like to think differently."

The origin of the term, as near as I can tell, having followed this site for nine years now, was a sarcastic response to one single habitual poster - who went by the name "Evil Neocon", then "Testing 99", and now finally "Whiskey" - who claims to be scots-irish, but whose hackles are never raised when the Cross of St. Andrew is insulted, but who leaps in as soon as the Star of David is mentioned (or, even, not mentioned). The term - a joke at first - soon grew legs. It is an acknowledgement of the fact that there is a group who are so powerless, put-upon, and vicimized, that they will CRUSH you if you so much as point out that they are - in fact - a group.

"I could list a hundred people of the Scotch or Irish heritage (in the non-sarcastic sense -and, by the way, real Scots and real Irish usually don't care much for each other..."

You obviously don't know what the term "Scots-Irish" really means. Anyway, I can name plenty of protestant "old-Americans" and Irish-Americans and German-Americans who have been destructive of this country too. I can also name a lot of Jews who have been so. And, as in many things, they punch above their weight. So why shouldn't I be alowed to notice that, and point it out?

Mrs. Anon said...

Mr. Anon,

"More anti-semites fought against nazism than did jews - by far."

How did you calculate this?

And how many anti-semites from outside of Germany volunteered to fight for Nazism? One of the die-hard units in the battle of Berlin was comprised of French Nazi volunteers. Probably some commenters here would have volunteered to fight for Hitler if they were alive then.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous

Mr. Anon,

""More anti-semites fought against nazism than did jews - by far."

How did you calculate this?"

It stands to reason, doesn't it? Given that the overwhelming number of soldiers in the allied armies were not Jews, and given the wide-spread incidence of what one may call the common-place, run-of-the-mill anti-semitism that was prevalent in the pre-war years (the kind that some Jews are always reminding us about, after all), it is a virtual certainly that the number of "anti-semites" (using the likely definition of people like the poster I was replying to) who fought against naziism far outnumbered the number of jews who did so.

If you dispute this, then I should say it is your obligation to provide the rest of us with YOUR calculations.

Mr. Anon said...

"Mrs. Anon said...

And how many anti-semites from outside of Germany volunteered to fight for Nazism?"

Several thousand, certainly. Still, that is dwarfed by the number of anti-semites who fought against Hitler. Nazi Germany was defeated - primarily - by Russian soldiers. You don't think that there weren't a whole hell of a lot of anti-semites among them?

"Probably some commenters here would have volunteered to fight for Hitler if they were alive then."

Very unlikely. In fact, that is almost certainly NOT true. In fact, that is really just total bullshit. But as you are just making shit up, go ahead and believe it if you like - nobody's going to stop you from indulging in ridiculous bias-reinforcing fantasies.

Hunsdon said...

Mrs. Anon said: Probably some commenters here would have volunteered to fight for Hitler if they were alive then.

Hunsdon said: Oh of course! We rootless cosmopolitans would have thrown over the ties of history, family, geography and language, and gone to fight alongside a dictator against our people . . . Wait, that's just stupid.

syon said: MMM, I think that my "rephrasing" of "Baptist-Southern" to "Southern Baptist" was in the interests of euphony.Do they mean different things? If they do, I apologize.

Hunsdon said: Ah. No, Southern Baptist is the usual phrasing, it's just that the original list used "Baptist-Southern" as a subcategory of "Baptist", and the Southern Baptist numbers seemed shockingly low, until you saw that the "Baptist-Other" numbers more than made up for it.

Honestly, I suspected obfuscation on your part.

Anonydroid at 7:23 PM said: The Ashkenazi Jews, in contrast, had numbers that allowed them to maintain ethnic enclaves.

Hunsdon said: Yes, in Harvard, Wall Street and Hollywood.

Svigor said...

And Christians who went into untold amount of lands and converted people at the tip of the sword? What about Manifest Destintiny? Oh well, it's those reds(or whoever of them is left anyway), who cares!

You obviously care, you nitwit, or you wouldn't be commenting.

Btw, the redskins fought back. Hard. They would've staked down any of their fellow redskins who talked like you and left them for the crows and the ants.

I mean, the delusion here among you people is amazing. Religion is fundamentally a dangerous and reactionary thing.

Like we're really having a discussion about religion.

Francis Salvador (1747-1776), Sephardic Jew and Patriot

If this was a Confederate site, the comment would've been about Judah Benjamin. If it was a mainstream site, neither would be mentioned. Always target your audience.

Syon: you're a Righteous Jew, already. We've got your waivers all printed up, okay?

Noah172 said...

Syon,

Orthodox Christians in the US are less numerous than Jews. The former are 1% of the population, the latter 2% -- and the latter were more like 3 during the 1960s (don't know about the former). Moreover, your list does not separate out other Orthodox groups (e.g. Armenian). Your comparison is not fair.

In any case, if Jews were 3% of America in the 1960s, then their "fair share" of Vietnam deaths would have been about 1750, and instead it was less than one-sixth that number.

Mormons, who are 2% of America today and were barely 1 in the 1960s, had more than twice the deaths in Vietnam as the Jews. The Churches of Christ, only slightly larger than the Mormons (and less numerous than the Jews), had almost twice as many Vietnam fatalities. Episcopalians, who were 2-3 percent in the 60s (less than two today) and a upper-class stratum to boot, had more than triple the number of Jewish deaths. Methodists, who were about 6% of the total population, had about 7% of the Vietnam deaths (and, IIRC, the United Methodist Church opposed the war!).

To echo some comments made above, your use of statistics is... talmudic.

Noah172 said...

Re: the topic of this post (much as I enjoy a diversion into discussing Jewish participation in American wars):

I have a Strange New Respect for Biden. It takes moxie to say what he said about the herrnvolk -- goodness, I meant God's Chosen People! -- even considering that he meant to flatter them rather than condemn. Then again, the Jews have long joked/believed that a philo-Semite is an anti-Semite who likes Jews.

If the truth about Jews can only come out in a big public way like this (as opposed to subversive blogs such as this, or the published works of Kevin Macdonald) cloaked in flattery, I say let the flattery come, because at least some goyim will be able to see through the puff and realize who really has the power in this country.

"Jews control the media, and that's great because it gave America a woman's right to choose, gay rights, open borders, and affirmative action! Gotta love them Jews!" Keep talking, Mr. Vice-President, please: some "philo-Semitic" fundigelical bumpkins (philo-Semitic because they know nothing of flesh-and-blood Jews) need to hear your thoughts, over and over and over.

And then maybe the tide might finally turn in our favor.

Anonymous said...

Noah172:"Orthodox Christians in the US are less numerous than Jews. The former are 1% of the population, the latter 2% -- and the latter were more like 3 during the 1960s (don't know about the former)."

Do you have any suggestions for a group that would offer a better comparison?

As for numbers, assuming that the Greek Orthodox adherents were 1% of the US population in 1970, let's multiply their total by 3 (to make it commensurate with the roughly 3% American Jewish population in 1970).So, 58 x 3 is 174, still under the Jewish total of 269.Let's be still more generous, and lump in Russian Orthodox adherents (22) into the Orthodox total.So, 80 x 3 is 240.Still less than the Jewish total but quite a bit closer.



Hoah172:" Moreover, your list does not separate out other Orthodox groups (e.g. Armenian). Your comparison is not fair."

Blame the people who compiled the list. They did not provide numbers, for example, for Armenian Orthodox deaths.

Noah172:"In any case, if Jews were 3% of America in the 1960s, then their "fair share" of Vietnam deaths would have been about 1750, and instead it was less than one-sixth that number."

True, but how many groups did provide a "fair share?"

Noah172:"Mormons, who are 2% of America today and were barely 1 in the 1960s, had more than twice the deaths in Vietnam as the Jews. The Churches of Christ, only slightly larger than the Mormons (and less numerous than the Jews), had almost twice as many Vietnam fatalities. Episcopalians, who were 2-3 percent in the 60s (less than two today) and a upper-class stratum to boot, had more than triple the number of Jewish deaths."

Yes, I was rather impressed by the Episcopalian total. Glad to see that the old Protestant elite was still willing at that point to spill its blood.


Noah172:" Methodists, who were about 6% of the total population, had about 7% of the Vietnam deaths (and, IIRC, the United Methodist Church opposed the war!)."

Yes, Methodists and unaffiliated Baptists did make a very large share of the dead. Of course, a large chunk of both do come from the South (nearly always disproportionately represented in the military).

Noah172:"To echo some comments made above, your use of statistics is... talmudic."

MMMM, is it genetic?Have I somehow absorbed Talmudic practices (whatever those are) via my mother's bloodline?How that would have saddened my maternal grandfather. He abhorred the Talmud, calling it a compendium of Medieval rubbish fit only for Russian Jews (he could never bring himself to regard Russian Jews as anything other than unwashed savages).

syon

Anonymous said...

syon said: MMM, I think that my "rephrasing" of "Baptist-Southern" to "Southern Baptist" was in the interests of euphony.Do they mean different things? If they do, I apologize.

"Hunsdon said: Ah. No, Southern Baptist is the usual phrasing, it's just that the original list used "Baptist-Southern" as a subcategory of "Baptist", and the Southern Baptist numbers seemed shockingly low, until you saw that the "Baptist-Other" numbers more than made up for it.

Honestly, I suspected obfuscation on your part."

Obfuscation was not intended. I was merely following the data as they appeared in the list (which I did not compile).Yes, I was also surprised by the low numbers for Southern Baptists. Frankly, I'm increasingly suspicious of that total, given the fact that Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination. Perhaps the military put the bulk of the Southern Baptists in the larger Baptist category?

syon

Hunsdon said...

syon said: Frankly, I'm increasingly suspicious of that total, given the fact that Southern Baptists are the largest Protestant denomination. Perhaps the military put the bulk of the Southern Baptists in the larger Baptist category?

Hunsdon said: Could well be. Or maybe it's like citizens of the USA just calling themselves "Americans" with no thought to Mexico, or Central or South America. Kind of a "Well, we're just Baptists," thing?

syon said: Yes, I was rather impressed by the Episcopalian total. Glad to see that the old Protestant elite was still willing at that point to spill its blood.

Hunsdon said: I was too. Isn't that what the elite's for, after all? To lead, in all endeavors, especially the dangerous ones?

Noah172 said: Then again, the Jews have long joked/believed that a philo-Semite is an anti-Semite who likes Jews.

Hunsdon said: And isn't there an old gentile definition of anti-semitism as "hating the Jews more than necessary"?