Nice White Fellow and radio talk show host tackles race-replacement head-on

Posted by Ein Volk on May 28, 2006, 04:38 PM | #

Michael Weiner didn’t smear his fellow Jews, only chastising Madeline “Halfbright”‘s half-hearted Israel-worship.

Savage is a propagandist for the neocons, and that he, Rector of the Heritage Foundation and Frum & co. at NR are splintering with the neocon core on this issue is very, very, very interesting. It’s on issues like these that outsiders can detect who’s in the inner circle and who’s not.

The core of Jewry’s assets in the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, AEI,  the Oval Office, and Congress continue their full court press, however. They understand very clearly that success would seal their final and historic victory against European America, and that this is their last chance to accelerate the process because anti-immigration sentiment will continue to stiffen like never before in history because of the internet. Immigration opponents, however, can only play defense for the foreseeable future, and cannot push through any bill decreasing the present rate of legal and illegal immigration.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 28, 2006, 07:22 PM | #

Yes, the Media Matters claim that Weiner attacked jews is on its face a lie.

The neocons are pro open-borders.  Weiner never has been.  Characterizing him as a neocon spokesman is quite a stretch.

Posted by Daveg on May 29, 2006, 12:25 AM | #

Just thinking out loud here, but would you trade the well being of Israel for a huge reduction in immigration?

It is true that “conservative” pro-immigration supporters of Israel didn’t need to do any horse trading.  But, the Iraq fiasco is causing them to rethink thinks.  America is losing its appitite for war and that is scaring the neocons. 

So, now they are thinking about how they can stay in the good graces of the conservative community and they are thinking that coming around on immigration may be the answer.  A few have broken ranks are are starting to come out against the Bush immigration plan.

I’ll take this deal, if I feel their end of the bargain will be upheld.  We are still a long way from that point and I am watching.  Guys like Savage and Mr. VFR are the first sign of a change and I will watch them to see how much success they achieve.  IF, and only if, I see sucess I will be perfectly happy to support a more pro-Israel point of view…  not that they need much help on that.

Posted by A. Windaus on May 29, 2006, 03:01 AM | #

Some would go as far as to say it would be hypocritical for us not to support the ethnostate of Israel while asking/demanding a ethnostate for Europeans.

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on May 29, 2006, 05:30 AM | #

Mr Auster wants ‘quality’ immigrants to the West. Given that Israel may fall and another Diaspora occur in the foreseeable future… connect the dots, gentile suckers.

Let’s turn it around. Israel is officially committed to gathering in all the Jews of the world. America gives Israel vast sums. Senators, congressmen—why not put your beanies and your kippas together and devise an unprecedentedly generous Mega Aliyah plan to encourage all the Jews in America to go home at last?

Why not back the military industrial complex’s research programme into aerial porcines while you’re at it?

Posted by Al Ross on May 29, 2006, 07:43 AM | #

Matt O’Halloran’s interesting prognostication fits well with calls by some in Israel for the Jewish State’s inclusion in the EU. Considering that the EU’s ‘live anywhere’ provisions for the bloc’s citizens could make a nonsense of Israel’s population balance and by extension its ‘raison d’etre’, this balloon must have been floated with a view to the establishment of a fall-back position when the Muslims eventually become strong enough to expel the Jewish invaders.

Posted by perroazul del norte on May 29, 2006, 09:46 AM | #

I have no problem with the Israeli ethnostate. My problem with Israel is that they are not to be trusted: consider the Lavon Affair, the attack on the USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard and the clandestine resale of advanced US military technology to the Red Chinese.
Seymour Hersh also claims that Israel sold some of the Pollard documents to the Soviet Union and that resulted in the execution of many US agents. But Pollard’s advocates place the blame for this on Aldrich Ames or Robert Hansen.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on May 29, 2006, 03:30 PM | #

Some would go as far as to say it would be hypocritical for us not to support the ethnostate of Israel while asking/demanding a ethnostate for Europeans.

I’d call that an oversimplification.

Ethnocentrism is not universalism, for one thing; the double-standard is acceptable, even a good, to an ethnocentrist.  In other words, charges of hypocrisy are in a sense meaningless.

Then there’s the definition of “support”.  Should one support a group’s ethnocentric goals when said group opposes the same for you?  Should one support a group that lobbies (i.e., blackmails) billions from your taxpayers for its own ethnostate, but lobbies against even the idea of ethnostates for your group?  Should we support Israel when supporting Israel means jew-free armies (in which whites are overrepresented as casualties) doing jewry’s dirty work?

I can go on for much longer if you like.

I’d call those pretty serious complications.  I’d say the “some” you refer to are assholes.

No, “hypocrisy” isn’t even on the radar, unless one doesn’t even allow for “hypothetical” support of Israel.