 |
| Mrs. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, beneficiary of immigrant social conservatism. Note leopard-skin hijab. |
From the New York Times:
Beyond the Fence
By DAVID BROOKS
... First, immigration opponents are effectively trying to restrict the flow of conservatives into this country. In survey after survey, immigrants are found to have more traditional ideas about family structure and community than comparable Americans. ... Immigrants go into poor neighborhoods and infuse them with traditional values.
When immigrant areas go bad, it’s not because they have infected America with bad values. It’s because America has infected them with bad values already present. So the first thing conservative opponents of reform are trying to restrict is social conservatism.
I really despise this kind of divide-and-conquer shuck-and-jive. Besides being just stupid and dishonest empirically (Gen. Douglas MacArthur was an American conservative, a Chechen boxer or a Mixtec day laborer is just kind of backward), one of the basic patterns of history is that, no matter how much your fellow countrymen get on your nerves, you are a better off being stuck arguing with them endlessly than in inviting in people from beyond the seas to help you win your petty domestic disputes.
For example, in 1167, one Irish lord was losing a struggle with another Irish lord. But then he had a great idea: he'd invite over some Norman knights from England to help him put that other Irishman in his place.
The Normans were Vikings who had conquered a chunk of France, learned French, then conquered England. What could possibly go wrong if he brought some to Ireland? What? Were the English Normans going to conquer Ireland and own it for most of a millennium? Hah! Likely story ...
No, the truly important priority was to show High King Ruaidri mac Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair that he couldn't push King Diarmait Mac Murchada of Leinster around. These cool new English underlings of King Diarmait's would show High King Ruaidri who's boss!
And that's when I say, "And that reminds me to remind you of the continuing Spring 2013 iSteve Panhandling Drive."
Except that this post didn't really remind me, my American Express bill reminded me.
I want to thank everybody who has contributed so far. And for those who haven't gotten around to it:
First: you can make a non-tax deductible contribution to me by credit card via WePay by clicking here.
Second: you can make a tax deductible contribution to me via VDARE by clicking here.
Third: You can mail a non-tax deductible donation to:
Steve Sailer
P.O Box 4142
Valley Village, CA 91607-4142
Thanks.
Posts
103 comments:
And indeed they did!!
youngalexander
Love the hijab! In my experience, women who wear leopard print have always been...
Mr. Brooks needs a long, long rest. Hod carrying is a debilitating job.
Leopard skin hijab -- that about sums it up.
Liberal fools like that will never get it. No real conservative whats Somalis in America just because they have big families. ALL the evidence shows that these non white "conservatives" vote Democrats, and I purposefully used ALL, because there is not a single shred of evidence that they do not overwhelmingly vote democrat.
Should have been a Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat for the sister-in-law of the Jokerman.
This leopard skin hejab widow needs to meet a cool keffiyeh boy -
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111023084215/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/d/d4/Keffiyeh2.jpg/400px-Keffiyeh2.jpg
The hijab thing is going sideways. There's a new apartment complex near the end of the MBTAs Orange Line into Boston that's attracting a lot of relatively upscale immigrants. I've been seeing Muslim women with the hijab and skin-tight jeans. Modesty?
Not just that, the indians who welcomed the pilgrims did so seeking allies in their wars with other tribes. Worked out great for the indians.
Love the hijab! In my experience, women who wear leopard print have always been..."
oh yes....having lived in the middle east, Ive noticed quite a few women who look attractive in hijabs and dressed from head to toe. But that doesnt mean they are modestly dressed ,they wear such tight fitting pants that really need not expend too much energy imagining them naked.
And yes many of the women wearing abbayas wearing leopard print underwear but many others are less gauche as I will happily attest!
. I've been seeing Muslim women with the hijab and skin-tight jeans. Modesty?
Peter hitchens has pointed out this phenomon too - he feels its a political, not religious movement/statement.
Not just that, the indians who welcomed the pilgrims did so seeking allies in their wars with other tribes. Worked out great for the indians."
Add to this Indians(cow not bison) who invited various Muslim adventurers in their vendettas against those who were often literally their brothers.
I really despise this kind of divide-and-conquer shuck-and-jive. Besides being just stupid and dishonest empirically...
I like seeing Steve show us some fire.
I don't think Brooks or any of the pro immigration establishment care abou the truth, logic, reason - the 'message' is that no matter what, if you want to be a member of the 'club'you will support open borders. Of course, a lot of people who thought that 'membership' made them immune from Raj replacing them at work will discover they were what lenin called 'useful idiots'
Same thing happened in Spain when one group of Visigoth pretenders invited in some Muslims from North Africa to put down rival claimants to the throne.
Ditto for when the Saxons were invited into England.
Well, the Vietnamese which are about a 1/3 Catholic wre the last immirgant group that was conservative mainly because the older generation was anti-communists but they were in the last election voting less Republican since their income is lower than whites and anti-communistism is not as important to the younger generation. Vietnamese have a low out of wedlock birth rate like many asians and the Catholic Vietnamese are more devoted Catholics than Mexicans since they enter the priesthood more as a percentage of their population.
Leopard skin hijab -- that about sums it up."
Sometimes I wonder if Islam can trump multiculturism as many assume.
In Dubai, I have seen twilight books translated into Arabic and these demure,kohl eyed teenage girls dressed in abayas lapping them up.
Many of them are sexually active often with British or American men.Occasionally with their Indian co worker
And off they go to have hymen reconstructive surgery
Whiskey where are you
Mass immigration sure has worked out great for Palestinians. Of course, it probably wouldn't be accurate to say Zionist Jews were "invited" in. The British were put under extreme, sometimes violent, pressure to let them in.
One of the basic patterns of history is that, no matter how much your fellow countrymen get on your nerves, you are a better off being stuck arguing with them endlessly than in inviting in people from beyond the seas to help you win your petty domestic disputes.
Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores were aided and guided by Amerindian tribes that were rivals of the Aztecs.
If MacArthur was so conservative, why did he impose women's suffrage on Japan's constitution? Or was that psy ops?
Actually, the idea came from a female nag on Gen. Courtney Whitney's staff. But MacArthur signed off on it.
At least one MinneSomalli was quoted as planning to vote against the marriage amendment last fall, because he was persuaded ("by whom?", as WikiNags might ask) that the language would also prohibit polygamy. I don't see how, though, as a polygamous household is made up of several distinct "one man, one woman" marriages, not one big group grope. Anyway, his many Hmong neighbors are quietly practicing plural marriage on the sly. But Somalis are too honest for that, I guess.
How the rest of Mogadishu-on-the-Mississippi voted (or those other new Hminnesotans), I don't know. Did anybody even dare to ask?
Mass immigration sure has worked out great for Palestinians.
If they're speaking Arabic and bowing to the Ka'aba, then they're invaders too, or at least sellouts to invaders. Nobody did those things in the time of Jesus.
Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores were aided and guided by Amerindian tribes that were rivals of the Aztecs.
In the same way that chickens were "rivals" of Frank Perdue and Harlan Sanders. Here is one case where turning to outsiders was clearly an improvement. The Aztecs are gone, but the others are doing quite well. Just ask the mechanic in your town with the cockfighting logo.
If the vile, traitorous catamites of the PFJ hadn't crossed the mediterranean in search of foreign muscle, latin hordes wouldn't be sh*ting in JPF vineyards.
-The Judean People's Front
Should have been a Leopard Skin Pill Box Hijab for the sister-in-law of the Jokerman.
Witty!
Forgot to mention that the East India company in India which the various Indian cheiftains used in wars against rivals.
Well Reg no one said McArthur was a Japanese conservative. Plus you are forgetting that women' s sufferage was initially advanced with the same natural conservative argument we see advanced for immigration reform. McArthur was close enough to that time period to still be influenced by its thinking.
Furthermore, after five years of right wing Japs flying planes into boats and fight claw and tooth for ever inch of space why wouldn't you want to maybe prevent that.
They can always compare themselves favorably to Hitler and Stalin, but we still have one of the most vile ruling elites in history:
http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/5/4/meet-the-chechens
(...)
"The CIA and US Department of State play a crucial role in creating opportunities for power projection in Eurasia through both covert action and public diplomacy. With this end in mind, US intelligence has deftly used Muslim militant groups against Russian interests, oftentimes subcontracting operations and funding to allied services like those of the Saudis, Jordanians, Turks and Pakistanis. Not only can we list examples of this phenomenon in the Stinger-armed mujahedin of the 1980s and a web of NGOs sustaining the Chechen cause, but also in the Kosovo Liberation Army, the Benghazi-based overthrow of Muhammar Gaddafi in 2011 and the current NATO-backed insurrection against Bashar al-Assad's Syrian government. For three decades now this jihadist international has often acted in concert with US geopolitical goals, and within it the Chechens have attained legendary stature."
(...)
http://www.capitalismwithoutfailure.com/2011/12/bill-black-on-incidence-of-fraud.html
(...)
"On the prosecution of fraud following the Savings and Loan Crisis: Our agency filed over 10,000 criminal referrals that resulted in over 1,000 felony convictions. We worked closely with the FBI and the Justice Department, to prioritize cases—creating the top 100 list of the 100 worst institutions which translated into about 600 or 700 executives. We went after the absolute worst frauds.
On the prosecution of fraud following the current crisis: We now have appointed anti-regulators. The FBI warned in open testimony in the House of Representatives, in September 2004, that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and they predicted that it would cause a financial crisis if it were not contained. It was not contained. Since then we have had zero criminal referrals. They completely shut down making criminal referrals. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have not made it a priority to prosecute these elite criminals who caused this devastating injury.
On the incidence of fraud : "Liars loans" means that there was no prudent underwriting of the loan. About one-third of all the loans made in 2006 were liars loans. The Anti-Fraud Specialist Unit of the Mortgage Bankers Association - the trade association of the perps - reported this to every member of the Mortgage Bankers Association in 2006. The Anti-Fraud Specialist Unit stated the following: 1. Liars loans are an open invitation to commit fraud, 2. Liars loans contain a 90% incidence of fraud, and 3. Loans that were named "Alt-A" were actually liars loans. So nobody can claim they did not know. After 2006, liars loans grew to comprise over half of all loans made.
On who was committing the fraud: It was overwhelmingly lenders and their agents that put the ‘lie’ in liars loans."
(...)
David Books only has to look to Israel to learn how those immigration prospects are likely to turn out. Jews in Israel seek a nation friendly only to Jews while Jews here seek seek a nation only friendly to Democrats.
Mass immigration sure has worked out great for Palestinians. Of course, it probably wouldn't be accurate to say Zionist Jews were "invited" in. The British were put under extreme, sometimes violent, pressure to let them in."
Except there was no "Palestinians" as there was no Palestine. It belonged to the Ottomans and most of the land the Zionists had before 1920 was purchased.
There was no subterfuge, the intention was clear that they wished to move in,be fruitful and multiply
If Palestinians were two time losers (got shafted in WWI, big fing deal so did the much larger group-the Kurds) and WWII(you really an ally of Hitler would not have to pay the consequences of defeat-thats not how it works)
Defeated again in 48 and more conclusively in 67
Honestly ,why exactly should I or anyone else who is not Arab or Muslim give a shit about the Palestinians?
Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores were aided and guided by Amerindian tribes that were rivals of the Aztecs
You completely missed his point. Rephrase your statement to: The Amerindian tribes, with the help of Cortez, overthrew the Aztecs.
Besides being just stupid and dishonest empirically...
Question- are journalists lying more than ever in **spite** of the internet and the ease of access to information that would reveal them as the frauds they are ? Or has it always been this bad?
It seems to me the media has doubled down on deceit.
First, immigration opponents are effectively trying to restrict the flow of conservatives into this country. In survey after survey, immigrants are found to have more traditional ideas about family structure and community than comparable Americans. "
There is no such thing as "conservative" in the absolute sense. Conservative means to preserve the cultural traditions of a society. Since societies have different cultures, what is conservative in one can destructive of tradition in another. For example, a Sharia following Muslim may be conservative in Saudi Arabia but they are in no way conservative here in America.
Now a second way immigrants could theoretically be conservative is if they chose to ally themselves with the conservative forces in their host society, despite privately following the cultural values of their own culture. I have to say "theoretically" because this almost never happens. Buts lets imagine a possible example: a conservative white Christian who immigrates to Japan. Although their private beliefs differ greatly from conservative Japanese, they could still publicly ally themselves with the conservative forces in Japanese society. (They might do that if they recognize that Japan is, first and foremost, a home to the Japanese people, and preserving that traditional cultural identity is an important for the well-being of future generations of Japanese. They might do that because they understand that traditional culture serves important functions in society, such as providing inspiration and promoting solidarity, and that basic respect demands that the majority ethnic group of a nation not be undermined in their ability to pass this down to their posterity.)
The reality of immigration in America (or elsewhere) is that it is not conservative in either of these senses. The foreign cultural practices of immigrants do not help to preserve traditional American culture, no matter how conservative they might be in Chechnya or Brazil or India. And immigrants do not have enough respect for white Americans to put aside their ethnocentrism and ally themselves with conservative forces in the US. Instead they ally with the forces of multiculturalism who seek to destroy traditional white culture.
David Brooks is being a fool. I'm glad to see Steve letting some fire out "I really despise this kind of divide-and-conquer shuck-and-jive. Besides being just stupid and dishonest" Raaarrrrrrrrrr!!
Why stop with merely third world Mexicans? We should go and find the last remnants of primitive societies and bring them here. You want conservative values? Hunter-gatherers have got them in spades.
But isn't this the same David Brooks who recently proclaimed same-sex marriage to be a triumph of tradional values? I'm beginning to think this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
The example of the Irish inviting others in is irrelevant to David Brooks. It implies that Brooks actually wants to help the Republican Party, conservatism, and traditional America, and is just misguided in thinking that these invaders are really conservatives. The Irish didn't invite others in hoping to spark 800 years of occupation. THEY were misguided, Brooks fully understands that this mass influx will destroy the Republicans, conservatism, and white America. He desires these things. He's a racist pathological liar, not misguided.
It's tempting to call establishment Conservatives and Republicans Quislings, but that would be slander - AGAINST QUISLING. Quisling didn't cooperate with the Nazis knowing that they intended to wipe Norway and the Norwegian people off the map. That puts Republicans one step below Quislings.
The Norman invasion of Ireland is a bad example to use. The Normans became more Irish than the Irish (as witness the abundance of Norman names among the Irish). It was the later invasion of British Protestants that was the national disaster for Ireland.
BTW - MacArthur imposed female suffrage on Japan to weaken Japanese militarism ("women hate war" he is supposed to have said to an aide regarding the matter).
"Were the English Normans going to conquer Ireland and own it for most of a millennium? Hah! Likely story ..."
Interestingly, one study concluded that, nearly 900 years later, when descendants of the Gaelic Irish and Norman English have been united for several centuries in their shared Catholicism and (excepting a few Gaeltachts) the English language, the division between them is still a major factor driving the political rift between major parties Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael:
http://webpages.dcu.ie/~omalle/Politics%20with%20Hidden%20bases%20BJPIR.pdf
Crudely put, people with more Norman ancestry tend to favor Fine Gael, while those with more Gaelic ancestry prefer Fianna Fáil- despite the fact that none of them think much about the Gaelic vs. Norman distinction today, apart from maybe knowing the history of their surnames.
"Immigrants go into poor neighborhoods"
Unlike David Brooks, who never goes into poor neighborhoods.
"When immigrant areas go bad...It’s because America has infected them with bad values already present"
Brooks is using "America" as a euphemism for negroes.
David Brooks is a funny guy. I wonder, did he write this column on a bet, or because his editor asked him to, or what? I can't imagine him sitting down to write this and thinking, "This'll convince 'em!"
David Brooks's forked tongue:
"Open borders is good for Republicans because immigrants are natural conservatives on social issues. But the Republican Party should ditch social issues."
Steve's insight reminds me of Derbyshire's comments on the Cold Civil War.
America *is* two mutually antagonistic tribes of (mostly) white people who don't care for each other--or who at least enjoy claiming not to care for each other. As a conservative from an SWPL background I take the culture war in stride.
In the long run, the most important issue is not whether Utah wins or Vermont wins (to use a shorthand), but whether or not we upset this balance with an imported Third World population.
Immigrants go into poor neighborhoods and infuse them with traditional values.
Like carving up your daughters' sex organs and torturing animals before you eat them.
"In survey after survey, immigrants are found to have more traditional ideas about family structure and community than comparable Americans. They have lower incarceration rates. They place higher emphasis on career success. They have stronger work ethics. Immigrants go into poor neighborhoods and infuse them with traditional values."
But WHICH immigrants? I highly doubt if Somali refugees have more work ethic than Swedish-Americans.
I doubt if African immigrants are more productive than native-born Jewish Americans or Asian-Americans.
So, the notion of 'immigrant' is misleading when different kinds of immigrants from over 200 nations all over the world. There is no such creature.
But given that so many people come from Mexico and haven't done much for places like CA, it's clear that we are taking in too many of the wrong kinds of 'immigrants'.
"When immigrant areas go bad, it’s not because they have infected America with bad values. It’s because America has infected them with bad values already present. So the first thing conservative opponents of reform are trying to restrict is social conservatism."
But WHICH AMERICANS infected immigrants with such values? Did white conservatives come up with rap music? Do they control the porn industry or make stuff like GIRLS and SEX AND THE SHITTY?
Which Americans control the music industry and give us stuff like Lady Caca and 50 cents?
I haven't done anything to 'infect' immigrants with negative values.
"Second, immigration opponents are trying to restrict assimilation."
Since Americanism 'infects' them with destructive tendencies, is that a bad thing, at least according to Brooks' logic?
"The evidence about this is clear, too. Current immigrants enter this country because they want to realize the same dreams that inspired past waves."
Sure, people move around to find better lives, but you can say this of imperialists too. British imperialists sought better lives and more wealth by taking over places like India, so that must been morally justified too. Of course, immigrants want better lives. What idiot moves to another nation to be worse off? The question is IS IT GOOD FOR US?
Can you imagine some Hindu saying, 'we should let the British stay and rule us cuz they came here to make more money? And they're conservative just like us. We are reactionary hindus and they are 'racist' whites.'
"Study after study shows current Hispanic immigrants are picking up English at an impressive clip, roughly as quickly as earlier immigrant groups."
Yeah, and too many talk like Negroes and read the anti-white books written by Jews.
Btw, plenty of Jews learned Russian and Polish, but that didn't mean they much care for Russians or Poles.
"They are making steady gains in homeownership rates"
yes, the ownership society.
"job status and social identity"
Yes, like conquis being 'people of color' and browns stepping over whites via affirmative actionez.
"By second generation, according to a Pew Research Center study released earlier this year, 61 percent of immigrants think of themselves as “typical Americans.”"
Typical Americans today means some 'gay marriage' worshiping freak.
When Dylan sang of a "leopard skin pillbox hat", he had to have had Jackie Kennedy's recent style in mind.
And just about then, Ted Kennedy's 1965 immigration bill was guaranteeing the arrival/slew of the hijab version.
"Third, immigration opponents are trying to restrict love affairs. Far from segregating themselves into their own alien subculture, today’s immigrant groups seem eager to marry into mainstream American society. Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9 percent of whites married outside of their racial or ethnic group, as did 17 percent of blacks. But an astonishing 26 percent of Hispanics and 28 percent of Asians married outside their groups. They are blending into America in the most intimate way."
In other words, race-mixing. And why not? It took tens of thousand of yrs of special evolution to create the white race. Why piss it away in a few centuries through massive race-mixing? Who wants to blandize the world into mulatto-and-mestizo-ism.
And who says race-mixing has a wonderful history. Russians resisted 'love affairs' enforced on them by Mongols, Greeks resisted 'love affairs' enforced on them by Turks, and the native peoples of America resisted 'love affairs' enforced on them by the Conquis.
Damn 'racists'!
Even if Americans freely choose whom they love and marry, these 'love affairs' tend not to be 'fair' or equal. Looks to me many more Jewish men get Asian pooter than Asian men get Jewish pooter; far more Negro men get white pooter than white men get Negress pooter, though to be sure, white men generally don't want much of that.
If Brooks loves 'love affairs', he should call for Israel to fling open its borders so that every Jewess can have babies with Arabs, Africans, Asians, and Mexicans than with Jewish men.
"A few years ago, the great political scientist Samuel Huntington asserted that Hispanic immigrants were not succeeding as previous immigrants had. James P. Smith of the RAND Corporation conducted the most prominent investigation into this claim and concluded: “The concern that educational generational progress among Latino immigrants has lagged behind other immigrant groups is largely unfounded.”"
If largely unfounded, why do Latinos need affirmative action to be competitive with others? Why is the dropout rate so high?
And what is meant by 'largely'?
"Much of the research that shows the effect compares today’s third-generation immigrants with today’s second-generation group. But the third-generation families originally came to the U.S. decades ago, at a time when segregation was prevalent, discrimination was high and immigrants were harshly treated. You’d expect those families to progress more slowly than families that came to more welcoming conditions a generation later."
Yep, recent immigrants from Africa and Mexico will do so much better than Jews and Asians who arrived earlier because them were less friendly times. That must explain why the children of Jews who arrived in the early 20th century are still dressed in rags and illiterate. It must explain why
JapaneseAmericans who'd been 'interned' during WWII all became a bunch of hobos and ne'erdowells.
And just look at all the wonderful new immigrants in Europe who arrived in a much more liberal and tolerant social order. Look at the great black African scientists, businessmen, and scholars all over France, Sweden, and Holland.
"Finally, opponents of reform are trying to hold back the inevitable. Whether immigration reform passes or not, the United States is going to become a much more cosmopolitan country than it is now. The country will look more like the faces you see at college commencement exercises and less like the faces you see in senior citizen homes."
Lemme see... we are trying to restrict immigration because immigrants are MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN US. But more immigrants means US will be MORE COSMOPOLITAN.
Eh?
Anyway, Brooks's article is a kinder and mellower version of Tim Wise and Frank Rich's, "DIE YOU OLD WHITE FARTS AND GOOD RIDDANCE CUZ WE FIXED THINGS SO THAT YOUR ROTTEN WHITE KIDS CAN NEVER TAKE THEIR COUNTRY BACK."
Brooks may be right that US will become a more diverse nation. In that case, the main focus of American conservatism should be building a broad gentile coalition against the elites made up of Jews, gays, liberal wasps, and yellows.
It seems Germanism is most workable in the long run. Blood is thicker than anything else.
Britain was defined by class consciousness. Thus, in many cases, the British upper classes felt closer to upper classes in other nations/cultures than with lower class Britons. It's like Queen Victoria had a king from some primitive tribe sit next to her at a banquet. He may have been a barbarian but he was a monarch.
In the long run, this class consciousness thing poisoned the well between British uppers and lowers. Lower elements socially, culturally, and economically rebelled, and the antagonism led to the downfall of British economy. And the class thing filled the elites of Britain with guilt.
France was defined by culture, especially the idea that French culture was so great that the whole world should partake of it. Since Frenchness was defined culturally, anyone can become French by learning French and eating souffle. This led to the idea that France was a universal nation, and opened France up to tons of immigrants. Also, the emphasis on culture made the French elites favor Francophiles around the world than ethnic French at home.
America was defined by the individual, and the libertarian streak made it difficult for Americans to develop a strong sense of national bond.
Now, there are good things to be said for class, culture, and individualism, but as the CORE PRINCIPLE of a nation, they are problematic.
Germanism was defined by blood, and this meant that all Germans were part of a family. Thus, German elites didn't sneer at the lower classes as the British elites did. Thus, labor relations in Germany have been better, which has done wonders for the economy.
Though Germans are proud of their culture, they don't pretend it is the universal culture of all people, and this has protected Germany from radical culturalism.
And the idea of the German family united by blood has curtailed the abstracting and atomizing extreme of individualism. To be sure, bloodism taken to extremes can be deadly, as was the case with Nazism.
But it seems that blood is the best core defining element of a people, and this is why Japan and Israel are also stable and united entities. Japaneseness is essentially a matter of blood and so is Zionistness.
Thus, abstract ideas are made to revolve around core realities--as nothing is realer than blood--whereas Britain, France, and US made the fatal mistake of putting social ideas--class, culture, or individualism--at the center of their national identity.
As often as not, Jewish leftism is a hidden form of Jewish rightism.
Rightism has a winning chance only when practiced by a people with the upper hand demographically or politically.
If a society is composed 95% of people A and 5% of people B, people A can beat the drums of rightism for they have the power. Rightism means 'we are for our side and our power', and so, people A can make the claim and enforce it. But if people B acted in such manner, they should only show their hostile intent to people A and draw unwanted attention to themselves.
Rightists of people A would notice that the rightism of People B has its own agenda to take over and rule society.
So, for people B to serve its rightist interests, it's better to undermine the rightism of people A than nakedly promote their own rightism.
And this is what Jews understood. As Jews were only a small percentage of the population in Russia and America, it would have been stupid for them to be openly rightist and tell the goyim, 'we Jews wanna take over your nations to serve our own Jewish interests'. Goyim would have gotten mad and said, 'get out of here!!!'
Now, if Jews were 95% of the population in America or Russia, they could have done as they pleased and been openly rightist in their intentions. But they were a small minority, so they had to serve their rightist interests with the leftist strategy of undermining and weakening the rightism of the goy majority.
Thus, Jewish leftism was, as often as not, a ploy to serve Jewish rightism than to really serve the ideals of universal justice in earnest. After all, notice how even most ardent Jewish leftists have been passionate supporters of Israel.
Even if many leftist Jews don't consciously think this way, they must sense in their hearts that the best way to serve Jewish interests is by undermining the rightist interests of the majority goy population, because such weakening allows Jews to make the climb and penetrate into the echelons of elite power, from which to serve Jewish interests.
David Brooks is interesting as a 'rightwing Jew' because his rightism isn't the same as ours. He's really looking out for Jewish interests, and he knows diversity is good for Jews in undermining white majority power. But Jewish cons like him have fooled so many white cons that Jewish rightism is their rightism.
Even if Brooks is correct that American conservatives are opposing immigration to keep out immigrant conservatives, so what?
Conservatism is not a universal value, i.e. a conservative of one nation may not see eye-to-eye with a conservative of another nation.
I mean Jewish conservatives prefer not to have Israel filled up with Muslim conservatives. Why? Muslim conservatism and Jewish conservatism have very different vision of what the Holy Land should be like.
And I doubt if Chinese conservatives and Japanese conservatives see eye-to-eye on much, especially on them contested islands.
Brooks is trying to universalize conservatism, which is pointless. Every nation/people has its own conservatism that favors its citizens and culture, and that's the only way conservatism has any value.
So, naturally, American conservatives should favor Americans over immigrants, even if the latter are so 'conservative'.
He misses out that another of the common traits of conservatives is tribalism so importing lots of conservatives from *different* tribes is not a recipe for having nice things.
"Add to this"
and the romano-britons inviting in saxon pirates as mercenaries
Not just that, the indians who welcomed the pilgrims did so seeking allies in their wars with other tribes. Worked out great for the indians.
What the Indians did was pretty understandable, given that being defeated by other Indian tribes was actually worse than being defeated by whites. Indian tribes tended to kill the defeated men and take the women as slaves. At worst, whites pushed them into less desirable territory. Even the invitation of foreign allies by the denizens of the British Isles, as cited by Steve, to combat their perennially aggressive neighbors made sense, losing to your neighbors back then meant having your entire dynastic line slaughtered and losing all your possessions.
What's puzzling is why people like David Brooks are allying with foreigners to stomp on their fellow Americans when neither their lives nor their possessions are at stake. It stinks of telescopic philanthropy.
Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores were aided and guided by Amerindian tribes that were rivals of the Aztecs.
Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores were aided and guided by Amerindian tribes that were occasional food sources for the Aztecs.
Sorting on for the 'top comments' is depressing. A lot of NYT commentators are viscerally anti-white.
What is strange is that comments seem to 'close' very quickly on these immigration articles.
Finally, opponents of reform are trying to hold back the inevitable
Is it in inevitable, Mr Brooks that squatters will live in your house?
Why is it invitible/ What magic happened that makes it so.. and if it is the case, why does he bother supporting Israel? oh never mind..
Mass immigration sure has worked out great for Palestinians.
If they're speaking Arabic and bowing to the Ka'aba, then they're invaders too, or at least sellouts to invaders. Nobody did those things in the time of Jesus.
Because successive generations aren't allowed to modify their language or political beliefs, eh? At least they chose a nice inclusive religion, not one whose raison d'etre is racial segregation and supremacism.
Oh, and people back then weren't speaking what passes these days for Hebrew, either.
Here is one case where turning to outsiders was clearly an improvement. The Aztecs are gone, but the others are doing quite well. Just ask the mechanic in your town with the cockfighting logo.
Descendents of the Aztecs are not gone. And you will be hard pressed to locate any descendents of the tribes that allied with Cortes. Those that might reasonably be descendents became peons, second class citizens, and lost control of their territory to a different race and had to move on. Ask the mechanic in your town.
A lot of NYT commentators are viscerally anti-white.
err, is this a surprise?
"Honestly ,why exactly should I or anyone else who is not Arab or Muslim give a shit about the Palestinians?"
Why should I or anyone else who is not Jewish give a shit about the Israelis?
Steve,
Free my people, er, I mean, release my post on Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, etc. It isn't fair to allow Zionist commenters to slander Palestinian Gentiles but to spike rebuttals.
Except there was no "Palestinians" as there was no Palestine.
Does it matter if there was no official nation called Palestine? There was no nation called the United States of America prior to our Revolution. Yet some commenters on this site like to claim that the American Indians are the only ones who can claim this land as their own. If that is true, why can't the non-Jewish semites who lived in what is now present day Israel do the same?
Except there was no "Palestinians" as there was no Palestine.
Oh, but there was.
"Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
'His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Arthur James Balfour
Balfour Declaration
most of the land the Zionists had before 1920 was purchased.
Most of the land the Zionists have come to occupy since 1920 was taken by conquest, violence, coercion, guile, or oppression. That accounts for the lion's share of the existing Zionist entity, which was "established" in 1948.
There was no subterfuge, the intention was clear that they wished to move in,be fruitful and multiply.
There was plenty of subterfuge. See, for example, the understandings in the Balfour Declaration (quoted above) not to prejudice the religious or civil rights of the indigenous Palestinians.
But were there no subterfuge, is invasion, conquest, theft, ethnic cleansing acceptable so long as the aggressor's "intentions" are "clear"?
"Though Germans are proud of their culture, they don't pretend it is the universal culture of all people, and this has protected Germany from radical culturalism.
And the idea of the German family united by blood has curtailed the abstracting and atomizing extreme of individualism. "
Unfortunately, Germany is headed in the wrong direction too. It's not as bad as the US, but it is heading down hill
Even Switzerland is being filled up with Muslims and Africans.
"Except there was no 'Palestinians' as there was no Palestine."
There is a France and Germany, but the globalists say they should be wiped out by immigration too.
There was no South Africa until whites found it.
There was no 'India' before British Imperialism.
There was no 'Indonesia' before Dutch imperialism.
Why is it so very wrong to say that smart and responsible Americans should have more kids?
Is it offensive to the New Women for whom having kids is some kind of patriarchal insult?
If America is so great for having gone beyond that, why are so we dependent on foreigners having lots of kids so that they come here and save our economy?
It's like catch 22.
It's wrong for Americans to expect American women to have more kids. But it's only right for America to take in more immigrants from high-birth-rate nations because we need more and more people to save the economy.
It makes no sense. Libs and Brooks say feminism is a great thing, and every country should have laws like the US and EU and be prosperous democracies. But wouldn't that mean fewer women having kids around the world? And wouldn't that mean fewer immigrant pool for America?
Has anyone ever noticed how of the Brooks' in the media say a demographic problem is so teeny that no one should worry about, and then they say that they're huge problems that can't be addressed, much less reversed because the problem demographic wouldn't like it?
Unmarried women having bastard children
Then: tiny problem, God Quayle's dumb for thinking tv characters are 'role models' who influence opinions, much less behaviors.
Now: With more than whatever percent of American women having bastards, you conservatives are crazy to think you can turn back the clock: these women will never vote for that.
Meso-American squatters
Then: Tiny problem, and deporting them would be mean. not even a problem, because they're happy to scrub toilets.
Now: No turning back the clock, too many to deport, and they're kids will vote against you one day. Gotta spend a fortune trying to educate them: you don't think they're happy scrubbing toilets, do you?
Hernan Cortes and his conquistadores were aided and guided by Amerindian tribes that...
...were rivals of the Aztecs.
...were occasional food sources for the Aztecs.
As I put it in a comment that itself was apparently eaten this morning, they were "rivals" in the sense that chickens were rivals for Harlan Sanders and Frank Perdue.
This is one case where siding with the outsider turned out to be the right choice. Lots of Indians today, but no Aztecs. Unless you count soccer club mascots.
"Finally, opponents of reform are trying to hold back the inevitable. Whether immigration reform passes or not, the United States is going to become a much more cosmopolitan country than it is now. The country will look more like the faces you see at college commencement exercises
that's especially funny considering Unz's research on ivy league admissions.
Honestly ,why exactly should I or anyone else who is not Arab or Muslim give a shit about the Palestinians?
Because various anti-Semites see them as a way to engineer a partial Final Solution such that the West doesn't have to get its hands dirty? These people are retarded beyond all belief. It seems not to have occurred to these imbeciles that these Jews will end up as refugees in the West all over again.
Yet some commenters on this site like to claim that the American Indians are the only ones who can claim this land as their own. If that is true, why can't the non-Jewish semites who lived in what is now present day Israel do the same?
Because Araby is the last race on earth whose claims to aboriginalism and genocide can be taken seriously.
I sometimes think that David Brooks sort of gets it, but this is particular column is incredibly terrible.
What does it mean to call some a statistical fact a "statistical illusion?" If a phenomonen is statistical by nature and it appears in repeated statistical analyses, that's as good as it gets.
Brooks seems to want those of us who don't believe in cheap chalupas uber alles to explain what we want. Perhaps the easiest way to do this is to point to certain columns by . . . David Brooks. He spilled a lot of ink on Charles Murray's book, for example. In the end, Murray's book is simply an explanation of what happens in a vibrant society. Indeed, so is the whole bobo phenomenon. If only someone would write a book about that . . . oh, wait . . . nevermind.
You've loved how immigrant Jews improved America; you'll adore how immigrant Jewesses will enrich it.
>The country will look more like the faces you see in the brochures depicting college commencement exercises<
Fixed.
I went to a university in NYC...the most exotic people at our commencement were a handful of blacks in an ocean of white Jews.
But the cover of every brochure the school put out featured black women in front, some Asian and dark Middle Eastern women slightly behind them, and some black and Hispanic men (usually with one Asian dude wearing a lab coat and grinning) hanging around in the background.
Most college brochures are much more "vibrant" than the college itself.
How many mestizos has David Brooks personally seen at college commencement exercises?
People like Brooks (and he lives and breathes in the milieu that produces those brochures) are full of it.
Brooks has been beyond parody at least since his "Crease of His Pants" Ode.
>Because Araby is the last race on earth whose claims to aboriginalism and genocide can be taken seriously.<
Another From Time Immemorial reader?
Nostrand, you are aware, are you not, that a significant minority of Palestinians are Christians?
"Why is it so very wrong to say that smart and responsible Americans should have more kids?
Is it offensive to the New Women for whom having kids is some kind of patriarchal insult? "
Not a patriarchal insult, but an insult to the sensibilities of motherhood. Yeah, I sneer at the idea that when considering how many I should have and when, someone expects me to see my children as scores in some competition rather than human beings for whose quality of life I'm most responsible. I'd love to have 7 kids. Seriously, I really like children. But it's not about me. And it's not about you. It's about THEM. Who is going to pay for their education? Braces? Musical instruments? Baseball uniforms? Dance lessons? I haven't yet decided if organic food is important, but I don't want to risk the first few years, just in case.
Also, in functional families, parents absorb the costs if one of the kids turns out to the not too smart, overly emotional or simply makes a mistake along the way. Often, this helps prevent things from spiraling out of control. If parents spread themselves too thin, who's gonna insure that a child gets a second chance, should he go astray? The reason good parents tend to have fewer children is that they care enough about their children to consider their future quality of life.
And I don't see why you're pointing your finger at women, to begin with. I'm assuming you want the married ones to have kids. In my experience, it's almost always the wives who are ready first, and it's the women who beg for that one extra child. And it's not because men hate kids, but because educated middle class men are even more pragmatic and future oriented than their women. They feel responsible for their families. They take fatherhood seriously and don't feel comfortable just swinging it.
Want me to have more kids? Make my husband feel more comfortable about their future. Warning: he doesn't fall for gimmicks.
"Except there was no "Palestinians" as there was no Palestine. It belonged to the Ottomans and most of the land the Zionists had before 1920 was purchased."
Two of the big problems outstanding between Israelis and Palestinians:
1) The Right of Return (Palestinians driven forcefully from their homes have a legal right to return):
snip
UN General Assembly Resolution 3236, passed on 22 November 1974 declared the right of return to be an "inalienable right".
DVN: Well boo fing hoo.. Millions of Hindus,Sikhs and Muslims were uprooted from their ancestral lands and sent across India and Pakistan during partition. There is no right to return and sure as heck no Hindu,Sikh refugees in Indian or Indian Muslim refugees in Pakistan.
Quite unlike the Pali refugees in Jordan,Syria and Lebanon.
In 1945, of 26.4 million dunams of land in Mandate Palestine, 12.8 million was owned by Arabs, 1.5 million by Jews, 1.5 million was public land and 10.6 millions constituted the desertic Beersheba district (Negev)."
That doesn't suggest most of the land was purchased. Hum..."
I said BEFORE 1920 and I was talking about the land pre 1967 Israel.
2) Property payment. Many Palestinians still have the deeds to what were their homes. The total worth of this property is quite large. What happened/s to this property?
It was appropriated as happens in war.Get over it.
5/7/13, 10:00 PM
@Garland
Why should I or anyone else who is not Jewish give a shit about the Israelis?"
No one is asking you to. They can take care of themselves.All we ask you stop with the "war crimes" and "Zionist aggression" talk whenever Israel strikes back at these savages.
Most of the land the Zionists have come to occupy since 1920 was taken by conquest, violence, coercion, guile, or oppression. That accounts for the lion's share of the existing Zionist entity, which was "established" in 1948."
DVN: Yes since 1920 ,whatever happened after 1920 pray. Does it have anything to Arab rioting and the craven British placating to the Arabs-see Samuel Viscount.
Balfour by then then was not an operating manual.Promises of autonomy to the Zionists like the promises to Syrians and Kurds had fallen by the wayside.
Yes it was taken by violence and coercion in the face of colonial presence(British) and semi civilized squatters armed and funded by their brethren(Palestinians).
What do you expect?
5/7/13, 3:50 PM
Anonymous said...
There was no subterfuge, the intention was clear that they wished to move in,be fruitful and multiply.
There was plenty of subterfuge. See, for example, the understandings in the Balfour Declaration (quoted above) not to prejudice the religious or civil rights of the indigenous Palestinians.
But were there no subterfuge, is invasion, conquest, theft, ethnic cleansing acceptable so long as the aggressor's "intentions" are "clear"?
DVN: As I said the Balfour with other promises of WWI to peoples of the Middle East was swept under the rug by colonials such as Britain and France.
The Ottoman Empire was defunct and its corpse was being picked clean.Turks managed to hold on to thier rump state by massacring and expelling Greeks and Armenians(funny that doesnt seem to bother you as much) while others less powerful were left to their own devices such as Zionists and Palestinian Arabs who had a chance of autonomy and sharing the land with the Jews but chose to go for all or nothing everytime and they ended up with nothing.So again why should I give a shit?
And the Zionists prevailed in the end.And the violence they indulged and the land they grabbed was pretty mild and small by the standards of either WWII,and post WWII nationalist movements or the Middle East in general.
Again why should I give a shit?
Maybe I will start when the Arabs recompensate the Jewish refugees driven from Arab states esp after 1948 and 1967.
Aldridge said...
Nostrand, you are aware, are you not, that a significant minority of Palestinians are Christians?
DVN: Yes , the decline of Arab Christians is a tragedy.But they hitched their wagon to the wrong star and went for the Arab nationalist fiddle faddle and wanted to prove their Arab credentials by being disproportionately involved in the orgs such as the PLO.
To be sure Israel had a hand in creating Hamas in the foolish notion that this religious movement could offset the secular PLO (they are not unique in thinking like this- see U.S and the proto Taliban against athiest Soviets in the 1980s).
But lots of Christians across the Middle East, esp Egypt and Iraq suffer discrimination when the iron hand of secular Arab nationalism is lifted and the pent up resentment of the Muslim populace manifests itself.
Even without Israel it was only a matter of time before Palestinians bore the brunt.
As of now, Israel and until recently Allawite Syria were the best places in the Middle east for Arab christians followed closely by Jordan.
Two of the big problems outstanding between Israelis and Palestinians:
Unless you're Arab or Muslim, nobody gives a damn. And an intelligent Western anti-semite ought to hope that Israel makes the country a paradise on earth so that all the Jews in the West move there and stop mucking around with our political scene.
Anti-semites need to stop day-dreaming - in this day and age, nobody is going to impose a Final Solution on the Jews in Israel. When things get rough, Israeli Jews will move to the West. Do you really think we don't have enough Jews here, that we want millions of additional ones landing on our shores?
Weirdly enough, this is the complaint that left-wing Jews have about Republicans. We're trying to make things cushy for Israeli Jews so our Jews will leave the US and finally make aliyah, so America can be rid of Jews once and for all. In that rendering, the GOP are just a bunch of Nazis without the gumption to carry out a Final Solution on Jews in the New World.
Big diverse cities like New York are boring. In fact I would say your white exburb is not as boring which is different from progressives. Sure its got the art and culture stuff a lot since its a big city but a lot of the different immirgant groups most people can not connect with. A gal complains about Portland but in some ways Portland is more interesting than New York which allows all kinds of different foreingers.
Weirdly enough, this is the complaint that left-wing Jews have about Republicans. We're trying to make things cushy for Israeli Jews so our Jews will leave the US and finally make aliyah, so America can be rid of Jews once and for all. In that rendering, the GOP are just a bunch of Nazis without the gumption to carry out a Final Solution on Jews in the New World."
There is apparently no limit to the idiocy of leftist Jews in America or Israel. And contrary to the bizarre assertions of the posters-most leftist Jews are pro Palestinian
Yes even in Israel.
There is a left in Israel every bit as anti national and destructive to the national fabric and cohesiveness as the one in America.
They may be less effective because the damage they do is immediately noticed due to the drastically smaller size of Israel.
Yes Islam is not supremacist at all!
No, it is not. Unlike the Judaic and Hindu groups, anyone can join. And it is highly egalitarian--a lot of affinity with U.S. values.
Weirdly enough, this is the complaint that left-wing Jews have about Republicans. We're trying to make things cushy for Israeli Jews so our Jews will leave the US and finally make aliyah, so America can be rid of Jews once and for all.
Oh really. Please show us one instance of "left-wing Jews" making such a complaint.
DVN: Yes , the decline of Arab Christians is a tragedy.But they hitched their wagon to the wrong star and went for the Arab nationalist fiddle faddle and wanted to prove their Arab credentials by being disproportionately involved in the orgs such as the PLO.
It was either that or have their country flooded with millions of supremacist jews. The Zionists left the no choice.
But lots of Christians across the Middle East, esp Egypt and Iraq suffer discrimination when the iron hand of secular Arab nationalism is lifted and the pent up resentment of the Muslim populace manifests itself.
Even without Israel it was only a matter of time before Palestinians bore the brunt.
You are off your rocker. Any discrimination is retaliation or self-defense against Christian soldiers invading their homelands, Christian nations manipulating their politics.
DVN: As I said the Balfour with other promises of WWI to peoples of the Middle East was swept under the rug by colonials such as Britain and France.
The Balfour Declaration was hardly swept under the rug. It was incorporated in the post-WWI League of Nations mandate and its principles were a recognized part of the British administration of Palestine.
It was appropriated as happens in war.Get over it.
Should the same rule be applied to Jews who may have suffered damages in World War II?
I said BEFORE 1920 and I was talking about the land pre 1967 Israel.
You like to move the goal posts don't you. You aren't a good faith interlocutor.
What is so special to you about 1920?
Even without Israel it was only a matter of time before Palestinians bore the brunt.
Why would that be so? They lived together in peace in Palestine for centuries, even after the Zionists upset the demographic balance.
They can take care of themselves.All we ask you stop with the "war crimes" and "Zionist aggression" talk whenever Israel strikes back at these savages.
Why is it important to you that observations of jewish war crimes and aggression be censored?
Balfour by then then was not an operating manual.Promises of autonomy to the Zionists like the promises to Syrians and Kurds had fallen by the wayside.
But according to you, now promise was made to start with. Palestine didn't exist, so it was impossible for the jews to have received such a thing.
Brooks' shtick is the smart-and-urbane-conservative-who-appeals-to-liberals-and-tries-to-help-other-conservatives-to-be-smarter-to-win-the-approval-of-liberals-as-well.
In a way, he's fooling both sides, as well as himself. He's trying to Alinskyize liberalism into something acceptable to cons and Alinskyize conservatism as something 'smart' and 'enlightened' for liberals.
Because various anti-Semites see them as a way to engineer a partial Final Solution such that the West doesn't have to get its hands dirty? These people are retarded beyond all belief. It seems not to have occurred to these imbeciles that these Jews will end up as refugees in the West all over again.
I'm be concerned the other way.
It seems very hard for Jewish people to examine their own behavior in their relationships with other groups. Perhaps they do discuss it among themselves.
Even though it has a specific name, Antisemitism is not very different from any other sort of 'racism'. Most people notice physical and behavioral differences about other groups after a bit of interaction. It's so natural to like your own tribe more than others that the preference didn't even have a name. Most people like their family more than strangers, they're familists. every Trotsky didn't coin 'racism' until later. Quite a bit comes from pattern recognition. Asians, blacks, Jews, Finns, Russians...etc. aren't identical, so racism and ethnicism are heterogeneous: Not many 'racists' thinks blacks are good at math and Chinese have rhythm. 'Sober as an Irishman' must mean drunken. While Gypsy-honest and honest are synonyms, really.
Ancient and medieval 'stereotypes' about Jews were very different. That sort of implies that Gentiles did notice actual behavioral differences. Anti-Romanyism was surprisingly consistent accross Europe. It's odd that illiterate farmers who didn't do much traveling would all randomly come to similar views of Gypsies. Perhaps Gypsies had something to do with it?
Schizophrenia is a horrible illness for it's victims. Living with schizophrenic relatives and neighbors isn't totally awesome. Schizophrenics are not great neighbors now, and antipsychotic drugs help a lot.
It's pretty obvious that German attitudes about Gypsies and schizophrenics didn't come about because Gypsies are schizophrenics are so unbearably wonderful. Their behavior had something to with the social tension. Slaughtering wandering petty criminals and people who mostly sit around and listen to voices is disproportional. Had they known what was coming, the Gypsies might have behaved better. Schizophrenics were stuck being who they are.
It occurs to me that maybe anti-Semitism was not solely a result of Jews being wonderful and contributing too much to the welfare of other Germans. I wonder because I'm pretty sure that European Jews would have done almost anything if they had known the Germans were going to murder 12 million people.
I really, really hope I'm just crazy, but I think Jews won't do very well if the US collapses or explodes. Not that it'll be great for anyone, but Zuckerburg and Brooks climbed to the top, and America's been good for them. They shouldn't try so hard to undermine it.
rob said: I'm be concerned the other way.
It seems very hard for Jewish people to examine their own behavior in their relationships with other groups. Perhaps they do discuss it among themselves.
One of the problems is that the more universalist Jews are often uncomfortable with the idea that they even constitute a separate group. There was a time before the second world war when thoughtful Jews did in fact look to reform their own culture, but the current climate isn't favorable to such a hard headed look in the mirror for many reasons:
1) Grown up politics is dead, especially when it comes to emotional topics. It would require nuance and maturity to accept that there is a limited truth in the complaints of some anti-semites.
1B)It is very hard for the immature to believe that other people are any more capable of a nuance than they the "reasonable" people are. After all, when ever infantile anti-racists feel aggrieved, they lash out. They likely assume that admitting any wrong doing would invite the same hysterical rage from others.
2) Jews of a universalist bent are often uncomfortable even seeing themselves as separate group with distinct characteristics and interests beyond vague boilerplate about valuing education etc.
3)Living in a criticism free environment makes even the slightest corrective advice feel like an assault. Just look at the self-esteem driven, fragile narcissism of the millenials. Many live in a positive feedback loop where hypersensitivity creates an environment that encourages ever greater hypersensitivity. It will eventually end in tears.
4) Anti-racism makes pattern recognition the epitome of evil. If they can't even apply it to murderous alien savages, why would they apply it to their in group.
5) The Holocaust and all of the wrong lesson derived from it. My short take on the Shoah is that frightened, power crazed lunatics kill people that they dislike. Their take is that disliking people leads to Auschwitz, especially when its the big bad euros doing the disliking.
-The Judean People's Front
The Balfour Declaration was hardly swept under the rug. It was incorporated in the post-WWI League of Nations mandate and its principles were a recognized part of the British administration of Palestine.
DVN: If it had been incorporated the Zionists almost immediately wouldve had their state!
5/8/13, 7:45 AM
Anonymous said...
It was appropriated as happens in war.Get over it.
Should the same rule be applied to Jews who may have suffered damages in World War II?
DVN: The side allied with the Jews was victorious.
5/8/13, 7:46 AM
Anonymous said...
There is a right of return. He just cited you to the law.
DVN: And I am saying that law in the context of recent world history is absolutely incorrect and immoral.
5/8/13, 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...
I said BEFORE 1920 and I was talking about the land pre 1967 Israel.
You like to move the goal posts don't you. You aren't a good faith interlocutor.
What is so special to you about 1920?
DVN:Arab violence and British placation of. If I included the West Bank territories in my definition of Israel you would accuse me of being an Israeli expansionist ,if I clarify I dont then Im moving the goal posts! There is no pleasing some people!
5/8/13, 7:49 AM
Anonymous said...
Even without Israel it was only a matter of time before Palestinians bore the brunt.
Why would that be so? They lived together in peace in Palestine for centuries, even after the Zionists upset the demographic balance.
DVN: You havent read my other post. Arab nationalism ,which was headed by Christians, was doomed to failure because it was based on other failed European ideologies such as nationalism and fascism. It was therefore inevitable that Islamism would replace Arab christian friendly Arab nationalism.
5/8/13, 7:50 AM
Anonymous said...
Why is it important to you that observations of jewish war crimes and aggression be censored?
DVN: I would like all fair minded people to notice this type of shuck and jive. Before it was "why should we give a shit about Israelis" and I countered with to the effect of -if you dont give a shit ,then why criticize it in its wars aggressive or otherwise?
That is replied with
"Why is it important to you that observations of jewish war crimes and aggression be censored?"
Even an anti Semite can see the collapse of rationality and logic in that one.
5/8/13, 7:52 AM
Anonymous said...
Balfour by then then was not an operating manual.Promises of autonomy to the Zionists like the promises to Syrians and Kurds had fallen by the wayside.
But according to you, now promise was made to start with. Palestine didn't exist, so it was impossible for the jews to have received such a thing."
DVN: I think you misunderstand. I never used the Balfour declaration to prop up the Zionist argument.
Anonymous said...
Yes Islam is not supremacist at all!
No, it is not. Unlike the Judaic and Hindu groups, anyone can join. And it is highly egalitarian--a lot of affinity with U.S. values."
DVN: How nice of a CAIR spokesman to drop by!
Indeed I remember how just like Islam ,Americans declare the world into dar ul harb and dar ul America.
View non Americans as 2nd class individuals to taxed, exploited and not allowed to ride a horse(I suppose car)
And view slavery as sacrosanct.
Us "supremacists" Jews and Hindus thank you for offer of inclusion but Im afraid I have to decline.
5/8/13, 7:33 AM
Anonymous said...
Weirdly enough, this is the complaint that left-wing Jews have about Republicans. We're trying to make things cushy for Israeli Jews so our Jews will leave the US and finally make aliyah, so America can be rid of Jews once and for all.
Oh really. Please show us one instance of "left-wing Jews" making such a complaint.
DVN: Thomas Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Howard Finkelsetein,Glenn Greenwald, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin, Stanley Cohen(lawyer for Hamas)...are you really this ignorant?
5/8/13, 7:35 AM
Anonymous said...
It was either that or have their country flooded with millions of supremacist jews. The Zionists left the no choice."
DVN:THere is nothing supremacist about Zionists who crave a land the size of New Jersey. THe Arabs who occupy lands the size of continent on the other hand...
But lots of Christians across the Middle East, esp Egypt and Iraq suffer discrimination when the iron hand of secular Arab nationalism is lifted and the pent up resentment of the Muslim populace manifests itself.
Even without Israel it was only a matter of time before Palestinians bore the brunt.
You are off your rocker. Any discrimination is retaliation or self-defense against Christian soldiers invading their homelands, Christian nations manipulating their politics.
DVN: I can sense Arabic logic at work! So because American "Christians" invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.Egyptians had no choice but to further exploit and discriminate against their Coptic minorities?
By the same token I suppose American rednecks are thoroughly justified in indulging in mass rape of Muslim American women when the next 9/11 occurs?
I await your wisdom.
@chechen uber alles
There was no 'India' before British Imperialism. "
Almost missed the nonsense above.
Of course being an average ignorant HBD you wouldnt have any idea that the 108 "janapadas" comprising pretty much every region of modern India(and Afghanistan,Uzbekistan,Bangladesh and Pakistan) has been defined since atleast the Ramayana (around 6000 BC)
The idea of political unity was always placed second to cultural unity ie the Bharatiya culture of Bharatavarsha as defined in the Vedas,Puranas,Upanishads and the various shrutis,smritis and sutra(yes including Kama!)
If your Gregorian calendar cant count that high(much of world history including the idiotic Aryan Invasion theory is based on the Biblical creation of the world at 4100 BC LOL) then its not really our problem.
But then again you really didnt know HOW to count until you were taught our system via the Arabs.
If you have a problem with this fact- you are more than welcome to solve differential equations using Roman numerals
Post a Comment