Tuesday, May 29, 2018

Hear, O Israel

Open borders and the aging of Heritage America do not bode well for Israel's relationship with the US. The following graph is sourced from Reuters-Ipsos polling data. It shows percentages of respondents by selected demographics who gauge Israel as a "moderate", "serious", or "imminent" threat--as opposed to a "minimal" or "no" threat. "Not sure" responses, comprising 16% of the total, are excluded (N = 5,097):


Quite a contrast with group sentiments towards Russia. Curious.

That white Christian America is the best friend Israel has ever had and that the Great Replacement will be among the worst things to happen to Israel has been obvious for decades.

Tribe members, encourage Heritage Americans to protect the borders, language, culture, and demography of their country in the same way the Israelis protect theirs and you have a pro-Israel philo-semite in me.

But disparage, manipulate, and retcon Heritage America while bleeding her dry in an obsessive effort to let Jews be whatever and wherever they want to be at the expense of everyone else--well, I'm fine with your little colonial genocide operation being pushed into the sea while your diaspora is diluted out of existence.

Interests over principles. (((They))) get it. When will we?

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

They will get it on the 43rd of Never.

They have no ability to introspect.  History proves that.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The Synagogue of Satan will not turn back. Its been their pattern to double down until they have to run. This time they have nowhere to run to, so expect a "go for broke" situation. The "Samson Option". Its the childish, if I can't have it, no one will.
Taking this global has made them back into a corner. An insignificant minority of perhaps 15-20 Millions. Delusions of Grandeur and no sign of introspection. They actually believe they are gawds on Earth. They believe EVERYONE on Earth was put here to serve them.
Such madness. The Devil took them for their last ride this time. You cannot cheat an honest man. A con man is THE EASIEST MARK IN THE WORLD.

akarlin said...

Every cloud has a silver lining.

akarlin said...

Latin Americans are also far less philo-Semitic than Americans.

http://global100.adl.org/#map/americas

The numbers are broadly similar to what you have in Eastern Europe, which is neither particularly philo-Semitic like the Anglosphere, not anti-Semitic like the Muslim world.

Latinized America will at least no longer fight wars for Israel, and might have less tolerance for Jewish lobbies.

IHTG said...

Alt-righters keep making this point as if it's something immensely profound. Why should Jews make a deal with you when your own stats show that the only population you claim to speak for likes them anyway?

Jonathan Centauri said...

Who makes these polls? Are they accurate? How accurate?

Go along to get along, implies you have SOMETHING TO LOSE.

The marginalizing of Whites does the recruiting.

I doubt many Whites were REALLY FOOLED.

Too much to lose is one thing.

Nothing to lose, is a rain of lead.

Jim Bowery said...

You have to peel the layers back. At a facile level, Jews (particularly Jews hostile to Israel) are a "hostile elite" -- sort of like a parasite that has evolved virulence through horizontal transmission. A closer look shows that the phenomenon is more specific: Immunosuppression parasitism. An even closer look, based on "Cui Bono?" shows that Jews have acted more like an expendable biological weapon, pre-digesting European-derived nations for the benefit of a robust* population that is now poised to slurp up the soup. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what that population is. What is somewhat of a mystery is how, exactly, does the extended phenotypics operate?

*By "robust" I don't mean necessarily that it will be able to sustain the carrying capacity it is consuming -- although automation is now getting to the point it may be able to just kickback and "retire" after our own "elites" have replaced us with machines and then selectively denied us, via political and philanthropic "moral" bias, sufficient social goods for replacement reproduction.

Sid said...

akarlin,

"Latinized America will at least no longer fight wars for Israel, and might have less tolerance for Jewish lobbies."

We're already seeing Jews getting muscled out of diversity and intersectionality gigs on college campuses. Woke non-whites generally don't care all that much about WWII, and generally don't see the Holocaust as being all that lamentable given the trappings of Jewish privilege.

A lot of Jews will be irredeemable SJWs until the end of time, but it'll be interesting to see how Gen Z Jews come out.

Joe Suber said...

This is pretty hardcore! Better get that temple built.

Meatloaf songs come to mind:
...
Now I'm praying for the end of time
So I can end my time with you.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

You could be right. But there's a first time for everything that does happen!

Anatoly,

One of my first experiences with the ADL was a report they put out in the early 2000s highlighting the high levels of 'anti-semitism' among foreign-born settlers in the US from Latin America. But even in the very report there was no anti-immigration sentiment expressed--they just need more education!

IHTG,

Touche. The last bit of the post is rhetorically aimed at my fellow Heritage Americans even though it's ostensibly directed at the 2%.

Jonathan,

Born-again white Christians consistently say they love Israel. I'm in the cuck corridor and that's definitely the way it feels here, though admittedly I don't notice it as much as I did a decade or two ago.

Jim,

then selectively denied us, via political and philanthropic "moral" bias, sufficient social goods for replacement reproduction

Can we select our way out of it or is the natural method simply too slow?

Sid,

What is coming is a non-white in the mold of a Farrakhan or Sharpton (before he was whipped into shape) who will explicitly look at Jews as especially privileged whites. There are obviously a lot of highly influential non-whites who are sympathetic (i.e. Obama and the BLM crew hanging out with Farrakhan) but the direct propounders of the anti-Jewish message are still mostly kept in the basement. There is no way that is going to last.

Joe,

If we end up going the Titus or Hadrian route, it'll be with a lot of regret from me. That it doesn't have to be this way seems so blatantly obvious to me.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> We're already seeing Jews getting muscled out of diversity and intersectionality gigs on college campuses. Woke non-whites generally don't care all that much about WWII, and generally don't see the Holocaust as being all that lamentable given the trappings of Jewish privilege.

Most intersectional snowflakes see Jews as whites. No matter how much they swear up and down that they're not white, they're considered white by everyone who isn't. Part of the jewjitsu was trying to sidle up to white people and then once they felt they were confident that they could kick white people aside, then they decide they're not white. Too bad, so sad. Jews have been pretty successful at carving out exemptions for anti-white measures but once there are enough non-whites in high positions, those exemptions will go away. By that time, whites are so resentful of the tribe that they don't find any friends there either. Then it will be literally annudah shoah and then we add another entry to the Wikipedia of instances where Jews have been expelled in society, which is already a very long list and every day you understand why a little more.

Observer said...

"White people the most supportive of Israel after jews"

This confirms something that i said several times. It is white people who cause liberalism, gay parades and feminism and these are all white peoples "culture".

You see whites calling non-western leaders such as Putin, Khamenei or Erdogan "new Hitler".

The jew says jump and the white says "how high". Whites believe in that shit. And *want* it.
Yes, jews also support those things (for western countries) but whites are even eager than their master to swallow all of this.

The jew tells whites "this is the advanced, moral and sophisticated thing to do" and whites eagerly do that in order to virtue signal. To pat themselves on the back. "Look at how sophisticated and advanced we are! Look at the racial, gender and gay equality utopia we achieved! Look at how we want to save the poor refugees! Look at how we tackle the evils of homophobia, xenophobia, racism, sexism and antisemitism!"

These people in Sweden and Germany *wanted* those refugees. AfD protests in Germany are met by 5 times bigger counterprotests. Women in Sweden f*ck the newcomers all over the place. Its not even clear who is the rapist.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/7dmiuu/women_and_refugees_a_compilation/

Liberalism is white racism turned on its head. Jews convinced whitey to be a "good racist" and to create the greatest "utopia" on Earth. At his own expense, of course. And he did it! And he is proud of it! To paraphrase Canada's Trudeau, we need quotas for women and non-whites "because it is 2015".

In other words, we need to enter the Utopia and the new bright, sophisticated and modern future! Everything else is old, backward, and basically Nazi Germany.

The US is next. After Trump is gone (next election), you will have Trudeau or Angela Merkel clone in the White House.

Sid said...

AE,

The non-whites sympathetic to the explicitly antisemitic ones have already taken a toll on Jewish interests. Ask Israelis whether they think their relationship with the US was better or worse under Obama. Netanyahu and Obama couldn't stand each other personally and did lots of things to undermine each other, though they still were forced to cooperate from time to time.

I also agree that it's inevitable that explicitly antisemitic non-whites will rise and command a greater share of the social justice rhetoric. What really counts in intersectionality circles isn't how much your ancestors suffered, but how passionately you can bring the suffering of your ancestors to your current plights. Blacks can talk about slavery and then point to their current social problems. Jews can talk about the Holocaust and... Wait, do Jews even have social problems?

Random Dude,

I expect the next 2-5 years will be crucial for Jews. As stated earlier, I believe the rise of antisemitic non-whites is inevitable. What is less certain is whether whites will sour on Jews or not.

The alt-right has marked an increase in animosity towards Jews on the right. Jews can either respond by halting on their own the anti-white social justice rhetoric, and removing such rhetoric from non-whites on their media platforms, or else ties between Jews and white Gentiles might be irreversible.

Part of the problem Jews will face is that their IQs and accomplishments in their younger generations really won't be all that much higher compared to other whites. A point I've made before and will make again is: in aristocratic courts, brilliant scientists and artists were accorded more leeway in their handling of decorum. Their unique talents made up for possible indiscretions in manners.

Jews were in this position, but now that they've gone from, say, winning 25% of Fields Medals to just 5%, they will be expected to adhere to American social expectations more rigorously.

Furthermore, from everything I've been able to gather, being a Jewish male doesn't spare you from the anti-white male animus. Look at this: https://twitter.com/leandrareports/status/1000065083161174016?s=19

Any Jewish males here? No, not at all. In my own field, I could tell you about how certain organizations make it a point to not hire white men. Jewish men I've known who have applied for those positions have been turned down as well.

Jews may not have much time to get right with American white Gentiles, but they're already starting to suffer from intersectionality.

Sid said...

In general, each intersectionality you can claim accords you one Pokemon point.

Are you black? One point. A woman? One point. Homosexual? One point.

A black man has one point, a white woman has one point, a white gay man has one point, and a black lesbian has three.

From everything I've seen, being Jewish gives you roughly half a point, and you generally need at least one point to get anywhere with the SJW mob.

As such, a Jewish woman has 1.5 points. She certainly has an edge over white women, and can generally out-complain black men if she plays her cards right, but she has no chance against a black woman.

Jewish lesbians command a lot of PC clout, but even they have to bow before perhaps the most obnoxious of them all: black lesbians.

Similarly, gay Jewish men can get very far in PC culture, maybe even farther than their 1.5 points would suggest, but white lesbians and straight black women can shoot them down.

If you're a straight Jewish man, however, you only have .5 Pokemon points. Maybe in the second half of the 20th century, being Jewish awarded you a full point, but not today. You're allowed to feel more victimized by whatever Trump's latest tweet was if you're a Jewish man, but you're not allowed to claim you're more of a victim than black men are, get real official Affirmative Action, etc.

Heck, when they don't get what they want, black people just blame others for racism, and polite society's reaction is to believe them until it's proven they're lying. Jews can blame antisemitism, but generally have to lay out a more cogent case.

I don't know, for all the SPLC and ADL try to do, you generally don't hear the pronouncement, "We need to have a conversation about antisemitism in America," as often as you hear similar pronouncements about things like race, white supremacy, or even black bodies.

I still think the onus is on Jews to get right with Heritage Americans, but they still have the option of doing so within the next five years or so.

Gabriel M said...

I'm fine with your little colonial genocide operation

The link in no way supports the description, even according to the most negative possible interpretation. Assuming you are genuinely interested in whatever deal you want to strike, try not being such a d**k about it.

Gabriel M said...

Further, it's demonstrably obvious that (((they))) don't 'get it' if 'it' means interests over principles. The interests of Jews are in preserving the cultural and demographic realities that allowed them to flourish in America to an unprecedented degree. Importing Asians to take their jobs and Mexicans to hate them is obviously against their interests. The principles of American Jews, however, commit them to a weird time-travelling vicarious narcissism in which immigration restrictions retroactively invalidate their existence. What you are dealing with is someone who is laboring under a misapprehension and is, quite possibly, insane. In either case, if your goal is advancing your own interests, don't be a d**k, if, on the other hand, your goal is boosting your status within the alt-right status hierarchy then, by all means, be a d**k.

As for Israelis, they already support immigration restriction for America more than any white country (including Hungary!) http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/worldwide-few-confident-in-trump-or-his-policies/

Jig Bohnson said...

You've buried the lede.

One-in-five Jews are agreeing that Israel is an "imminent threat!" You would never get one in a hundred blacks to say that about Africa or one in a hundred Hispanics to say that about Mexico.

Does that mean that Israel really is so so terrible as all the leftists say? Of course not. But it is yet another confirmation that the bad bad Jewish monolith cooked up in the fevered imaginations of the Left and Right is bullshit.

Jig Bohnson said...

Also I hope that "colonial genocide" thing was a parody of Leftist idiocy and not your own actual opinion. Because if you of all people are actually faulting a country for stopping an armed invasion of its borders, then there is no hope for this world.

snorlax said...

Gabriel M -

The question is, to paraphrase Keynes, can American Jews stay irrational longer than America can remain above water? I'm not sure history offers much encouragement. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that even most American Jews who make aliyah, and their descendants, remain insane?

Now, I'm alt-lite on "the JQ," because I see it as a microcosm of the issue of how long whites can stay irrational. Sure, Jews average out, as compared to gentile whites, particularly influential, particularly detached from reality, and, indeed, particularly given to hypocrisy and bad faith.

But I think it's also clearly true that even if all the Jews volunteered for Elon Musk's Mars mission, America'd be far from solving our problems (see: continental Europe). And it's clearly the case that Jewish ethnocentrism correlates positively (if imperfectly) to pro-white positions. So if anything we'd want to encourage it rather than the opposite.*

And, the left is already (and much more effectively) starting to force American Jews to choose between leftism and Israel, so I'd view any duplicated effort on that front to be counterproductive, assuming the stated aim of persuading Jews is sincere.

But... circling back to my first point, how, then, to persuade?

Good to see you again, btw.

*I have a theory that ethnocentrism generically causes right-wing sympathies. So, it's not a coincidence that the release of Black Panther was quickly followed by Kanye and now Louis Farrakhan endorsing Trump. Meaning, a bit counterintuitively, we should also be encouraging Hotep-ism among blacks.

Corvinus said...

Random Dude…

“Most intersectional snowflakes see Jews as whites. No matter how much they swear up and down that they're not white, they're considered white by everyone who isn’t.”

Intersectional? Only the Coalition of the Fringe Groups employ such terms. To normies/the mushy middle, it’s not even part of their lexicon. Apparently they will be need to be reprogrammed, I mean introduced, to such verbiage.

Sid…

“The alt-right has marked an increase in animosity towards Jews on the right. Jews can either respond by halting on their own the anti-white social justice rhetoric, and removing such rhetoric from non-whites on their media platforms, or else ties between Jews and white Gentiles might be irreversible.”

The Alt-Right can target Jews all they want and demand this group realize the err of their ways and make the “proper” adjustments, but their protestations will fall on deaf ears. Besides, this “rift” between Jews and White Gentiles tends to be overblown and overstated, considering that normies/the mushy middle has been much more concerned with charting their own course. The argument that American Jews will eventually have their heads put on pikes by "Heritage Americans" as a result of their financial machinations and Cultural Marxist predations has repeatedly been made the last hundred years in America, with little movement on the collective needle. It is a given that there will be animosity and suspicion between whites and non-whites, between Jews and non-Jews. But to the point that Jews will inevitably face severe consequences for their “anti-white rhetoric", when normies/the mushy middle are not of the mindset they are "under attack" by Jews--I mean, who is the Alt Right trying to kid here? It will take a Herculean effort to convince tens of millions of whites (and blacks and Hispanics and Asians) in our nation that Jews represent a dire threat to home and hearth. Best wishes in that endeavor.

“I still think the onus is on Jews to get right with Heritage Americans, but they still have the option of doing so within the next five years or so.”



Again, since when do normies/the mushy middle refers to themselves as "Heritage Americans"? Must they? Are there significant consequences if they outright refuse? By whom? Is there this widespread demand by normies/the mushy middle that only one option exists for Jews to “get with the program” lest they bear witness to an American pogrom?

Gabriel M said...

@snorlax

'But... circling back to my first point, how, then, to persuade?'

Good question. I don't have a macro answer, but at risk of revealing my real identity, I submit the following comments thread: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/tommy-robinson/

Now, as a pretty orthodox Moldbuggian, I don't even strictly believe what I wrote in that comment, but its truth vector is positive, so to speak, and it's what they need to hear and, look, 10 likes so far, so yay for me.

Now, what's the absolute worst thing that could happen there? Some dolt-rightist ranting about the 'Synagogue of Satan' or the millions of Gazan children shot for kicks by IDF Gestapo.

Basically, try your best, one person at a time. Don't be a d**k. It's not so hard. On the other hand, I have no real contact with my American cousins because I can't stand their insufferable leftism, so maybe it is hard. But if it's too hard for you, then let someone else do it. The main point is that for every person making an honest attempt to persuade, I've seen hundreds seek to alienate through gratuitous abuse and random application of incompatible arguments. Clearly some people actually want Jews to be as obnoxious as possible to validate their belief system; others seem to be doing it to get status points within the alt right.

Nice to 'see' you too. I dropped out of the comments threads partly because I realised it's not the mark of a sane person to constantly hang out places where 5% of people want to exterminate your entire ethnic group. On the other hand, the threads that don't have this 5% don't have anyone interesting to talk to. So, here I am. See, Jews --> crazy.

Sid said...

Corvinus...

I have told you before but I will tell you again:

I don't see much point in responding to you, because you willfully misread what I write, put words in my mouth, and jump to extreme conclusions.

Where did I write about pogroms? Jews getting their heads on pikes? Ridiculous.

Heritage Americans (or Legacy Americans) don't call themselves that, but it's an incredibly useful term.

Before this year I was convalescing from an injury. Now I'm back in good health, have several new jobs and projects, and don't have all that much time to spend constantly explaining what I wrote in an earlier post again and again and again.

I will respond to your comments if you drop the "..." after writing my screen name, because it comes across as incredibly condescending, and if instead of trying to have me explain the terminology we all use on AE's blog, take my points to absurd conclusions, and all around avoid what I'm trying to say, you would engage my points in the spirit of well-meaning debate.

Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

Anonymous said...

The interests of Jews are in preserving the cultural and demographic realities that allowed them to flourish in America to an unprecedented degree. Importing Asians to take their jobs and Mexicans to hate them is obviously against their interests. The principles of American Jews, however, commit them to a weird time-travelling vicarious narcissism in which immigration restrictions retroactively invalidate their existence.

Jews didn't flourish in America because Americans were so generous towards Jews and philo-Semitic. Jews were able to flourish in America because they successfully waged a culture war against the American majority in general and the WASP elite in particular. Before this war, Jews were prevented from flourishing to the degree that they have by legal and social restrictions, customs, mores, and anti-Semitic prejudice. Waging this war successfully required Jews to exploit people's sense of fair play and equality, and that required the promotion of general pluralism rather than strictly special privileges for Jews. In other words, Jewish flourishing in the US cannot be separated from greater pluralism, more lax immmigration policies, etc.

Diaspora Jews do not identify with a particular land and people like the US. They identify as diaspora Jews, a migratory people. And for a migratory people, immigration restrictions do invalidate their existence.

The history of the diaspora Jewish experience is one in which homogeneous host societies have been inimical to their survival, either through absorption and assimilation or through violent physical elimination, and in which lower migratory restrictions have been critical to survival by allowing Jews to evade assimilation or violent elimination. With this experience, a homogeneous host society is always a potential threat, no matter how much Jews flourish in it, whereas a lax migratory policy regime that produces a more pluralistic polity is a necessity for Jewish survival. It's the lifeblood of diaspora Jewry. It's like what access to the soil is for a farming group like the Amish.

For Jews to become like a normal people that can relate to other peoples in a normal and more reciprocal way, they can't live in all these different countries around the world and move around frequently. They have to live in their own country for many generations until these normal tendencies are bred into them. But there's the rub. Jews have evolved as a migratory people that lives and moves among host populations. Depriving them of that is like depriving the Amish of land and soil. This is why they react so viciously and why they're so paranoid about any sort of migration restrictions or discriminatory or exclusionary practices. Even though there is no genocidal intent or physical genocide effected by such policies, Jews intuitively regard them as "genocidal" because it restricts their way of life that they've evolved towards for centuries. In a way, they are right, it is "genocidal" in that it proposes to eliminate Jews as a migratory people and promotes selective pressures that would evolve them into a more normal group.

Corvinus said...

Sid,

"I don't see much point in responding to you, because you willfully misread what I write..."

You were clear in what you wrote--Jews must stop their anti-white SJWism and purge such sentiments from social media, lest their relationship between Gentile whites becomes broken beyond repair. I was clear in what I wrote--Jews are not anti-white, nor are they working to genocide the white race, nor must they abide by the terms you laid out.

"put words in my mouth and jump to extreme conclusions...Where did I write about pogroms? Jews getting their heads on pikes? Ridiculous."

Of course you didn't make comments on such things. But in the context of the impending Civil War by 2033, according to Vox Day, there will be a day of reckoning, right? And would not Jews, viewed as "anti-white" by a plethora of Alt Right commenters, be in the line of fire? Would it not make sense to simply get rid of them?

"Heritage Americans (or Legacy Americans) don't call themselves that, but it's an incredibly useful term."

Useful term for the Alt Right -and- white nationalists.

Before this year I was convalescing from an injury. Now I'm back in good health, have several new jobs and projects, and don't have all that much time to spend constantly explaining what I wrote in an earlier post again and again and again.

"I will respond to your comments if you drop the "..." after writing my screen name, because it comes across as incredibly condescending..."

It's NOT condescending. But, since I am a sport, I will make the adjustment.

"and if instead of trying to have me explain the terminology we all use on AE's blog..."

Actually, I all too familiar with the terminology.

"you would engage my points in the spirit of well-meaning debate."

That's what I'm here for.

Anonymous 11:50 a.m.

"Jews were able to flourish in America because they successfully waged a culture war against the American majority in general and the WASP elite in particular."

No, that is decidedly not the case here.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/culture/.premium-american-jews-the-true-hollywood-story-1.5326780

It would appear that you are under the false impression that tens of millions of white people have been Jew duped, that they lack any agency to decide for themselves what is and what is not in their best interest racially and culturally. Pluralism has been a feature, not a bug, of the American experience.

"For Jews to become like a normal people..."

First, what is your definition of "normal people"? What metrics are involved here? Second, how do Jews NOT fit this criteria? Third, are people capable of offering up a reasonable argument that Jews are indeed "normal"? Would you be able to comprehend this rationale, or would you merely dismiss it?

Serious questions here.

"they can't live in all these different countries around the world and move around frequently."

Says who?

"They have to live in their own country for many generations until these normal tendencies are bred into them."

My god, are you really this willfully ignorant?

Jonathan Centauri said...

Corny Birdbrain shows the INHERENT INFERIORITY of the Insane Parasite. These cowards only bloviate and act aggressive when they are REALLY SCARED. It takes Paranoia about fake threats like Dead "Nazis" to hold that birdbrain full of neurotic crap together.
The Enemy Parasite has FINALLY GOTTEN ITS WORST FEARS. A World Full of Those that Despise Them and Want Them Dead. Make no mistake, THEY WILL LOSE. THEY ALWAYS LOSE. They cannot work. They do not really plan.
Its just a Con Job.
The blacks want (((them))) dead. The Muslims want (((them))) dead. The Chinese have NO HONOR and "raciss" isn't going to work on China. Now the White Man is LEARNING TO TAKE HIS OWN SIDE. This worthless parasite was good for something after all.

The parasite was a "useful idiot". Its a self defeating creature. The more it gets, the more it wants. Its like a locust, but uglier and more abusive. Its a self-destructing parasite. It had two functions. Separate the wheat from the chaff. Get all the Whites into One House.

White people have ethnically separated due to their success. Only by having a Common Enemy could they ever be in One House. Not Legions. Not Religion. Not even Economics. Common Threat to All. That will get all the White people in One House.

Holy Roman Empire, Batman!

ITS ALMOST AS IF THIS WAS ALL A BRILLIANT PLAN!

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

then we add another entry to the Wikipedia of instances where Jews have been expelled in society, which is already a very long list and every day you understand why a little more

Coincidence, all of them!

Observer,

Great points. The WASP elite collectively and voluntarily grabbed its ankles and bent over. They deserve the lion's share of the blame. The 2% exploited a fatal WEIRDO weakness. If the weakness wasn't there, the 2% wouldn't be able to exploit it.

Sid,

What really counts in intersectionality circles isn't how much your ancestors suffered, but how passionately you can bring the suffering of your ancestors to your current plights

That's a profound observation, thanks.

Gabriel/Jig,

I don't think it's "genocide". I don't even think it's unjustified what Israel has been doing for decades in reclaiming Judea and Samaria.

Using the anti-Israeli rhetoric and flimsy justifications for it was an attempted illustration of how I'm glimpsing, over the horizon, the point where I don't care if it's an unfair characterization of Israel, I'll agree with what Israel's enemies say out of spite. That is, it was intended as a parody that simultaneously expressed my frustration.

As for whether American Jews are continuing the CoC strategy or are now stinging the frog even though it'll seal their own fate, that's a contentious topic. If you are correct, then we're dealing with Diversity Zealots. If that's the case, then what is Heritage America supposed to do? The answer isn't pretty.

Snorlax,

Is it counterintuitive? I suppose that depends on whether the end goal is a restored civic nationalism or political dissolution and the redrawing of political boundaries along demographic counters that make sense. If the latter--and that's where I am--it seems obvious that we should be encouraging ethnocentrism among every group.

Corvinus,

"Intersectionality" isn't just for the fringe anymore. A decade ago, sure, but it's seeped into the normy lexicon now.

chris said...

@Snorlax

"*I have a theory that ethnocentrism generically causes right-wing sympathies. So, it's not a coincidence that the release of Black Panther was quickly followed by Kanye and now Louis Farrakhan endorsing Trump. Meaning, a bit counterintuitively, we should also be encouraging Hotep-ism among blacks."

Ethnocentrism is correlated with Social Dominance Orientation and (high) Social Dominance Orientation is correlated with Right Wing beliefs.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous.

That' a nice little theory you've got there, shame if some reality intruded into it.

1) With the sole exception of university quotas, Jews faced no meaningful restrictions in WASP -run America in their ability to prosper. The reason why Jewish grievance-mongering about the past always focuses on trivial crap (the 'Golfocaust') or actually veers off into fantasy (Phillip Roth) is that Jews in WASP America were having a great time. Once the concept of 'Judeo-Christian' civic nationalism was fully established in the 50s Jews had achieved political Nirvana. There never will be, anywhere on earth, a place that was as good for Jews as 1950s America.

2) Jews are not a 'migratory people' in the sense one would normally use the term. The Ostjuden who came to America around the turn of the 20th century and transformed the American Jewish community from most right-leaning to mostly left-leaning had been living in more or less the same place for more than 500 years. They were just as much a settled part of Eastern Europe as made-up-nations like Ukrainians.

3) The self-identity of Jews as a 'migratory people' is a product of 20th century American Jews projecting their self-image back on Jewish history. (The paradigmatic example being the really quite insane book '(((Semitism)))'). Jews prior to the 20th century considered themselves a people in exile, which is a totally different thing, and their strategy for self-preservation was based on strict endogamous marriage propped up by hardcore patriarchal conservative social mores (for example, Jewish womena generally were married off at 14, tow or more years earlier than Europeans). That is to say the exact opposite of American Jewry. Trying to come up with a unifying theory of Judaism where American Jewry is your baseline sample will always lead you to come up with an opposite-world theory.

4) Prior to the 20th century there are grand total of zero examples of Jews trying to make countries more pluralistic or lower immigration restrictions of anything like that. Jews did all sorts of ignoble things to survive/prosper (e.g. in Al Andalus), but not that and if they did you'd have heard about it by now. The whole thing doesn't even make sense. If you are a 'migratory people', you want *other* countries to lower migrations restrictions, not the one you are in.

So in sum, and I mean this seriously, if you want to actually understand Jewish history you need to - and I know this sounds crazy - actually read some Jewish history. These grand theories of Jewness look great at low resolution, but the second you start poking around they fall apart, as Cofnas demonstrated with the mos holy and venerable KMac. Now, if you want to understand why American Jewry leans so heavily left you need to know about a lot of things including (i) the legacy of the Sabbatean movement and Frankism, (ii) the ratchet effect of right-wing anti-semitism in Europe leading to more Jewish leftism and vice versa, (iii) the identity crisis faced by 19th century Jews as a result of Higher Biblical Criticism, discovery of the age of the universe etc. (iv) the economic crisis faced by Eastern European Jewry as a result of industrialization and the spread of mass literacy (v) the positive correlation in all democracies between IQ, education, urban living and Leftism, (vi) Jewish aversion to Christianity and, no doubt, more besides. There's no substitute for knowing what you are talking about.

Gabriel M said...

@AE

If that's the case, then what is Heritage America supposed to do? The answer isn't pretty.

With all due respect, I don't think you are thinking very clearly. If you were in a position to do something not pretty, you would already be in a position where you didn't need to anything not pretty.

In any case, the only reason it was feasible to expel Jews was because they were highly segregated. Almost no-one had a Jewish relative and very few even had a Jewish friend. The secondary conditions were the presence of large number of powerful people with a direct financial stake in expelling Jews (free loan holiday) and a large number of Christian preachers with reasons to justify it. Literally none of these conditions apply today. Think harder.

Jig Bohnson said...

@AE:

"I'll agree with what Israel's enemies say out of spite."

Classic cutting off your nose to spite your face. Israel is a leading indicator for the West. As Israel goes in the face of the Islamist/Leftist alliance, so goes the West. If the Islamist/Leftist alliance succeeds in destroying Israel, then we know it is over for the West, because it means they will have captured Western governmental and cultural structures sufficiently.

Anonymous said...

That' a nice little theory you've got there, shame if some reality intruded into it.

1) They didn't flourish like they have more recently. Not just university quotas, but legal and social restrictions, customs, mores, and anti-Semitic prejudice helped preserve WASP hegemony in many areas such as law and finance that Jew have come to dominate more recently. Also restrictions such as real estate covenants and native prejudice kept Jews out of neighborhoods and social spaces.

Most Jews in the 1950s were working class or lower middle class, doing menial or blue collar work in places like New York City. And bright and talented Jews tended to be in lower level professional work like teachers and civil servants. The professions and positions they have come to dominate more recently were not available to them to the extent they are now. One of the reasons for Jewish support of the New Deal regime was its great expansion of government and bureaucracy, which provided bright and talented Jews more white collar and professional opportunities.

2) Jews certainly are a migratory people by any reasonable understanding of the term. The Ostjuden ended up in Eastern Europe following centuries of expulsions and migration out of the Middle East and Italy since the Roman Empire. "Ukraine" is a polity, which is something man made, but the people who call themsevelves "Ukrainians" are, as genetic studies have revealed, the product of native Europeans who have lived in Europe for millenia, just like other Europeans.

3) This is just sophistry. People in exile who are expelled frequently and forced to migrate are migratory people.

4) If there were pogroms tomorrow against Jews in the US by mobs upset about leftism and lax immigration policy or something, then it's entirely conceivable that Jews in the US might tone down or alter their politics. The point being that what one can do and get away with depends on the political and social environment. If you're a migratory people, then you want ease of movement in general. Policies in other polities are more difficult to influence from abroad. Moreover, advocating for lower movement restrictions specifically just for other polities looks like special pleading, self-serving, non-reciprocal policy, and thus has less moral force.

5) What I've described is not some grand or elaborate theory. Moreover, it's not a theory or explanation of Jewish leftism. It's a simple observation that the Jews' diaspora experience has informed their behavior and way of life. You're the one throwing up several elabore theories to see which one can stick and distract from having people confront and grapple with the atypical experience of the Jewish diaspora.

snorlax said...

Gabriel M -

I'd forgotten how well you write. Thanks. (Although, I'm not quite sure that, were I a liberal Jew, I'd be persuaded... :) ) Luckily, "dolt-rightists" don't comment much at the Times of Israel, unless linked to on one of their sites ... which you sorta just did. I think you're okay though.

I haven't posted anything remotely edgy under my real name since 2012 or so, and even to have done so back then was a mistake, although I'm not too worried since most of it's succumbed to link rot now and/or is too old for anyone to find and link to me. I do live in a high-risk area (Boston) and work in a high-risk industry (tech), so YMMV.

Persuasion is indeed a difficult art, and some people just aren't persuadable, except maybe by real-world experience. In my experience, the best way is to expose a person to a wide variety of novel arguments, because it's difficult to predict which one is ultimately going to "click."

My own teenaged conversion to the right (libertarianism) came while taking an Econ 101 course and being convinced of the evils of tariffs and the minimum wage (positions I'd ironically later reverse back on). I couldn't square the cognitive dissonance that liberals were ignoring "the science."

In retrospect the arguments that persuaded me were weak, it was just that I'd never given someone right-of-center a fair hearing before.

That it came from a source I respected and perceived as respecting me was key. The same goes for my libertarian->reactionary conversion some years later, which came by reading and rereading Moldbug's Open Letter and Dawkins with some preliminary softening up by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Patri Friedman. Honey works better than vinegar.

I dropped out of the comments threads partly because I realised it's not the mark of a sane person to constantly hang out places where 5% of people want to exterminate your entire ethnic group.

I figured as much, although I didn't really expect you to reappear here! AE's several notches more, er, antidreyfusard than Sailer is, although a bit weirdly the reverse is true of their respective commenters (but woe betide any Baby Boomer who sets foot in these parts...).

On the other hand, the threads that don't have this 5% don't have anyone interesting to talk to. So, here I am. See, Jews --> crazy.

C'est la vie. If it's any help, if not the Jews most of that 5% would be ranting about 9/11 Truth or w/e. Which they in fact were, I remember clearly, just a few years ago. In a few years most will move on to some new bugbear.

Don't you live in East Jerusalem? What's that — 50%?

AE -

It's a little counterintuitive in that us types tend to have a viscerally negative reaction to the We Wuz Kangz stuff. But hey, if it works it works. Students in, say, Bulgaria are taught all about how Bulgaria is the greatest and most important nation in history, and I can't say I take issue with that, so WWK isn't really any different. Better positive racial pride (even if nonsense) than negative hate-whitey stuff.

snorlax said...

Anon @11:50 & 10:58, Gabriel M (assuming that's you @12:26) -

It's a favorite claim of both most Jews and of KMac devotees that pre-WWII WASP America was a hotbed of antisemitism. The problem is, as with so much other 20th-century historiography, that this is 180 degrees the opposite of the truth (a blood libel, one might say).

I find the best way to learn history is to pick a certain historical time period and place and start reading primary and contemporary sources. Find a collection of newspapers or magazines and read them, cover to cover. Find some popular fiction and non-fiction books published at the time and read those.

Don't go in only interested in a specific subject or trying to find evidence to prove a point, just go and try to gradually get a feel for the times.

If you do this, it will shock you — it always shocks me, and I know what to expect — how ubiquitously modern retellings of history, even those written by conservatives, are not just wrong, not just exaggerations or misinterpretations or distortions, but 180 degrees the opposite of what actually transpired.

You will be shocked at all the fascinating and critically-important people and events who have been not smeared or underappreciated, not overemphasized or overpraised, but retconned out of existence altogether.

For example: who founded Zionism? Theodor Herzl? Nope. It was American Protestants. Do read the list of signatures; it's a real trip. Yes, those are John D Rockefeller, JP Morgan and future President William McKinley.

You could read 20,000 pages on Zionism — from any sort of after-the-fact source: liberal, conservative, far-left, antisemitic — and never once learn of this fascinating and critically-important event.

Among the conclusions I've drawn from my extensive reading of pre-WWII American sources is that American WASPs have always been, by far, the most philo-semitic people in the world. The Tsar's pogroms and Hitler's racial policies are always denounced in vehement terms. Antisemitism is ubiquitous in German, French or even English writing pre-WWII, but not American.

cont.

snorlax said...

Pre-WWII sources say all sorts of extremely (by modern standards) "offensive" things about all manner of groups. Much less often than you'd think listening to modern liberals, but it is there.

But its very hard to find anything offensive about Jews — you have to look at extremely marginal, fringe publications for that. Quite the contrary, when Jews are mentioned it's almost always to praise, or near-patronizingly overpraise — "the Jewish race, much older, greater and prouder than the English..." — them.

Open up a newspaper and Jews frequently appear (as subjects and authors) in the society, politics and business sections, and are never treated any less than respectfully, nor is their ethnicity brought up gratuitously. This is not, by the way, true of other immigrant groups like Italians or Poles.

You will be hard-pressed to find any WASP writing in support of antisemitic discrimination in any form: hiring, academics, housing or golf courses.

At the time (and, to a lesser extent today), universities and country clubs had strong legacy admissions preferences, which disparately impacted recent immigrants including Jews. But these practices predated mass Jewish immigration.

Occasionally you'll see mentioned that businesses want to hire more Jews but it's difficult because they only want to work for Jewish firms. Now, this may have been bad-faith sophistry (e.g. "the jobs Americans won't do") but I've never found any indication of that.

Look at Jewish sources and it's very much the same. Their complaints are along the lines of what Wesley Yang describes:

Yet another parallel for the campaign to police microaggressions may be the ACLU’s long campaign to oust Christian observance from the public square, which used the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to restrict the expression of the vast majority of the country in deference to the sensitivities of a tiny minority. The minority told the majority that they weren’t allowed to do things that they had long been habituated to doing, and which they regarded as a core part of their own identity and faith. The impetus for this legal campaign, whose reasoning was judged to be sound by the Supreme Court, was of course not purely formalistic or doctrinal. It emerged from out of the status politics of everyday life—an exercise of power by a rising minority, namely Jews, to remove practices that made (some of them) feel like aliens in their own land.

The curbing of open religious displays in American public spaces was a symbolic concession to the equal dignity of the Jews sought by a faction of a group no longer content to occupy a marginal place in the life of the country.


You won't find complaints about hiring, Harvard admissions or golf. At least, not until the 1950's or later, decades after the (supposed) fact. But there are lots and lots of complaints about nativity scenes, crosses, prayers etc.

Anonymous said...

As far as I know, Kevin MacDonald does not argue that the US was a "hotbed" of anti-Semitism. And I don't know of any Kevin MacDonald "devotees" who argue that either. "Hotbed" of anti-Semitism is a vague and subjective term anyway. For some, anything short of violent pogroms will disqualify it as a "hotbed". For others, like most Jews today, almost anything can qualify it as a "hotbed" of anti-Semitism.

It's not exactly a new revelation that American Protestants support Zionism. Protestants and others supported Zionism for various reasons - religious, moral, and political. Zionism was regarded by many gentiles as a reasonable, practical, and peacable solution to the "Jewish problem". Kevin MacDonald and many of his devotees have no problem with Zionism and a homeland for Jews.

You can read about prewar anti-Semitism here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Patrician Anti-Semitism

"For the New England brahmins, the Jew served as a symbol of the greed and corruption of the new order. By assailing Jews, they attacked the industrialists, financiers, and railroad barons who were displacing them in the nation's political and economic life. This fear was expressed in a stream of anti-Semitic writings and speeches on the part of New England's leading public figures and intellectuals during the late nineteenth century."

...

"These themes were echoed by other New England patricians, including Henry James who used Jewish characters to symbolize greed and the decline of society. Similarly, Henry Adams's brother, Brooks, in his 1896 work, The Law of Civilization and Decay, demonstrated that throughout history Jews had used their money and financial acumen as instruments of exploitation, domination, and oppression. In the United States and Britain, productive industrial capitalism had been replaced by parasitic finance capitalism, symbolized by the Jewish usurer. This became a common theme in the literary and scholarly works of the New England patricians and other upper-class intellectuals. The Jew was attacked as the representative of a materialistic society with no values or culture."

Immigration Restriction

"From the patrician perspective, not only was the Jew was a symbol of the corruption of America's new ruling class, but the Jew symbolized the decay of American values in another was as well. To the patricians, Jewish immigrants, along with other newcomers from Southern and Eastern Europe, represented a threat to American culture, society, and the Anglo-Saxon race."

...

"One major vehicle for this aspect of the patrician attack on the industrialist regime was the Immigration Restriction League. The League was founded in 1894 by a trio of New England bluebloods - Charles Warren, Robert Ward, and Prescott Farnsworth Hall - and a group of their Harvard classmates. The League quickly promoted the creation of affiliates throughout the nation, often making use of the Harvard alumni network and other organizations of transplanted New Englanders."

...

"Among the League's most important intellectual spokesman was Edward Ross, one of the pioneers of American sociology. In his widely read 1914 work, The Old World and the New, Ross explains the importance of protecting Anglo-Saxon Americanism against pollution through immigration.""

Jonathan Centauri said...

The Synagogue of Satan doesn't "migrate", they run away. Migration is the habit of birds and other species to get away from weather patterns and seek food. The "Jew" is a parasite. A pest species. They get into things made by others and infest them.
They do not "excel". They take over and aggrandize themselves. Egotism seems to operate at the INVERSE of talent and ability. Braggadocio is a sign of an Inferiority Complex. They constantly TALK about how great they are, because they're not.
All the "awards" and such. Fakery and credentialism. A NECESSARY COMPONENT of EGO PROTECTION. THEY KNOW THEY ARE INFERIOR. THEY WOULD NOT CONSTANTLY BRAG, USE CREDENTIALS, AND HIRE SYCOPHANTS IN THE MEDIA IF THEY COULD EVER RECEIVE PRAISE NORMALLY.

ONLY FAKERS AND CON MEN ENJOY FLATTERY...

Audacious Epigone said...

Gabriel M,

The question of whether Heritage America will find the will to survive as opposed to going out with a whimper is an open one. If I were wagering on 1:1 odds, I'd bet on the latter. I don't expect us to collectively do what we need to do. How to respond to an inherently hostile alien culture exerting significant influence on several of our major institutions, though, is what you're suggesting will have to be done if I'm following you correctly. That it won't be done--let alone that it should even be framed that way, something I'm intellectually trying to find a way reject--doesn't change what would need to be done.

Snorlax,

It's incognito Ron Unz! Listened to him today explaining the intention unz.org, the side of the webzine devoted to digitally archiving time period content. His description of the disconnect between how conventional wisdom portrays events of the past relative to how they were seen at the time is strikingly similar to what you write.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

The question of whether or not Israel is part of the West is another contentious one.

Since the early 2000s I've been reading that Israel is a canary in the coal mine. It's hardly irrelevant, but the fate of South African whites is a better fit.

Speaking of, are we aware of any prominent Jews who've made the potential impending Afrikaner genocide a major issue? Ben Shapiro pointing out that socialism is bad so shame on the ANC for changing the constitution to allow for land expropriation isn't what I'm looking for--that was standard content for everyone on the right when news broke. I'm talking about a level of interest like that shown by outlets like AmRen or individuals like Lauren Southern or Katie Hopkins. Whatever Israel's situation is, the situation for South African whites is more precarious. This would be a perfect foil to my assumption that Jews don't give a fig about gentiles. Show me!

Anonymous said...

snorlax,

If you scroll a couple pages up from the book I linked to, you can read more about anti-Semitism in the 19th century:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA75#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Anti-Semitism in the Nineteenth Century

As indicated above, two sets of forces, both bitterly opposed to the economic transformations of the late nineteenth century, made use of anti-Semitic rhetoric and propaganda as one element in their attack upon the industrialist order. The first of these consisted of Western and Southern radical agrarians who, through the Populist movement, were engaged in a bitter struggle against the economic and political changes associated with American industrial development. The second comprised old-stock New England patricians, some associated with the Mugwumps, whose own economic and political importance had waned relative to the new, post-Civil War class of industrialists and financiers.

Populist Anti-Semitism

...

Obviously not all Populists were anti-Semites, and, indeed, some may even have been philo-Semitic. Nevertheless, a constant theme of anti-Semitism is manifested in the writings and speeches of some of the major Populist leaders and intellectuals. One well-known example is William Hope Harvey's 1894 work, Coin's Financial School, which was one of the best-selling works of the nineteenth century. The major thesis of the book was that the demonitization of silver - the Populist equivalent of original sin - was part of a plot by the Rothschilds and other Jews allied with the British to dominate the United States and, indeed, the entire world by obtaining a financial stranglehold.
Harvey also wrote the popular novel, A Tale of Two Nations, also published in 1894, which made much the same point. In this book, a British Jew named Baron Rothe (read Rothschild) sends his nephew Victor Rogasner (presumably August Belmont) to the United States to bring about its economic ruin. Rogasner finds the corrupt Grant administration to be a perfect vehicle for his plans. Making good use of the sly cunning for which members of his race are said to be noted, Rogasner has no difficulty manipulating and bribing members of Congress and other high government officials to support his nefarious schemes. Rogasner also hires corrupt economics professors to testify against bimetalism.
During the course of the story, it should perhaps go without saying, Rogasner falls in love with a fair-haired and pure American girl. He schemes to steal her from her own true love, a young and honest congressman from Nebraska who seems to bear some resemblance to William Jennings Bryan. The blond and virtuous heroine, of course, is appalled by the dark and slimy Rogasner and forthrightly declares him to be "repulsive to me."

Anonymous said...

Cont.

"The most famous literary example of Populist anti-Semitic propaganda was Ignatius Donnelly's 1889 work, Caesar's Column. Donnelly had served as the Populist lieutenant governor of Minnesota and was the author of the preamble to the 1892 national Populist platform. He was also the editor of two notable Populist newspapers, The Anti-Monopolist and The Representative. Caesar's Column, which sold more than 250,000 copies, is set in a mythical future and is an example of the same genre as Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward, that is, a book that tries to project some putative contemporary trend to its logical future conclusion in order to warn readers of the consequences of allowing present tendencies to continue.
The main character of Donnelly's work leaves a mythical Populist paradise in Uganda to visit New York exactly 100 years in the future. He discovers that the leadership of the United States has secretly fallen into the hands of a small group of greedy and fabulously wealthy financiers, most of whom are Jews. The leader of this secret Jewish cabal is one Jacob Isaacs, who calls himself Prince Cabano. The Jews and their allies have reduced the other people of the United States to poverty and slavery. The world, according to Donnelly, has become "semitized." Of course, when is not busy ruling the world, Prince Cabana, like his slimy coreligionist Victor Rogasner, devotes himself to lusting after the virtuous, blond, Gentile maiden Estella Washington. Like her alter ego in A Tale, Estella finds Cabano "repulsive."
Anti-Semitic themes were also employed by Populist orators and politicians. Mary Lease, the so-called Kansas hell-raiser, often attacked the Cleveland administration as the agent of Jewish bankers. In Lease's fiery speeches, Jews were usually described as usurers, landlords, and bankers and often used to symbolicze the inequity of the contemporary economic and political order - a regime that allowed Jewish parasites to prey upon farmers and such their lifeblood.
Similarly, William Stewart, a free-silver senator from Nebraska, asserted that the Rothschilds were embarked upon a plan to enslave the entire world to the rule of the "money power," and to that end were seeking to "concentrate wealth, build up aristocracy, and destroy Democracy in the United States." In the same vein, Tom Watson asked rhetorically whether in his wildest dream Thomas Jefferson would have thought [that by 1892] "red-eyed Jewish millionaires would be the chiefs of his party," prostituting it to the vilest services of greed and monopoly?
Hofstadter reports that by the time of the campaign of 1896, anti-Semitism had become, if not all-pervasive, at least common in the Populist movement. "One of the striking things about the Populist convention in St. Louis," wrote an Associated Press reported cited by Hofstadter, "is the extraordinary hatred of the Jewish race. It is not possible to go into any hotel in the city without hearing the most better denunciation of the Jews." Later in the campaign, William Jennings Bryan was compelled to reassure Jewish Democrats in Chicago that the anti-Semitic rhetoric used by some Populists did not really represent an attack upon Jews as a race. Jews were, he said, attacked only because they symbolized greed and avarice."

snorlax said...

AE -

Unz columnist Ilana Mercer and (somewhat lazy example) Curtis Yarvin aka Mencius Moldbug come to mind.

Not sure what you mean by "prominent," but if you mean celebrities, I can't immediately think of any, Jew or gentile, who fit that description.

Jig Bohnson said...

@AE

Israel is a much more relevant canary for the West than South Africa.

Whites were never a majority in South Africa, just like Rhodesia before it. What is happening there now is not unlike what has happened repeatedly in other African countries - to other African ethnic groups. (It is ironic to realize that about the Afrikaners - in their last stand they are truly being treated like other Africans) And lastly the ANC who are perpetrating this are a bunch of old-style Soviet commies. That kind of communism isn't a real threat anymore in the West.

Israel's situation, on the other hand, is much more like the West because in living memory they had a solid Jewish majority (~90%) and enjoyed institutional support as an ethnostate across the American and general Western political spectrum. And, most importantly, the forces that want to bring down Israel, the Islamist/Leftist alliance, are the same that want to bring down the West. And they are trying to do it in the same way - through a combination of Islamist aggression and birthrates in the background and Leftist rhetoric in the foreground.

As Israel goes so goes the west, my man. Whether or not Israel is actually part of the West is irrelevant.

Now on your question whether Jews are playing a role in bringing attention to the Afrikaner genocide that is a strange thing to ask seeing as how Illana Mercer wrote the book on that, so to speak.

Feryl said...


1) Immigration began to heavily change in the late 1960's which coincided with.....A turn to cultural liberalism that almost immediately reflected a nascent movement among liberals to diminish "class warfare" (economic liberalism). It's initial leading proponents were a fair number of GIs and Silents who appealed to most spoiled middle-upper class Boomers, who felt virtually no investment in the progressive culture that reigned supreme from about 1930-1960, after growing in popularity from c. 1900-1930. This Boomer class would sometimes hear econ. Leftist rhetoric but their liberal instincts were largely channeled toward attacks on cultural tradition and emphasizing (relatively) radical ID politics. This they did under the tutelage of whatever sympathetic GIs and Silents they could find. "Conservatives" may have been troubled by the cultural changes, yet they also were elated to see that young Americans in particular could be persuaded into defending the rich/privileged and attacking "big government".

2) Appealing to the union man necessitated that most Democrats and a fair number of Republicans had to put some effort into keeping real progressivism alive into the 70's, 80's, and even 90's to some extent. But the anti-government and pro-rich person Silent and Boomer hawks were clearly the dominant and rising force, such that the younger a politician was the more reluctant he was to talk about economic inequality, the pros of regulation, the importance of unions, and enforcing anti-trust. After the Gingrich revolution of 1994, most moderate Republicans (most of whom were pre-Boomers) left the party or politics altogether, as they could see an ideological chasm developing and partisan zeal coming to ruin bi-partisan cooperation.

Feryl said...

3) The military/Pentagon became more incompetently run in the 60's and 70's, and many people were disillusioned with it and the Pentagon had very little influence by the mid-late 70's. After Reagan was elected, this sort of populism still was strong (as measured by GSS trust in the military) but nevertheless Pentagon pork was obviously a huge item on the Reagan agenda, and thus would begin the still dominant paradigm of the Pentagon using maximum funds with minimal accountability. The Pentagon and the American business community (both of whom are strongly pro-GOP) have been the primary instigators of high immigration levels since the early 1980's. Illegal immigration surged in the 80's and early 90's, then, curiously......Diminished in the mid 90's after the end of the Cold War temporarily put the Pentagon in it's proper place (weakened when we aren't in legit danger and war), and Democrats were still mostly committed to defending worker's wages.

3) As the climate of the late 90's turned defiantly toward neo-liberalism, immigration went back up. Then in the Bush era, the Pentagon was politically and ideologically re-armed and immigration levels really shot up. And this time, since we'd mucked about in the Middle East so much by this point, Muslim immigration surged. The business community may prosaically want cheap labor and elite focused growth, but the Pentagon wants to pick the brains of foreigners and also wants more "inside men" for various ops. It's harder to play around with foreign countries if your HR policies keep foreign born Muhammeds out. Bob Larson from Omaha can't pretend to be a Muslim who's capable of establishing a rapport with foreign Muslim elites.

All this is to say that the CultMarx Left being the primary force behind a sinister conspiracy to replace white people is ludicrous. Marxist academic cranks were pushing this stuff as early as the 80's, but they had virtually no power back then. We have nobody to blame but ourselves for allowing the malignant influence of the Pentagon and cheap labor elite to grow over the past 50 years, with brief pauses but no real effort made at long-term changes in elite culture which would create more noblesse oblige.

The excesses of the mainstream Left in the Obama and Trump era can't be retroactively blamed for the failure of other institutions since the late 60's.

Feryl said...

The investor, and billionaire , and philanthropist Warren Buffett, one of the 10 wealthiest persons in the world,[12] voiced in 2005 and once more in 2006 his view that his class – the "rich class" – is waging class warfare on the rest of society. In 2005 Buffet said to CNN: "It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be."[13] In a November 2006 interview in The New York Times, Buffett stated that "[t]here’s class warfare all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."[14] Later Warren gave away more than half of his fortune to charitable causes through a program developed by himself and computer software tycoon Bill Gates.[15] In 2011 Buffett called on government legislators to, "...stop coddling the super rich

Sadly, the Left under Obama and Trump eventually gave up on reviving genuinely progressive policies, and their intense focus on bizarro ID politics shows no sign of going away.

With Millennials growing in influence, it shouldn't be all that hard for the Left and even the Right to agree that taxes need to more progressive, monopolies need to be reined in, and so forth. But so many modern Leftist elites are cynically kissing up to neo-liberal tradition and the many elites who wish to protect it. Not in mind lifetime did I ever envision Leftist normies (not the cranks in the academic swamp, mind you) making fun of West Virginia coal miners (a state that pre-Trump was proudly Democratic), but here we are, with discourse and mutual respect between various groups at their lowest level since the Civil War era. Of course, a lot of this can be put down to Boomers and to a lesser extent Gen X-ers being such horribly socialized bullies and cynics, whose abysmal standard of acceptable behavior is now playing itself out terribly in the "leadership" of institutions and movements.

Audacious Epigone said...

Snorlax/Jig,

Should've specified someone who wasn't born in and fled from South Africa. We could put together an almost endless list of equally or more prominent Jews who are especially concerned with Israel despite not having lived there. Are there any Jews who are similarly concerned with the plight of whites in South Africa?

South Africa is a more relevant "canary in the coal mine" than Israel is because it is an indication of what will happen to whites in constitutional democracies when they lose majority electoral status if they continue on their current cultural/political trajectory.

Israel and the Visegrad countries are examples of what happens when the Heritage stock of a nation asserts its own interests. That the US, Germany, or any other NW European-descended country would be just fine if they did the same is not in question, at least not to me. It's obvious that if we find the will, our future is secure.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

We have nobody to blame but ourselves for allowing the malignant influence of the Pentagon and cheap labor elite to grow over the past 50 years, with brief pauses but no real effort made at long-term changes in elite culture which would create more noblesse oblige

Hard, necessary medicine to take. We have to assert a positive identity, not merely exist as a negative identity (like blacks in America do vis-a-vis whites).

Jig Bohnson said...

@AE

It appears we're talking about different coal mines here, and therefore see different canaries.

South Africa is the coal mine for Sub-Saharan Africa, for sure. But the US and NW Europe are not there. If the US and NW Europe are to ultimately be brought down it will be because of the demographic and cultural dominance of resurgent extremist Islamism, not Zulus, Xhosas, and Guptas. And that resurgent Islamism will be in an alliance of convenience with Leftists (cultural Leftists, not actual industrial commies like the ANC) until they win at which point the Islamists will massacre the Leftists, as in what happened in Iran 1979. Right now Israel is target #1 for that alliance, but of course Israel is only the first stepping stone to bigger prizes. IT is the canary.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The "Jews" undermined Whites in South Africa. The Boers were constantly attacked by Rothschild's redcoats. Joe Slovo ran the ANC. That idiot "Nelson Mandela" was a creation of the (((tribe))). I'm pretty sure I heard he died back in the late 80s or early 90s in Prison. Whatever. Any kaffir will do. Not much phenotype difference. Any dark skinned dolt that can make a fist and be put on the Telly. Call him a "freedom fighter" and the kaffirs will toe the line as long as he's a darkie.
War is inevitable. "Anti-Semitism" is just opposing the (((tribe))). The HATRED of Whites is RATHER HARD TO IGNORE NOWADAYS. El Trumpo is tooting his little horn but he's not quite making it. He's Bush League Pussy already.
"Go along to get along" only works when YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO LOSE...

WinstonSmith17 said...

Epigone, new commenter here, long time lurker. Full disclosure, I am of the (((tribe )))

To answer your question about Jewish concern regarding Afrikaners, yes there are a few people like that. Check out Avi Yemini from Australia, he is prominent on social media. There is Ilana Mercer, though of course she isn’t helped by her personal situation of having fled the chaos that her father helped bring on.

In general, I very much understand gentile resentment of us. Exile Jewry is just about the most obnoxious as far as collective behavior goes. We really have it coming. I don’t have a solution, except that those members of the tribe who wish to identify as such first, need to move to Israel and be done with it. Everybody else, assimilate into your host countries already. Enough with the ambivalence, it’s killing us all. I know which path I’d like to choose. Hopefully another big disaster for my nation can be averted, though I am by nature a pessimist.

Peace be upon us all.

Jonathan Centauri said...

You have your homeland Winston. You have worn out your welcome. Much like savages, your people see kindness as a weakness. We cannot ever "co-exist". Our Society REQUIRES SOCIAL TRUST. Western Civilization is NOT a Shopping Mall with Barbie Cheap Plastic Crap. It requires Vision, a Shared Vision. You and I CANNOT EVER SEE EYE TO EYE. Its the Swastika I love, not the Bohemian Corporal. The Swastika is a Symbol of Progress. I LOVE IT. I'll KILL to get it. Western Civilization is just BETTER. I have studied your kind. They cheat each other constantly. THERE IS NO HONOR AMONGST THIEVES.

The top of this Pyramid Scheme is digging holes. Much like the Bohemian Corporal they have a nice bunker ready. Those of you who are not IN THE CLUB, can feel the BUS roll over you. Such is the way of shysters and thieves. The less that make the getaway, the MORE for the rest.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

If the US and NW Europe are to ultimately be brought down it will be because of the demographic and cultural dominance of resurgent extremist Islamism, not Zulus, Xhosas, and Guptas

I'm not sure that assertion will stand the test of time. The global population explosion is coming from sub-Saharan Africa. It dwarfs that of the Middle East. Europe is slowly hardening on the Islamic invasion and will have more political resistance when the real Camp of the Saints, from Africa, gets going in earnest. Think a president Kamala Harris, in 2024, will balk at accepting one million African 'refugees' per year to wash out the racism of the outgoing Trump administration?

Winston,

Assuming the veracity of your identity, it's a sight for sore eyes. Simple, straightforward, fair. I commend you for writing it.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

Say she gets two terms. That's 8 million, double it for fraud. TFR of four, that's sixty million additional sub-Saharan Africans in the US by mid-century.

WinstonSmith17 said...

Epigone, I am real indeed. Thank you for your kind words. I suspect that a lot of people think along my lines but to actually voice these things out loud is another matter. As always and everywhere, the purse strings talk, and right now, ADL and SPLC have the purse strings. Hopefully generation (((Z))) is more like Stephen Miller in terms of patriotic allegiance.

Centauri, I understand your anger and won’t try to argue with you. I just want to point out that for better or worse, we have been part of European history for a very long time, and there are lots of Europeans with varying degrees of recent Jewish ancestry. Anecdotally, from my years living in Western Europe (not within any Jewish community) I recall meeting quite a few people casually aware of Jewish grandparents, but otherwise indistinguishable from others in that country. Epigone is obviously more up to date on recent genetic research, so please correct me if I’m wrong. Are you going to send them “home”? That’s ridiculous.

Many German Jews were ardent patriots who served their country in WW1 and were otherwise also completely assimilated, intermarried and everything, sort of like current American Jewry is doing (the non-observant ones).

Are our genetics different, warrior worriers that we apparently are? Perhaps, but what are you comparing against? Again, I don’t know the genetics exactly, but are, say, Sicilians that much more similar to you than I am, genetically speaking (assuming you are not Italian :)

As far as our interpersonal ethics, I will readily concede that to you. But this is something trainable and not immutable, up to a significant degree, given sufficient cognitive and temperamental resources.

We can and do assimilate, and we can be trained to abandon our collective obnoxiousness. It’s happening as we speak. The problem is the vocal sector of profiteers who keep overplaying their hand, every single time in history. Just like 70 years ago in Weimar. Unfortunately, the situation here today is eerily parallel to Weimar. God help us all.

Jig Bohnson said...

@AE

Half of those future SSAs will be Muslim, and as the Underpants bomber and Lee Rigby's murderers indicate, their Muslim identity will be much more important than their black one.

But if you insist on still viewing the SSA population explosion as the bigger threat, Israel is on the front lines of that too, actually. The global left is obsessed with Israel having to naturalize some portion of their African "refugees" aka economic migrants. Because they know that even a relatively small portion of naturalizations threatens the delicate demographic balance there. As Israel goes, so goes the West.

Gavriel M said...

@Snorlax

Don't you live in East Jerusalem? What's that — 50%?

LOL.

I figured as much, although I didn't really expect you to reappear here! AE's several notches more, er, antidreyfusard than Sailer is,

What annoyed me about Sailer was his 'anti-semitism, what anti-semitism?' attitude when he obviously reads his comments section pretty closely. A blogger who relies on commentators as much as he does should cultivate his readership a bit more IMHO. That maybe sounds a more bitter than I meant it.

I like reading AE for the data-heavy stuff and I got triggered by this post, which perhaps was the point.

Thanks for the source.

Gabriel M said...

Speaking of, are we aware of any prominent Jews who've made the potential impending @AE
Afrikaner genocide a major issue? Ben Shapiro pointing out that socialism is bad so shame on the ANC for changing the constitution to allow for land expropriation isn't what I'm looking for--that was standard content for everyone on the right when news broke. I'm talking about a level of interest like that shown by outlets like AmRen or individuals like Lauren Southern or Katie Hopkins. Whatever Israel's situation is, the situation for South African whites is more precarious. This would be a perfect foil to my assumption that Jews don't give a fig about gentiles. Show me!


Katie Hopkins is just a mouthpiece for (((Ezra Levant))) who also gave Lauren Southern her break. The main person I see advocating for Akrikaaners is Avi Yemini. Ilana Mercer literally wrote the book on the subject. A more pertinent question is where are all the white people?

Gabriel M said...

The question of whether Heritage America will find the will to survive as opposed to going out with a whimper is an open one. If I were wagering on 1:1 odds, I'd bet on the latter. I don't expect us to collectively do what we need to do. How to respond to an inherently hostile alien culture exerting significant influence on several of our major institutions, though, is what you're suggesting will have to be done if I'm following you correctly. That it won't be done--let alone that it should even be framed that way, something I'm intellectually trying to find a way reject--doesn't change what would need to be done.

I can't parse this, but to make clear my point: if you are in a situation where expelling Jews (or similar) can command the support of 50% of the population, you would already have a massive super-majority in favour of immigration restriction and pro-white policies. What would be the point of expelling them at this point? Revenge? To put it another way, before arriving in a position to to solve the problem in your suggested way, you would already have solved the problem in some other way. Think about what that way might be.

Hungary has the 6th largest population of Jews per capita in the world. They do fine. Of course, there are all sorts of differences between Hungary and the U.S. which you may not be able to emulate, but thinking about what those are might put you on a more realistic track.

Anonymous said...

I can't parse this, but to make clear my point: if you are in a situation where expelling Jews (or similar) can command the support of 50% of the population, you would already have a massive super-majority in favour of immigration restriction and pro-white policies. What would be the point of expelling them at this point? Revenge? To put it another way, before arriving in a position to to solve the problem in your suggested way, you would already have solved the problem in some other way. Think about what that way might be.

There are whites who prefer excluding Jews for the same reason they prefer excluding other groups. It has nothing to do with revenge, but simply a preference for self-determination and exclusive communities. There may be some vengeful whites who wish to exclude Jews or harm them purely for vengeance, but that's not the only motivation out there. Do you believe that no white or other population on the planet should be allowed to exclude Jews?

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig,

As for SA being communist, the West is going to move in that direction as it becomes increasingly non-white.

WinstonSmith,

My sense is that mischlings tend to be less aware of their Jewishness than full (ethnic) Jews do. That might seem like it'd obviously be the case, but it's not when it comes to blackness. Halfricans--what Derb calls the "mulatto mafia"--wear their blackness on their sleeves more than blacker blacks do.

Stephen Miller is my archetypal perfect Jew. If he were something close to modal, I'd have no beef at all with Ashkenazism. If the Euro-descended Jew/Gentile divide is comparable to the Euro-descended Protestant/Catholic divide today.

silly girl said...

.
That graph is stunning.
.
I can't see how anyone sees Israel as a threat to the USA.

Even 1 in 5 Jews thinks Israel is a threat! Even granting approximately 16% said they don't know, that still would be 1 in six Jews thinks Israel is at least a moderate threat to the USA! Freaking crazy! Add to it that Jews on average aren't dumb. That makes it full on craaaay craaaay !

Audacious Epigone said...

silly girl,

Presumably almost no one thinks Israel is a direct military threat to the US, but that the threat comes from the putative hijacking of US foreign policy for Israel's ends through AIPAC, etc (and probably the theft and sale of US military technology to third party actors).

Gabriel M said...

@Anonymous

There are whites who prefer excluding Jews for the same reason they prefer excluding other groups. It has nothing to do with revenge, but simply a preference for self-determination and exclusive communities. There may be some vengeful whites who wish to exclude Jews or harm them purely for vengeance, but that's not the only motivation out there. Do you believe that no white or other population on the planet should be allowed to exclude Jews?

No, but I don't think that's pertinent. AE said that if the 'modal' Jews was as right wing as the most right wing 20% of Whites (i.e. Stephen Miller), he would 'have no beef' with them. That doesn't seem exactly fair, but it seems to demonstrate that he has no wish to exclude Jews per se.

Jonathan Centauri said...

The Jew is not part of anywhere. Its not a question of how long but when you must be removed. Americans DO NOT SUPPORT this invasion. It was ALL JEWISH. The "poem" on the Statue of Liberty. The Hart-Cellar Act. The Anti-White programming in the media. ALL JEWISH.
You can leave or you can die. You will not take over and stay. The West is more than land. It is the Light. It is Progress. I care NOTHING for your "global shopping mall" or your mercantilism. I will have Western Civilization.
If you want me to wipe you out, I shall. If that is necessary, it is worth the price. You are a small and insignificant "minority". You invent NOTHING. You are sick and depraved in character. You have made mass media into a pigsty of filth and hypersexual immorality.
WE CANNOT CO-EXIST. If you want conflict, then so be it. You cannot win. You have no allies at this point. I can wipe you out just by giving you what you want. Your own fantasies of having dark skinned serfs and slaves. THEY WILL EAGERLY MURDER YOU IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY. THEY HAVE NO SENSE OF LOYALTY EVEN TO EACH OTHER.

Anonymous said...

No, but I don't think that's pertinent. AE said that if the 'modal' Jews was as right wing as the most right wing 20% of Whites (i.e. Stephen Miller), he would 'have no beef' with them. That doesn't seem exactly fair, but it seems to demonstrate that he has no wish to exclude Jews per se.

Why aren't self-determination and freedom of association pertinent? They're the crux of the matter of many of the bar charts AE puts up.

I understand that AE likes some Jews and doesn't wish to exclude them. But I don't think AE has a problem with whites or other groups excluding Jews and other groups either.

Gabriel M said...

Why aren't self-determination and freedom of association pertinent? They're the crux of the matter of many of the bar charts AE puts up.

That's a very odd train of logic. Anyway, I already answered your question: no. Parenthetically, however, there is no way of 'excluding Jews and other groups' on a national level, or anything beyond small hamlets, while maintaining 'freedom of association'. I would have thought that was obvious, but maybe not.