A commenter transcribes a 2011 videologue between Mickey Kaus and Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post:
From the podcast John Marzan posted. Discussion begins after 50:00. Jennifer Rubin and Mickey Kaus discuss an alleged difference between the American Dream and the Israeli Dream:
RUBIN. The reason they won't recognize Israel as "the Jewish state" is that they are refusing to give up on the right of return, the right of every single refugee, their children and grandchildren, to return to Israel. Translated into parlance it means they are going to destroy Israel if not by the bullet, at least by demography.
KAUS: Why don't they believe in open borders Jennifer? It seems that is your position.
RUBIN: [laughter]
KAUS: These people are willing to go to Israel to work and why are they putting these impediments in their way? It's almost as if they are like Tom Tancredo.
RUBIN: Well, it's because they haven't been coming there to work. They've been coming there to blow up pizza parlors and kill children.
According to Prime Minister Netanyahu, the top priority of Israel's new razorwire fence along the Egyptian border is to keep out black economic migrants, with keeping out terrorists only a secondary consideration.
KAUS: But even if they came there to work, there would no longer be a Jewish state.
RUBIN: Well, they certainly could. Right now they have people who are coming through checkpoints. Every country in the world, and especially in the Middle East, have people who are coming for work permits and then return. So the issue is not where they are working. The issue is not the labor issue. The issue is, do these people want to kill the inhabitants, which they've been doing. And we forget the major success and I've got to tell you Mickey this is the greatest argument in the world for building the wall. The greatest success, the greatest help toward defusing violence in the Middle East came when Israel built its wall, it's green [great?] wall....
KAUS: Really?
RUBIN: Tall walls make good neighbors.
KAUS: Walls work. And let the record also show that you are willing to restrict immigration to preserve the ethnic identity of a state and which you would never tolerate in America if Anglo Saxons said, you know, we don't want to become a Latino State, we want to be a non-Latino State, so we have to restrict immigration. You would never tolerate it.
RUBIN: That's because the difference is, America is founded on a different principle. Israel is founded on the principle of being a Jewish state. The Arabs have 22 or 23 of them, or 29 of them, I lose track. Israel was founded on the premise, that's what Zionism is--a state of the Jews. And people don't like it, but that's what it's about. America is not founded on the principle of America for White People or America for Europeans. It is founded really on an idea. And that idea, if people are willing to assimilate, and I'm a big advocate of assimilation, should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language, as long as they are willing to eventually learn English and be part of the body politic. It's a completely different situation bw the United States and Israel.
Personally, I was always under the impression that the reasons for which the Founders founded the United States government are explained in the Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Preamble says "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." For some reason, perhaps a typo, the Founders left out the part about the "wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
Posts
48 comments:
The Preamble says "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." For some reason, perhaps a typo, the Founders left out the part about the "wretched refuse of your teeming shore."
The Preamble also reads "provide for the common defense."
It is reasonable to believe that what was foremost in the minds of the Founders when they referred to "common defense" was the protection of American territory from foreign invasion (styled as "immigration" or otherwise).
It is, on the other hand, difficult to believe the Founder's purpose in writing the Constitution was to provide for the defense of the jewish conquest of Palestine (for example, by bombing Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, or any other Middle Eastern people who raise an objection).
Mickey Kaus is a boss.
but also spoke out against one of their own that crossed the line from anti-immigration reform advocacy to disparagement of an entire ethnic group.
But Rubin doesn't have a problem disparaging entire ethnic groups when it suits her own ethnic supremacist agenda...
KAUS: [Palestinian Gentiles] are willing to go to Israel to work and why are they putting these impediments in their way? It's almost as if they are like Tom Tancredo.
RUBIN: Well, it's because they haven't been coming there to work. They've been coming there to blow up pizza parlors and kill children.
RUBIN: That's because the difference is, America is founded on a different principle. Israel is founded on the principle of being a Jewish state. .... Israel was founded on the premise, that's what Zionism is--a state of the Jews. And people don't like it, but that's what it's about. America is not founded on the principle of America for White People or America for Europeans. It is founded really on an idea. ...It's a completely different situation between the United States and Israel.
This is really an absurd argument for immigration to the United States, or, conversely, for immigration restriction to Israel. But it is employed all the time, apparently with some effect.
What is the best rebuttal to persuade the crowd? The argument can obviously be attacked for its factual and normative premises. Instinct, however, is suggesting to me it might be best not to even dignify the argument by getting into the factual or normative particulars, but essentially ignore its structure and to counter with a wholly different frame or idea in favor of immigration control (or in favor of a Gentile right of return to Israel).
Thoughts?
So according to Rubin, non-discrimination isn't really better than open borders, it's just arbitrary depending on whether you were founded on that principle or not. Neither view is more moral or better than the other. As a consequence, switching from one principle to the other isn't really bad or immoral since there is no fact of the matter whether one is better than the other. So saying that you want America to be an ethno-state isn't immoral or racist, even if it is inconsistent with an earlier principle. Kaus should have jumped on that.
Excellent find, Steve.
He could have immediately followed up with where she's getting that information or how consistent her argument is regarding open borders in European countries.
Whiskey wrote in an earlier post that Jennifer Rubin supports open borders for Israel.
Big jawed lefty skank has been pwned.
America was not founded to be an immigrant-state for the world. That is nonsense. Jewish hypocrisy is despicable.
1. Rubin says that it's okay to keep Israel as a Jewish state since it was founded as such. Using that logic, why do Jews push open borders on every European state that was NOT founded on an 'idea' but are rooted in tradition of blood and soil? If a German said Germany must always be for Germans with German blood, how would Jews react? I recall Leon Wieseltier called Thilo Sarrazin some very bad words.
2. Following Rubin's logic, IF America had indeed been founded on ideas of race and ethnicity, would it then be okay with her if US immigration policy favored whites? Or, would she argue that the founding principles of America were corrupt and evil and must be changed?
I mean, since when do Jews care about the founding principles of America? They wanna take our guns away though the second amendment protects our rights. Though I support abortion, where in the Constitution does it say anything the federal government deciding abortion rights? And where in the constitution does it allow 'affirmative action'? Where does it allow 'gay marriage'? Where does it allow 'amnesty for illegals who violated American laws'? Where does it allow the banning of 'hate speech'? Where does it allow the statist takeover healthcare? Where does it allow in the Constitution for US to bend over backward for a foreign nation like Israel?
And if Rubin really cares about founding principles of America, the constitution says states have the right to secede. The south rightfully seceded, and one of its founding principles was the right of slavery. Loathsome or not, it was a founding principle of the new confederacy that broke off legally(according the rules of the constitution). So, would Rubin argue that the South was right to break off & practice slavery and the North was wrong to wage war and forcibly change the South? If she's so into legality and founding principles, the South did nothing wrong.
3. Rubin seems to believe that open borders isn't merely a founding principle of America but the best policy all around the world.
We all know that constitution can be amended(as allowed by the founding principles of America). Suppose white people in America decide to amend the constitution to ensure that America remain a majority white European nation. Suppose this is done according to the rules of Constitution as written by the Founders. Would she just accept the changes as it's constitutional and in accordance to the law? Or would she fight it tooth and nail--despite its legality--because she believes it's evil for US to prioritize one culture/race over others? Well, if such a law is wrong and evil in the US, why is it not evil for Israel?
Why shouldn't Rubin argue that the founding principle of Israel is evil--like Nazism or communism--and must be changed. After all, who says a nation must stick to its founding principles forever? European states were founded as monarchies but aren't no longer. So, there's nothing that says Israel MUST stick to its founding principles and must never amend, change, or reject them.
If those principles strike Rubin as 'racist' and 'evil'--as they should given her ideas about other nations--, why should she accept those founding principles?
What a weasel. She takes the founding principles as laid down Anglo-Americans and twists them around to serve her Jewish Supremacy cause.
Btw, though Israel was founded as Jewish state, it was also founded as a moral state that was supposed to be especially sensitive to human suffering because Jews had been victimized by the radical racism of German Nazis. So, given those founding principles, how does Rubin feel about the founding of Israel via ethnic cleansing and the decades-long oppression of Palestinians?
And she speaks of terrorists blowing up pizza parlors, but if memory serves me right, plenty of Zionist founders dabbled in a good amount of terrorism themselves.
And why shouldn't an oppressed people use terror to take back their land? When Germans invaded Russia, Russians fought back and committed all sorts of horrors in revenge and to regain their land. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and killed 3,000, US bombed entire cities in Japan and killed a million. We call that a 'good war', and Jews say it was totally justified. So, why don't Palestinians have a right to fight back to regain their stolen land? Unlike Americans who lost several ships off a harbor, Palestinians lost their entire land and pride as a people. Yet, they are supposed to just sit back and take it laying down?
Finally, I recall modern South Africa founded itself as an apartheid state with racial segregation written into its constitution. I don't recall liberal American Jews saying that was okay because SA was, oh well, just founded that way.
Incidentally, Israel had very chummy ties with SA, and Jews in SA made untold sums in the diamond business, but never mind all that. The likes of Rubin are total sleazebags.
PS. A nation/culture is more than what's in the constitution. The communist Chinese constitution probably doesn't say China is a Han nation for the Han people, but it's understood by all Chinese that China must be a Han-dominated state.
For all I know, the Mexican constitution doesn't say much or anything about race--what makes a 'real Mexican'--, but I think every Mexican has every right to not want his country to be overrun by Chinese, Hindus, or Nigerians. Even if the Mexican constitution doesn't say 'who or what is Mexican', I think it's safe to say if 40 million Nigerians and 40 million Hindus come to Mexico, it won't be Mexico anymore.
So, regardless of what is or isn't in the Constitution, there is the history and heritage of America that makes it a dominantly white, western, and Christian nation. Some call it Judeo-Christian, but it's more Helleno-Christian as so many western ideas flowed from the Classical World.
And we don't need the likes of Rubin to tell us what we are or aren't. The hell with her.
She thinks in terms of 'give us your poor huddled wretched non-whites so that we Jews can use them against to destroy white power.'
That's about it.
That's because the difference is, America is founded on a different principle. Israel is founded on the principle of being a Jewish state.
Emma Lazarus was not a founding father. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government, the States governments, or the People, are not permitted to prevent foreigners from coming onto their territory?
Uh. Maybe the Gentiles are beginning to catch on...
Im with IHTG - Kaus is boss.
"KAUS: Why don't they believe in open borders Jennifer? It seems that is your position.
RUBIN: [laughter]
KAUS: These people are willing to go to Israel to work and why are they putting these impediments in their way? It's almost as if they are like Tom Tancredo.
RUBIN: Well, it's because they haven't been coming there to work. They've been coming there to blow up pizza parlors and kill children."
She laughs to diffuse. As if to say "Yes you have caught me in a logical contradiction. Please dont' be so vulgar as to press this point."
To be fair, Kaus' query had an element of facetiousness to it...
Take away - You can't discuss anything in the US at this time w/o layers of trap doors and sneakitude. The Soviets and the Florence popes are laughing somewhere.
@GOP goes the weasel
You make a lot of really interesting points and I don't want to detract from your many excellent arguments.
However, I had a question about what you wrote about secession:
And if Rubin really cares about founding principles of America, the constitution says states have the right to secede. The south rightfully seceded, and one of its founding principles was the right of slavery. Loathsome or not, it was a founding principle of the new confederacy that broke off legally(according the rules of the constitution).
Where do you find the right to secede? I would agree there probably is one, but I don't believe it is explicit, explicit.
That's because the difference is, America is founded on a different principle. Israel is founded on the principle of being a Jewish state.
Israel was founded as a Jewish state. So what? Does that mean it has to stay this way?
America was founded with slavery as an established institution. Yet we later fought a war and amended our Constitution to change that.
One of the first pieces of legislation, signed by G. Washington, was the Naturalization Act of 1790 which limited naturalization to free white people of good moral character. Yet over the years, this premise has been changed until America became open to the entire world.
We lowly white Americans have been enlightened by the likes of Rubin and her co-ethnics over the past 100 plus years. It is our moral responsibility as friends and economic benefactors of Israel to return the favor. We've learned the lesson that having a nation exclusive to one group is wrong and short sided.
Come on Israel, if we evil whites in American can change, so can you.
The Arabs have 22 or 23 of them, or 29 of them, I lose track.
And how many nations in the New World do Latinos/Hispanics/Mestizos have? I lose track of this too.
Surely she doesn't believe that all Palestinians (not to mention Africans) wishing to enter Israel intend to blow up pizza parlors. Wouldn't such a belief make her a racist? She would certainly call me a racist if I made any such claim about any particular ethnic group wishing to immigrate to the US -- even one some of whose members have committed such acts.
Most Jews express a sentimental attachment to the idea of immigration because of the Ellis Island experience of their ancestors. The late Lawrence Auster, himself Jewish in background, observed that had it been known that letting in so many Jews would mean that America would never be allowed to have a sensible immigration policy in the future, America would never have let in so many Jews.
What is the best rebuttal to persuade the crowd?
1) The Founders expressed no desire for high levels of immigration, so it's a lie to call that a founding principle. They may not have opposed what immigration there was, because there was plenty of room for more people. But America certainly was not founded on a principle of "the more immigrants the better."
2) Just because something was good for a country in particular circumstances in the past doesn't mean it would be good for it now. When large numbers of immigrants entered the US in the late 1800s, much of the country was still unsettled, almost unexplored. Now we're facing urban sprawl, water shortages, and high energy prices. We don't have the same resources available to support millions more citizens.
3) Only 5 million immigrants ever came from Italy, but we're considering giving amnesty to as many as 20 million illegal aliens primarily from Mexico. The scale is much higher. Granting that a certain amount of immigration is a good thing, that doesn't mean any amount of it is a good thing. We should at least be able to have a conversation about how much immigration we want and how to handle it, without being called racist for wanting to do so.
"RUBIN: Tall walls make good neighbors."
Apart from the hypocrisies already mentioned she'd have exactly the same attitude to every other western nation - open borders for thee but not me.
You talk to an Israeli and they will give you a different answer. They will say, "you got to kill your Indians to get your country, why can't we kill our Arabs and get theirs?
It's only the neurotic American Jewish types who have to set up this ridiculous logical absurdity. Your typical Sabra has no problem when other countries favor people of their own race.
Ariel Sharon, a typical hard-nosed Israeli Jew, was disgusted by the weaktitty French Jews who whined that Arabs kids were attacking them on the street. They have a home here in Israel, he said. If they don't like it there, let them move to Israel.
He had no patience for the gutless Exilic Jews who want to have their cake [Israel] and eat it too [America].
Of course there are principled Jews like Phil Weiss (Mondoweiss.com), that want the same multiculturalism in Israel as they do in America, but they are by far the exception to the rule.
I don't agree with him, of course, but I respect his principles, something that Jennifer and her ilk are sorely lacking.
Your typical Sabra has no problem when other countries favor people of their own race.
The many whom I have met do. I think you are off base on your assessment. They are just as hypocritical if not more so--because even more racist than jews who are not from Israel.
Israel was founded as a Jewish state. So what? Does that mean it has to stay this way?
Good rebuttal. I intend to use it.
America is not founded on the principle of America for White People or America for Europeans. It is founded really on an idea. And that idea, if people are willing to assimilate, and I'm a big advocate of assimilation, should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language, as long as they are willing to eventually learn English and be part of the body politic. It's a completely different situation bw the United States and Israel.
Remind me again how Jews ever got the reputation for being intelligent? I don't just mean how poorly she expresses herself - this "argument" is dee u em dum.
The idea that America was founded on the express proposition of "cone one, come all" is historically ignorant.
that idea .. should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language, as long as they are willing to eventually learn English and be part of the body politic
There is not a single word of this nonsense in the US Constitution or in the writings of the American Founders. No one single word about how immigration should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language.
The women is an ignoramus of gargantuan proportions.
You talk to an Israeli and they will give you a different answer. They will say, "you got to kill your Indians to get your country, why can't we kill our Arabs and get theirs?
It's only the neurotic American Jewish types who have to set up this ridiculous logical absurdity. Your typical Sabra has no problem when other countries favor people of their own race.
I've actually heard Israelis (quite recently and on separate occasions) moralize about how awful Anglos treated Indians, or how the terrible Spaniards took over part of the Americas. Hypocrisy is an important cultural trait of theirs and they have wielded it effectively.
America certainly was not founded on a principle of "the more immigrants the better."
True, but you don't go far enough. America was also not founded on the idea that we must be indifferent to the race/religion/language/nationality of prospective immigrants. There is nothing in the "idea of America", or in the spirit or the letter of its founding documents, which prevents a policy of "only white English speakers need apply" if we so wish. Or of "only women with DD breasts need apply", if that's what we want. We can literally make the immigration law be anything we want.
The idea that blindness to the nature of immigrants is hardwired into the very nature of America is a lie, a Big Lie.
Typical female argument about male double standards -- its ok for HER favorite.
But in the end, Rubin will have to choose: Israel as a Jewish state (its already under extreme pressure there from their elites who are the same as ours) or global mass immigration.
Why can Israel have borders but the US not? That's not tenable. It comes down to a mere assertion of privilege, and is unsustainable without noblesse oblige and the privileged doing things like getting killed in battle first.
3) Only 5 million immigrants ever came from Italy, but we're considering giving amnesty to as many as 20 million illegal aliens primarily from Mexico.
Cail, in February TheKansasCitian reprinted a chart that showed the total number of immigrants from each country of origin between 1607 and 1958 as stated by John F Kennedy. This was a reprint from Pat Buchanan's book that footnoted the Kennedy book.
You are correct. Only 5 million Italians ever came. But look at the others. Our top contributor was Germany with 6.7 million immigrants. Greece and Poland never even exceeded half a million. Yet there are more Mexican-born Mexicans living in the USA today than the combined number of all the Germans, Italians and Irish who ever came.
Unreal. I don't get why our side doesn't point out this fact. Mexico has had her fill. If you are not going to curb immigration, then give some other F**king countries a chance.
Jennifer Rubin is that wretched refuse Emma Lazarus warned us about.
You goys keep perpetuating the fallacy that Israel is an ethno-state, where did you get such a misguided notion? While I sure would like to see what an Ashkenazi super state would look like, Israel is no such place. Israel has a population of 8 million; 3 million Askenazis, 3 million Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews and 2 million Arab Sunnis, Druze and Christians. The Sephardis and Mizrahis are Jews that remained in the vicinity of the Middle East after the Roman expulsions, consequently, they are basically Arabs with yarmulkes, their average IQ is about 90, their academic and economic performance in Israel bears this out. Israel cannot be described as an ethno-state, but perhaps theo-state, as immigrants are screened by religious affiliation. Israel idiotically flies in hundreds of thousands of brain-dead Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews, permanently ensconces them into its welfare system and is both decried and idealized as an as a racially pure whitopia by the stupid goyim. If it was not for the excellent birth-rates of the Ashkenazi Haredim, Israel would be in the same dysgenic death-spiral as the rest of the West.
Hispanics also have something like 29 countries, just as many as the Arabs do.
What is the best rebuttal to persuade the crowd? The argument can obviously be attacked for its factual and normative premises. Instinct, however, is suggesting to me it might be best not to even dignify the argument by getting into the factual or normative particulars, but essentially ignore its structure and to counter with a wholly different frame or idea in favor of immigration control (or in favor of a Gentile right of return to Israel).
Just a few ideas:
1. America was founded on slavery, too. And no voting for women, too. That's what I'd lead off with.
2. A people who won't keep what's theirs for themselves and their posterity will always lose it to people who take their interests seriously.
3. The rest of the world thinks keeping their country for their own tribe is a capital idea. China is for the Chinese, not the World. Israel is for the Israelis, not the World. India, Latin America, Asia, Africa, etc. What makes Whites think they're so much smarter than the rest of the species?
4. If thieves thought they could persuade you that you owe them your house, or at least, a nice section of it, they'd try.
So according to Rubin, non-discrimination isn't really better than open borders, it's just arbitrary depending on whether you were founded on that principle or not. Neither view is more moral or better than the other.
(Assuming you meant to juxtapose two things that actually contrast, and put "non-discrimination" next to "open borders" by mistake)
No, of course she's not saying that. If anyone tries to change America over to the Israeli model, she'll get up a posse, hunt him down, and lynch him.
Come on Israel, if we evil whites in American can change, so can you.
Yeah. Israel's social and immigration policies are the sociological equivalent of a country that refuses to use indoor plumbing or electricity.
You talk to an Israeli and they will give you a different answer. They will say, "you got to kill your Indians to get your country, why can't we kill our Arabs and get theirs?
Which falls apart like a house of cards the second anyone touches it; ask any Jew in academia, he'll tell you killing the Indians was bad bad bad, and the modern world is much better than that. I'd hazard a guess that the same was true in 1947. Hell, I bet any Jewish academic in Israel would tell you that.
It's only the neurotic American Jewish types who have to set up this ridiculous logical absurdity.
That's not neurotic, it's self-serving.
Ariel Sharon, a typical hard-nosed Israeli Jew, was disgusted by the weaktitty French Jews who whined that Arabs kids were attacking them on the street. They have a home here in Israel, he said. If they don't like it there, let them move to Israel.
Please. Ariel Sharon is just fine with accepting the aid and comfort of "neurotic" American Jewry, and doesn't raise the first objection to their behavior. Sharon and American Jewry = BFFs.
Remind me again how Jews ever got the reputation for being intelligent? I don't just mean how poorly she expresses herself - this "argument" is dee u em dum.
Even smart people sound stupid when they say the Earth's flat. I mean, what was she supposed to say? "Uhm, Mickey, we don't discuss these things in public. Ixnay on the ontradictions-cay!"?
You goys keep perpetuating the fallacy that Israel is an ethno-state [carney act presenting Jewry as Diversity ensues]
This is certainly a much better answer than Rubin's. It's still total shit, but it's an improvement over Rubin's naked supremacy. It has a chance of fooling a few rubes.
as immigrants are screened by religious affiliation.
You can call the religion of ethno-states a religion if you like, but it strikes me as a desperate, rear-guard action that won't work for long.
Whiskey, when you said "their elites are the same as ours," you were aware that there is more than one way that statement can be taken, right?
Their elites are the same as ours. Jennifer Rubin, to pick simply one example.
Oh, you didn't mean it that way? Let's talk moldboard plows.
“It is founded really on an idea. And that idea, if people are willing to assimilate, and I'm a big advocate of assimilation, should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language, as long as they are willing to eventually learn English and be part of the body politic.”
This explains why blacks were considered full citizens right from the beginning.
Mexico has white people everywhere. They vacation there, buy property there, make the laws, come and go as they please.
But when some darker Mexicans come to the US. You all go CRAZY.
I said: "You goys keep perpetuating the fallacy that Israel is an ethno-state [carney act presenting Jewry as Diversity ensues]"
Svigor said: "This is certainly a much better answer than Rubin's. It's still total shit, but it's an improvement over Rubin's naked supremacy. It has a chance of fooling a few rubes."
I said: "as immigrants are screened by religious affiliation."
Svigor said: "You can call the religion of ethno-states a religion if you like, but it strikes me as a desperate, rear-guard action that won't work for long."
I see that you acknowledged my arguments as "better than Rubin's", but you subsequently dismissed them as ineffective. In your haste you omitted your own counterarguments. I would be honored if you would take a moment to explain where my reasoning went wrong, as the logical foundation of your dissent is not apparent from your comments.
Oh, hey, forgot to mention, if Israel's a theo-state, then I'll take a theo-state like Israel, but for White "gentiles." A nice ethno-religion that is (and remains forever) 99.5% White, and a theo-state to go with it, is fine by me.
Getting the point yet? Call Israel whatever you want. Characterize it however you want. But an Israel for White "gentiles" is what I want.
Basically, Rubin is peddling socio-political apartheid. People of some nations or groups have the racial birthright to ethno-states for themselves, and people of others do not. And she's using the idea that people should not be restricted on the basis of race or religion or language, to sell this idea. She's selling a racist product in anti-racist packaging; a racial hierarchy in an egalitarian box.
It's bizarre - it's blatantly dishonest and Jewish supremacist.
"I've actually heard Israelis (quite recently and on separate occasions) moralize about how awful Anglos treated Indians, or how the terrible Spaniards took over part of the Americas. Hypocrisy is an important cultural trait of theirs and they have wielded it effectively."
Me too. Most of the Israelis I have met are left-wing, multiculturalist, open borders lovers when it comes to Western countries. They will repeat the lines about how America can't function without immigrant workers, but tell you Israel can because Israelis are not lazy like Americans.
Israelis are all about naked self interest. Hypocrisy does not phase them at all. The Israeli temperament is to be aggressive, obnoxious, in your face and to feel no obligation to treat other as one would wish themselves to be treated. Furthermore, they are proud of these traits and like to brag about them.
This BS line that some are pushing around here that Israelis in general support nationalism or immigration restriction in Western countries needs to be exploded because it's the opposite of the truth.
Most of the Israelis I have met are left-wing, multiculturalist, open borders lovers when it comes to Western countries.
Sounds like a representative sample!
It's elitz now.
But when some darker Mexicans come to the US. You all go CRAZY.
Over 16 million in a little more than 35 years is not SOME. It is a hell of a lot. There are more Mexican-born people in the USA than there are Swedes in Sweden AND Finns in Finland combined!
"Forgot to mention, in the name of all sane American-Americans, I hereby claim the right to have a not-ethno-state state like Israel's, but for White "gentiles." LOOOTS of diversity, zero ethno-state-iness. You know, English White people, German White people, Irish White people, Scottish White people, French White people, Polish White people, etc. Definitely diverse and not an ethnostate.
We can tell the Jewish critics that it's diverse, and definitely not an ethno-state."
I am sorry Svigor, I am not prepared to concede that being a "white gentile" constitutes membership of a religious community. Israeli Jews ARE racially diverse, accusations of racism by Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews in Israel are a daily occurrence. Please familiarize yourself with Israeli demographics, your ignorance of race relations between European and non-European Jews in Israel greatly weakens your ability to argue in this field. Your analogy comparing the racial differences between various northern European peoples to the racial differences between Israeli Jews does not hold up to scrutiny.
"Oh, hey, forgot to mention, if Israel's a theo-state, then I'll take a theo-state like Israel, but for White "gentiles." A nice ethno-religion that is (and remains forever) 99.5% White, and a theo-state to go with it, is fine by me.
Getting the point yet? Call Israel whatever you want. Characterize it however you want. But an Israel for White "gentiles" is what I want."
Israel has an average IQ of 96 and a 60% non-white population. I hereby request a moratorium on white nationalist bitching about Israel until any white country surpasses either of these two criteria of civilizational decline.
I am sorry Svigor, I am not prepared to concede that being a "white gentile" constitutes membership of a religious community. Israeli Jews ARE racially diverse, accusations of racism by Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews in Israel are a daily occurrence. Please familiarize yourself with Israeli demographics, your ignorance of race relations between European and non-European Jews
A religious community? Does Israel have an Inquisition to root out atheists? Accusations of racism against the Ashkenazim are common, you say. Are those assertions ever accurate? I'm interested to know if European Jews can be racist in Israel. Are Jews racist other places? Also, racists against other Jews? Other Caucasian Jews. Might European Jews other places be racist against other Caucasians?
Israel has an average IQ of 96 and a 60% non-white population. I hereby request a moratorium on white nationalist bitching about Israel until any white country surpasses either of these two criteria of civilizational decline.
Race is a social construct. Many 'European' Jews in the US are white when they wanna be. Most people in the Middle East are Caucasian, so are lots of Mizrahi Jews claiming to be non-whites?
I request that Jewish people acknowledge that the US has been pretty good for them. After all, the US and English were fighting against the Nazis when Jews in (now) Israel were fighting against the English. A broken US will not be much of an ally for Israel. The New American majority may not care much for Israel. Demographics like the Evangelicals are currently very supportive of Israel. I don't know how Israelis feel about them, but American Jews seem to despise the fundies. Israel's situation with a weaker US that's feeling a bit screwed in the relationship might not make it a great place for returning Jews.
Of course Jewish people aren't a monolith, but responding to fairly reasonable assertions that Jewish people advocate very different policies for the US and Israel with arguments might not be the best course. Perhaps many Jews don't see the situations as analogous, because maybe they don't feel the same way about the US and Israel. 'but, Israel is different' quite often sounds more like 'but, Israel is ours'.
Lots of Americans think that the US is not a 'proposition' nation, it's our nation. We shouldn't have to meet an arbitrary goals of being a 'religious community' to keep our homeland. Even though Mexicans aren't setting off bombs here, it's ok that we don't want them here. After all, Israelis would not support a Palestinian right of return if the bombing stopped, but Palestinians just had high crime rates, and were a net drain on Israel.
Finally, when one has a fair amount of trouble getting along with their neighbors as a minority in a bunch of host nations, and then has trouble getting along with their neighbors as a majority in their own nation, perhaps on should think about the 'wherever you go, there are' problem.
Whether Jewish people think they're advocating policies that hurt Americans or not, many Americans think those policies are bad. Let us decide what is good for America, and then hold your noses and support it. Wouldn't it be horrible if Americans turned against Jewish people because Jewish people were trying to help us so much? You do some people a favor...
If you play the 'Jews are different' card long enough, it might lead people into thinking that 'Jews are different.'
Jews are bullshit artists. And we have been stupid for forgetting that. Our ancestors knew it. We even let them deface The Statue of Liberty and change its meaning - and the whole meaning of America.
Post a Comment