The Elephant Never Forgets

Posted by JW Holliday on September 15, 2005, 12:35 PM | #

The following is of interest:
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no1/jf-steinlight.html

A quote from that article: “For Dr Steinlight, immigration is to be supported or opposed depending upon whether it is “good for the Jews.”  Therefore, if immigration is bad for the majority population but good for the Jews, it should be supported.  And conversely, if immigration is good for the majority population but bad for the Jews, it should be opposed.”

Now that is exactly the sort of self-centered dual-morality attitude that creates much anger among gentiles.  Now see the following here:-

Quote: “At the beginning of the panel discussion, the moderator, Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies which had published his essay, asked Dr. Steinlight if Jews can engage in “identity politics” to advance Jewish interests can’t white, Christian Americans also engage in “identity politics” to advance their group interests?

... For one whose essay called for asking “hard questions” and engaging in “straight talk,” Dr Steinlight would only mumble something about “Not all identity politics are created equal.”

His Orwellian answer encapsulated a dangerous extremism that extends well beyond the subject of immigration.”  Unquote.

Well, that is where the Steinlights and Gordons of the world are wrong.  There is in fact no objective reason to justify one set of identity politics over another, regarldless of whatever self-interested rationales are generated by the usual suspects.  All groups have an equally legitimate interest in their own survival and well-being.  White Christian Americans – Steinlight’s views notwithstanding – have just as much right and legitimacy to engage in identity politics as do Jewish Americans.  Regardless of what “anti-racist” academics may believe, whites have just as much right to engage in racial/ethnic activism as to “people of color.”

That is not an opinion, it is just biological reality.  Every group has their own set of genetic interests, and there is no objective, universal formulae for favoring one over the other.

Favoritism of interests can only be subjective, and members of groups should not accept those (from outside or inside the group) who insist that there is some sort of “objective reason” why the group’s interests are less valid than that of another group.

Posted by Svigor on September 15, 2005, 01:45 PM | #

From the letter Steve received:
Another questioner from the audience asked the panel about our immigration problems.  Medved, unfortunately, began to waffle and squish on the subject.  He pointed out that America had (roughly) 3,000 miles of borders and it couldn’t possibly protect them all.  He noted that Israel, by comparison, had something like 240 miles of borders and was having a hard time controlling even that.

Geography notwithstanding (we could simply skip walling the roughest terrain and use surveillance instead since traffic would be much lower), an Israeli-style barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border would cost us under ten billion dollars.  It would probably be the single best investment in U.S. government history, as it would instantly allow deported aliens to remain deported.  We would save the cost of the barrier in social and health services to illegals in a year.

Posted by Svigor on September 15, 2005, 01:48 PM | #

He was visibly taken aback by this reaction.  He asked, “Why are you booing me?”  Clearly shocked.  Then he thought he had it figured out and responded by basically, “Oh, well I guess now this is an issue of Mexicans versus Jews…”  And this produced even more jeers and boos from the audience, since he was clearly implying the audience was racist.

I frequently criticize jewry so I want to make something clear: jews have been as screwed-over by their own leadership throughout history as any people on Earth.  Maybe that’s what we’re seeing here, a bit of much-deserved backlash.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 15, 2005, 11:32 PM | #

“as in 1924, so today:  Americans want the flood stopped.”  (—from the log entry)

Yes and not only that, they want the demographic imbalance already brought about since 1965 reversed.  Despite what naysayers like John Ray maintain, such a reversal is completely doable where there’s the will.  The other side must not be allowed to win their forced race-replacement gambit by the ratchet-and-pawl mechanism they’re obviously counting on:  the “things can go only in one direction, never in reverse” mechanism, or the “two steps forward, one step back” strategy.  Reversing the imbalance can be accomplished by of course deporting all illegals and making it so hot for them to try and stay here illegally they’ll deport themselves back across the border silently and without fanfare by just walking (or hitching a ride or swimming or sprouting wings and flying for all I care, just so long as they do it) back across the border the same way they walked in.  That’s the illegals.  As for the legals permitted by the other side to enter in completely inappropriate numbers and kinds, they must be offered humane repatriation opportunities with financial and other incentives so generous they can’t refuse.  Of course while all this is going on the immigration policy in place from 1924 to 1965 has to be restored.  And so on.  There are many ways to skin this cat. 

“I’d say, too, that JPod’s comment reflects also much anti-democratic, anti-populist sentiment, downright tribal.”

Of course it’s downright tribal.  Jewish obsession with and fanaticism about open borders is a tribal issue for them.  JPod comes right out and says that in different words, in the quote being discussed in the present entry:  for him it’s a Jewish position and he must know its effect is to harm or weaken white Christians and the traditional U.S.A. nation-state.  It’s one-hundred-percent tribal.

Posted by Stuka on September 16, 2005, 12:10 AM | #

Comments like JPod’s compel me to reassess my attitude towards Jews. Where before I merely felt a mild distaste for these sly sub-humans, now I feel a genuine dislike for them, and I feel called upon to work actively against them.

Thanks, chaps.

Posted by Andrew L on September 16, 2005, 05:03 PM | #

Ha , I’m not sure yet, Hypothesise about religion and introduce a more outrageous existance of Exeterrestrial intervention thousands of years ago to explain the supernatural events described in Jewish and Christian Scripture’s, as for Inelligent life forms to ready shape minds of equal existance, but Human selfishness in some people, manifests it’s own interpritations and molds society to that of their own Ideological configueration.

I do not think Jew’s are the chosen one, but leftism and religion have diverted the Meaning for some self served egosentric outcome and has been far removed from the conseptual intent to unite in Civil society, with common goals and guide lines for conduct and futuristic advancement.
GW mentioned before about Sodom and Damore, could well be the eventual outcome if But not a God that Destroys, but the Exeterrestrial being not happy with progress and how perverted and fractured society has become.HA
Well, keeps the mind active and the channels open for new Ideas,and NO I’m not on drugs.

Posted by AD on September 16, 2005, 06:21 PM | #

Andrew L,your posts are either way over my head or you are on drugs.

For the life of me,i can’t understand how your response relates to the subject matter here.‘Extraterrestrials’?‘Sodom and Damore’?‘Keeps the mind active and the channels open for new ideas’?

I don’t understand what this has to do with Jewry and their alleged interests in mass immigration.Are you some all-knowing/all-seeing guru whom i just don’t understand yet?

Posted by dlg on September 16, 2005, 06:49 PM | #

“Sly sub-humans”? Nice. Were the people in the audience booing Podhoretz for his remarks also “sly sub-humans”?

Pardon me for being offended at being called sub-human. We’re notoriously thin-skinned, you know.

Posted by Andrew L on September 16, 2005, 06:51 PM | #

Ha no AD, just a new slant of Religious beginnings, not a guru or of knowing, just humerous attempt to introduce ideas of what made things tick and why. perhaps well be off the mark, but if it stimulates the mind and forms a smile, it worked.My silly ideas are no more sillier than anyone elses that blame jew’s for the worlds problems, but the philosophy of intellectuals are to blame, just because in historical events , some of these intellectuals are of some jewish decent, their ideas and philosophy are indeed pantheisistic or form a Universal God . and are not that of the orthodox ideology, God is everything Type Utopia,that relates closer to Islam.There are just as many Christians , as well as Atheist’s that promilgate much of the Immigration topic, so Jewish or any religious ideology does not play a part. Intellectual brain’s that manufacture this perverted new religion are the enemy.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 16, 2005, 07:27 PM | #

Dlg,

Address your comments to Stuka, for I certainly don’t consider Jews to be sub-human.

Interestingly, though the conference was sponsored by a Jewish group was the audience Jewish?

Posted by Andrew L on September 16, 2005, 07:34 PM | #

AD, the Sodom biblical story is the city of Self Indulgent Society, Poofs, etc, ha, and god Destroyed the City with Fire and brimstone from the sky. Introduce a new story line, the Exeterrestrial’s were offended at the state of the self indulgent and perverted society in Sodom and just Nuced the place from the sky,the witnesses would not realise what it was they were seeing ha hmmmm. so God did it.That sounds more feesable.
Now who is the chosen one?

Posted by AD on September 16, 2005, 08:32 PM | #

so Jewish or any religious ideology does not play a part.-Andrew L

Well,i’m not sure of the religious aspect of it,but any ‘minority’ within a country usually aims to weaken the majority in one way or another for their own gain.

The ‘jews’ have been European mans longest ‘minority’,which is probably why so much focus is on them.They are seen as having set the template for all subsequent minorities.

I think when people talk about jewry in negative terms,they are more referring to the minority mentality.And at a site like MR.com,i think one of the main points is to question the very existence of intentionally imported minorities.

It is a sensitive topic,because many jews,especially younger ones,have crossed over to the ‘majority’ mentality.I have alot of empathy with these people,which is why i rarely talk about the ‘jewish question’.I honestly don’t know how to approach it.

Posted by AD on September 16, 2005, 08:40 PM | #

....and the question is all the more difficult in Australia,as Jewish convicts were here right from the start and European Jews were always allowed in under the White Australia Policy.The pre-WW2 jews were quite resistant to many of the post-WW2 ones who were pro-multiculturalist.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 16, 2005, 09:17 PM | #

AD,

I read a report about a Jewish Rabbi that emigrated to Israel from Australia some years ago, 1980s(?).

While in Australia he was on some sort of human relations commission which promoted diversity and multiculturalism for Australia.

After emigrating to Israel this same rabbi wrote several articles for Jewish language newspapers DENOUNCING mixed marriages between Gentiles and Jews, and the necessity of keeping Jews uncontaminated by foriegn influences.

If anyone knows the name of this guy please post it.

Posted by AD on September 16, 2005, 09:35 PM | #

You’re probably thinking of Isi Leibler.He was known for being one of the main protaganists against the One Nation party for being a ‘threat to Australian multiculturalism’.At the same time he attacked ‘post-Zionists’ for pushing a non-ethnocentric universalist agenda in Israel.

Posted by Andrew L on September 16, 2005, 09:44 PM | #

You should read what some of the Moslem papers write and preach about Infidels and assimulation, not only in Australia, anywhere.Even Christian’s, JJR is Athiest, so it is not an isolated Ideology.
That’s where that Universal Utopian thinking is and no matter who promotes it ought be taken down and given a reallity check, then kicked out and sent back to the shit hole they chose to leave before arriving in our countries. Or exilled to a country that is more fitting to their Ideological thoughts.No Questions asked.
Now I’m in Fairy land if I thought that would happen.

Posted by AD on September 16, 2005, 10:05 PM | #

Andrew,i know what many muslims are like,i grew up around them.I don’t really care what they say,i don’t expect or want them to assimilate.Their very existence in OZ is just a sympton of the disease.

It doesn’t matter one bit if they play dirty or nice.I don’t want dialogue with them,i don’t even acknowledge that there is such a thing as the ‘Australia muslim community’.They’re a minority group,i am against the existence of minority groups in Australia,with the exception of aboriginals whom we didn’t intentionally import so we have no say over them.

No good can come from having a minority.The benefits can never outweigh the long term costs.I do agree that we should fight against all universalist thinking.My people are my nation.

Posted by Geoff Beck on September 16, 2005, 10:13 PM | #

AD,

Isi Leibler. Yes, that’s right.

Posted by Andrew L on September 16, 2005, 10:16 PM | #

Heer, Heer, That motion is carried.

Posted by AD on September 16, 2005, 10:18 PM | #

Oh,and one last thing Andrew,

I see you have Jim Ball as your home page.Well,if you listen to his show you’ll know a caller named Pat.He probably has one of the best grasps on the history of our problems.Notice that he always says that fundie muslims are the last thing we should be concerned about,it is the westernised non-white immigrants that are the main problem because they are conquering by stealth.Pat should have his own show.

Posted by Svigor on September 16, 2005, 11:42 PM | #

Pardon me for being offended at being called sub-human. We’re notoriously thin-skinned, you know.

I agree with Geoff of course, no need to get all mystical (jooz ‘r ebil) or fanatical (jooz ‘r subhyooman) over non-jew/jew differences.

What’s so wonderful about the distinction “human” anyways?

Then again, I don’t much like being referred to as a “gentile” or a “goy” either.

Posted by Andrew L on September 17, 2005, 02:58 AM | #

AD , Yep Pat is indeed an exellent contributor and a gold mine of infomation. Jim is somewhat restrained for broadcasting reasons, but gives the mozzies heaps .American broadcasting needs to take a page out of 2GB’s book and deploy it in the public domane.Ought be an National broadcast. ha

Posted by dlg on September 17, 2005, 09:44 AM | #

Geoff, my comment was of course addressed to Stuka, who used the phrase I quoted. I assume the audience was mostly Jewish, given that the event was sponsored by a Jewish organization, and Skokie is a famously Jewish suburb of Chicago (I grew up there).

It’s also worth noting that not all Jews
are in favor of “open borders”. Clearly, from the description of the event, David Horowitz is not. Don Feder wrote a laudatory obituary of Enoch Powell in the Jewish World Review (linked to in this comment section by Charles Copeland - whatever happened to him?) Even the arch-neocon David Frum has been making immigration restrictionist noises lately.

Svigor, I can understand your not liking the terms “gentile” and “goy”, but I think you overestimate the frequency with which these terms are used, as well as the degree of negativity attached to them.

Posted by Kubilai on September 17, 2005, 10:17 AM | #

dlg,

You have a right to be offended.  I am not a believer that ALL Jews are evil.  That ALL Jews are subversive.  That ALL Jews hate non-Jews.  That ALL Jews manipulate non-Jews for the benefit of Israel and world Jewry.  I think this is too simplistic and definitely inaccurate.

Have there been Jews who were like that above, yes without a doubt.  Have there been detrimental changes to the US and Europe due to the pushing of Jews towards changes in policy, yes.  Though one thing we like to forget is that there has also been a “gentile” right up there as well and were it not for all the non-Jews and their complicity in these decisions and policies, we wouldn’t be in this mess we are in.  I refuse to view us as “marionettes” being controlled by the “evil Jews”.  What does that say about us?  A more accurate description would be self-serving people made very bad decisions for the populace at large.

What I DO have a problem with regarding Jews are things like rabid anti-semitic laws, instead of simply “racism”.  Why the special word?  Like bastards like Abe Foxman and Morris Dees.  Why aren’t Jews up in arms about these criminals and anti-American thugs?  Can’t Jews see or read how corrupt these two are and does it not bother them?  Like at least ACCEPTING only PART of the blame for the way things are regarding immigration.  I do understand this is a double edged sword because it would open Jews up to more vilification, but hell, it would go a long way towards being viewed as honest and “one of us”.  These are only a few thoughts on this, which is extremely complex. 

BTW, I agree with Svi when he states…“jews have been as screwed-over by their own leadership throughout history as any people on Earth.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2005, 12:40 PM | #

For Jews in general (there are exceptions, of course—there are always exceptions to everything, even the weirdest exceptions imaginable:  I saw the web-site of one Jewish group, for example, that was pushing for the conversion of Jews to Islam, and there are plenty of rabidly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel Israeli and diaspora Jews probably only about half of whom, let’s say, can safely be assumed to be Mossad agents, so there are always exceptions, but I’m talking in general here)—for Jews in general, open immigration into the United States and all white-Christian countries (all the European ones, Canada, Ausralia, New Zealand) without consideration of race or ethnoculture is something they support as sort of a gut issue, such as Israel’s well-being is a gut issue for them—it’s a Jewish national-survival issue to them.  In their gut they see white Christians as potentially a huge threat to them and they want to blunt that threat, by—well, by simply getting rid of white Christians, not by putting them in gas chambers but by the tactic of getting rid of white Christian society, which open borders will accomplish. 

While Jews view white Euro Christians and white Euro Christian societies in a number of ways that are positive, the negative ways in which Jews view white Euro Christians and white Euro Christian societies are fourfold:  1) fear of the sudden unpredictable future pogrom, sort of the way whites in general fear the idea of living among a Negro majority as whites now must in South Africa; 2) simple direct dislike unrelated to any potential threat of a future pogrom, a simple dislike amounting to what is meant by the term “religious or ethnic prejudice”:  Jews are prejudiced against white Euro Christians:  they harbor plain, ordinary, garden-variety religious and ethno-racial prejudice against them:  don’t like them; 3) irritation/annoyance at having to be subjected, especially where their kids are concerned whom they’re trying to raise as Jews, to white Euro Christian cultural influence and mores almost everywhere they turn in society and to a large extent the white Euro Christian religious message:  they don’t want to be constantly exposed to that, it’s not their culture, their mores, or their religion, they’re annoyed at having to constantly educate their kids away from that influence, and this has nothing to do with prejudice but is simply wanting to be able to pursue one’s own ethnoculture and religion in peace and tranquility; and 4) jealousy, from two causes:  a) white Euro Christians have been dominant until a few decades ago and there are still some vestiges left of that former dominance, and any minority group is bound to be insanely jealous of the dominance of the dominant group—the dominance of its physical type over theirs as something to be wished for or emulated or something considered more attractive to females, the dominance of its historical myths over theirs, of its religion over theirs of course (the Catholics in Northern Ireland vis-à-vis the Prods are in part purely jealous of the Prods, jealous of their dominance including the dominance of their religion) and so on:  the dominant-subordinate relationship excites pure, intense jealousy in the subordinate group; b) through selective forces acting on it for two thousand years the Jewish race has gotten pruned of some of the normal dimensions of a race/nationality, so that it no longer has, to take an example, the full range of personality types a race normally has (or, no longer has them among the Jewish population in proportions that would be considered normal for a normal population), and as a result no longer has certain societal/cultural characteristics and influences that are produced by certain personality types which a normal society has, and so on.  Some of those things that got pruned out of the Jews are not unpleasant, so some Jews get jealous when they look at white Euro Christian society and see the full range of “societal dimensions” there, and the full range of personality types including ones that are not displeasing but which thousands of years of selective forces have pruned out of the Jewish race or diminshed the proportions and influence of.  It’s as if the Jewish race/nationality is not “whole.”  (As Israel gets more and more up and running and more and more history and tradition behind it and a full spectrum of Jewish personality types emerges gradually thanks to the absence of the selective pressures that kept the race pruned for two thousand years, all this will come back into normal equilibrium of course and Jews won’t need to be jealous of others any more on these grounds.  Jews of course feel this too and it’s one reason they love Israel so much—they sense it’s going to restore normalness to them fully.)  (cont’d next comment)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 17, 2005, 12:46 PM | #

(cont’d) It’s in part for all the above negative ways in which Jews view white Christians, and not solely because they fear the potential of a future pogrom, that they are drawn to the idea of doing away with white Christians by dismantling their race and their societies through race-replacement with non-whites and non-Christians.

Regarding plain, ordinary Jewish prejudice against white Euro Christians, by the way, I see nothing wrong with it (nothing wrong with it in and of itself, that is—of course I see plenty wrong with extremely damaging Jewish attacks on white Christians that are motivated by it, such as their decades of intense lobbying activity that culminated in the genocidal 1965 Immigration Holocaust bill).  Aside from the unpleasant truths which all groups have to swallow, white Euro Christians included, that stereotypes are usually true and prejudice against you is often well-earned, I’ve come to the view that racial/ethnic/religious prejudice is normal and healthy for every group and should not be targeted for rooting-out by coercive government educational programs, and so on.  The philosophically-inclined will figure out the ways in which prejudice is wrong on their own and will be able to handle that realization without going off the deep end into outright racial self-destruction as George Bush has done because he hasn’t enough gray matter, frankly, to handle it.  For members of a group who are not philosophically-inclined to have absolutely no prejudice whatsoever against others isn’t always so normal or healthy.  Most people aren’t philosophers and don’t/can’t think things through so the survival of their group depends on their prejudices.  Rooting them out leaves the group vulnerable to deadly attack by its mortal enemies who want to see it eradicated.  Again, this is because most people aren’t philosophers and can’t think things through but can only act on prejudice where such matters are concerned.  Prejudice keeps groups alive the way our automatic heartbeat and breathing keeps us alive without having to think about them—a useful thing to have in both instances, where most people can’t think all that well in the first place.