When most people, Jew or gentile, hear the term “anti-Semitism”, they immediately assume it is a bad thing, an ignorant prejudice, and a type of mental virus that leads to gas chambers.
I am not so sure. From my perspective, only anti-Semitism that leads to physical violence is always a bad thing for Jews (the reality of life is that physical violence against competing groups is sometimes a good thing for your group). On the other hand, a moderate amount of “anti-Semitism” is often a good thing in that it keeps group identity strong.
I believe in freedom of association. Gentiles should be able to gather at a restaurant or country club or hotel without the presence of Jews if that is their wish, just as Jews should have their own institutions free from goyim if that is their wish.
If you have a strong in-group identity, be it Jewish or Christian or Muslim, you are likely to have negative views of out-groups. It is a weird and unhealthy proud Jew or proud Christian or proud Muslim who does not have some negative views of out-groups.
An Arab or Muslim who is just fine with the Jewish state of Israel is cucked. A Christian with no negative feelings about Jews is cucked. A Jew with no negative feelings about Christians and Muslims is cucked.
If you are honest to your religion, you are going to find other religions at best weird and at worst evil.
Anti-Semitism increases Jewish solidarity and esprit de corps. Jews bond with each other and help each other more when there is anti-Semitism as opposed to when there is little anti-Semitism. Under anti-Semitic conditions, Jews feel more urgency to create their own institutions. Today most Jews in America marry non-Jews, while in a more anti-Semitic America, this was rare. Intermarriage destroys Judaism. Ergo, a more anti-Semitic America was better for American Judaism than today’s philo-Semitism.
When Napoleon swept through Europe, most Jews embraced him, but many Orthodox rabbis did not, because they thought the barriers he was breaking down between Jew and gentile would do the Jews more harm than good.
When Jews have had a choice, they have overwhelmingly chosen to leave Orthodox Judaism and to assimilate. In America and Western Europe, Jews have usually liked and admired their fellow gentiles. Only in Eastern Europe did most Jews detest the goyim (and were in turn hated by the goyim) and only in Eastern Europe did Orthodox Judaism reign among Jews.
Orthodox Judaism means separatism. All proud in-groups must separate from out-groups if they are to develop their in-group way of life.
Home Owner Associations that don’t want to admit Jews or blacks or Muslims should be allowed to do what they like. Businesses should be allowed to hire who they like. Different groups have different gifts and the more homogeneous your company or neighborhood, the more likely that people there will get along. I guess you can call that “anti-Semitism,” but to me it is commonsense.
Diversity and proximity sometimes lead to conflict and tragedy.
When the WASP stopped practicing anti-Semitism, the WASP cucked himself. The WASP used to rule this country and the world but he voluntarily gave up that privilege. Nature is not kind to such self-abnegating groups.
Irwin Stelzer writes in the Weekly Standard:
A sign of what might be called “progress” jogged some memories of battles fought. In reporting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s nomination of a new chief to a state regulatory agency, the New York Times identified the appointee as being a litigator in “the white-shoe law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,” et al. The reporter seemingly did not know that the designation “white-shoe law firm” was invented to describe firms at the pinnacle of the WASP establishment, no Jews allowed, named apparently for the shoes these WASPs favored in the summer at their restricted country clubs.
In the 1960s, my partners and I were attempting to establish an economic consulting firm that marketed its services to law firms and public utilities. The “white-shoe” firms were off-limits. We identified them by adding up the Roman numerals after partners’ names—I, II, III, etc.—adding to that partners with first and last names that were interchangeable, and dividing by the total number of partners. A high result meant we had no chance.
Then there were cases in which no such arithmetic was needed. A partner in one firm told me at a cocktail party, after his usual consumption of truth-producing alcohol, that he was happy to be living in a New York suburb that did not allow Jews. That firm later merged with another; both went bust. Another pointed out that the new civil rights legislation wasn’t a problem for him because it did not protect Jews, whose upward drive would threaten him and his executives. The general counsel of a public utility invited me to lunch to congratulate me on starting the firm and added what he thought was encouraging news: “If we ever hire a firm with Jews, your firm will be the first.”
We were not the only disadvantaged group. One company CEO told me that he was certain new legislation did not force him to change a company rule that permitted men, but not women, to smoke at their desks. In the early 1960s, women were finding it difficult to procure professional positions, both in law firms and in the consulting field. Our firm took advantage of that market imperfection by hiring the best and the brightest women economics graduates, with emphasis on my mentor’s and my own former students at Cornell. When I was due to testify at an administrative proceeding at a Washington regulatory agency, I brought my assistant along to help check data, refresh my recollection during recesses, find sources, and perform other chores. The hearing officer quietly suggested to me that it was inappropriate to have a woman in the hearing room; I argued that she was entitled to see the fruits of her research and prevailed. It wasn’t easy.
With time and hard work, we managed to build a successful consulting practice. Time, because gradually the law business changed, with the bright young Jewish graduates joining predominantly Jewish firms that prospered, in many instances by accepting cases that the white-shoe firms would not take—contingency fee arrangements, lawsuits against establishment corporations—and prevailing over rivals that had denied themselves access to this portion of the most talented law school output. One WASPy partner in a Pittsburgh firm told me one evening, “We made a mistake discriminating against you guys. We should have hired you instead of giving you an added incentive to beat us.”
Discrimination, especially against a group with no recourse to the law and therefore reliant only on its efforts, can be costly.
We were helped, too, by three events. A metropolitan New York utility hired as general counsel a Jewish lawyer who had an offer from a white-shoe firm rescinded a day later when the firm discovered he was Jewish. He was in the market for what we had to sell, especially in cases in which he was up against the Wall Street WASP law establishment. Second, a patrician partner in a southern law firm had no use for discrimination, interviewed several firms to handle a series of matters, and selected us on merit—for a client group led by a Philadelphia patrician who had somehow found his way into a top executive position in the utility industry. Not all WASPs wore white shoes.
Finally, a group of utilities found itself appearing before a Jewish administrative law judge. The executives in the group who knew that Jews are clannish—after all, there were none in their city and country clubs—thought it best to agree with the meritocrats in the group so they could play the Jew card in the hearing. We did well. It was easier but not storm-free sailing from then on.
I suspect that these horrible white-shoe firms were a little more honest in business than mixed-race businesses and that when they cucked themselves, their moral standards dropped as they brought in people who were not as honest as them. When I read about a scandal on Wall Street, it rarely seems to involve WASPs. Usually its Jews and Indians.
Will there ever be negative repercussions to playing the Jew card? In the rest of life, when you use an unfair advantage, it always comes back to bite you in the ass. Perhaps Jews are immune from this. Or perhaps not.
While discrimination can be costly, lack of discrimination is more likely to hurt you. Only a fool does not discriminate. Discrimination and separation are the very essence of Judaism. The goyim would do well to behave likewise.
