Yes, that is the opening sentence: “The Jew flourishes when borders come down, when boundaries blur, when walls are destroyed, not erected.”
I would say that Weisman is far away from Judaism. The Hebrew word for holy, kadosh, means separate. Separation is the essence of traditional Judaism.
* It’s almost as if Weisman trying his best to confirm all the negative stereotypes about Jews subverting their host societies. Chutzpah indeed.
* Somehow Israel didn’t get the memo that Weisman cribs from…
* It sounds like he is basically in agreement with Kevin MacDonald who wrote “A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.”
* Historically Jews do best in stable, ascending societies, which reform in such a way as to offer them some kind of meritocratic path (even when it was only through the local aristocracy) and religious freedom.
They historically do worst after times of mass unrest, revolution and war.
You can see their fortunes in the Early Middle Ages and High Medieval Period – and how fortunes turned against them with the beginning of the Late Middle Ages and its time of crisis.
* Among the numerous disadvantages to letting Jews be your intellectual caste is that you must edit out half of everything they say. I didn’t make it past the first paragraph. Yes, Ben, a significant number of Jews are far leftists, conflate that identity (except when an anti-Semite points it out), and frequently justify their politics, in terms of their Jewishness. And yes “alt-right” is relatively right (insofar as it is anything). And neither definition squabble really matters. No Somethingstein is breaking with the DNC because Ben explained a biblical passage differently than she understood it, and the idea that the alt-right are leftists is like Jonah Goldberg pointing out that Nazis (like the rest of the spectrum) were relatively leftist in many respects compared to today. If true, then meaningless.
* Weisman gets around it by “being conflicted” about Israel — this is not true post-Zionism, this is like AIPAC’s annex “J Street,” a gatekeeping trick meant to affect opposition. Shapiro quotes Weisman later on to the effect that Jews ought to be as bothered by the BDS movement creating problems for them (as a sign of their connection to Israel) as they are that BDS is calling for Israel to not exist any more. Even as a post-Zionist or anti-Semite that doesn’t make any sense: a more “objective” Jewish community would still have an immutable connection to a country calling itself “The Jewish State.”
* They don’t believe in closed borders for Israel either. These guys are not intelligent enough to have this kind of double thinking I have read attributed to them. They think immigrants are the ‘best thing since sliced bread’, and that is that.
The ADL and HIAS say the plan to pay countries to take African migrants betrays Jewish values.
The Anti-Defamation League and the refugee protection group HIAS have sent an open letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressing “grave concerns” over a government plan to deport or imprison tens of thousands of African asylum- seekers in March.
* JPOST: “American Jewish protests against the planned deportation have been relatively muted and confined to Jewish groups that are less reluctant to criticize the Israeli government on policy issues. A recent exchange with Israel’s Foreign Ministry on the matter was signed by HIAS, the lead Jewish immigration advocacy group, leaders of the Reform movement, the National Council of Jewish Women and J Street, the liberal Middle East policy group, among other groups.
Even these groups, fighting what they see as threats to immigrants and minorities in the era of President Donald Trump, lack the bandwidth to make this a priority issue.
“The American Jewish community can be moved on these issues,” said Libby Lenkinski, the vice president for public engagement for the New Israel Fund, which funds groups that assist the African refugees in Israel. “But between that and making it a cause celebre? There’s some distance.”
“We’re obviously fighting on a lot of fronts right now for fairness and justice for refugees,” said Melanie Nezer, the vice president for public affairs at HIAS. “It would be nice to have one problem – we don’t.”
* It’s extremely odd that boomers on our side like steve and jared taylor have some bizarre mental tic about the JQ.
Whatever their crippling affliction, it doesn’t affect us on the alt right. We all love Jared Taylor but not one person on the alt-right (the real white nationalist movement, not “alt-right” qua trump voter) takes his position on the JQ. And I mean there literally won’t be one out of a thousand of his actual readers and supporters from the alt-right who adopts his quirk on that topic.
The market of ideas has spoken and I wonder if Steve or Jared are surprised. I’m talking about people who read and appreciate both of them and there is consensus they’re wrong (and not just a little bit) on this topic. It’s extremely rare that a large group of people will say they learned a lot from an intellectual and agree with him in a general sense but completely reject one thesis advanced among a host of others, and that there is perfect agreement on which one they got wrong. Hint: it’s usually not good news for the elder statesman when all of his students say “Oh, that? Look, he was a great scientist…he just had a blind spot when it came to [current theory the mentor stubbornly refused to see even though he had plenty of time to realize his mistake].”
Citizenism died on the vine. It was never adopted and it’d be insane to keep pushing it as things get worse and worse. It missed the window it needed to make sense for us, the people who didn’t ruin this country and still have children to *make in the future.* We do not and will not accept just being stuck with the mistakes of the generations who put the torch to our birthright. No.
When the facts changed, Steve, Bertrand Russell changed his mind. What do you do? Citizenism was a good idea for some point in time in this nations history. Whatever that point was, it’s over now. How hard is it to grasp that these can both be true? Stubbornness will win you no converts. You have no right to continue being wrong when the future still exists for some of us; you don’t get to indulge what makes you feel warm and fuzzy instead of sad and icky just because you’re in YOUR twilight. Grow up, boomers.
Every boomer needs to have the grace to apologize. Whatever you were thinking you were either wrong or failed to do anything about it. We built this from scratch, like the damn pilgrims. We inherited George W. Bush, Paul Ryan and Bill Kristol from you along with fond memories of WFBs National Review, another complete disgrace, and Ronald Reagan riding horsies.
There were no institutions for us to grow into. How pathetic of the worst generation. “Libertarian” think tanks promoting muh Constitution and muh tax cuts as the nation died, “Hawks” dedicated to our Greatest Ally ™, impotent evangelical quacks. All of it worthless at best and insane at worst. The scorecard will read that boomers destroyed much and gave literally nothing to us patriots.
We are all out of patience with Jews, who quite clearly see us as the enemy and have been winning the fight that the other side didn’t show up for. No longer. They used up all of their “Oops” chances a long time ago and it’s crystal clear we can’t (and won’t) share a nation with them. Steve’s never-ending shtick that the Jews just need to be reminded sometimes they don’t *appear* to be good, patriotic Americans is laughable, bordering on criminally false.
* Divide and conquer. It has worked pretty well for “God’s Chosen people” up to this point. It is up to white Gentiles whether to let allow it to continue to succeed.
* Yeah I don’t think citizenism can work; arguably it has been tried for several hundred years of US history and it failed; it devolved into empire. But for various reasons Steve can never go alt-right. Moses didn’t reach the promised land either.
It’s always odd to see citizenists or constitutionalists parsing the exact meaning of some constitutional subparagraph or intent of the founders or whatever. I imagine this was what it was like watching the medieval scholasticists arguing about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Like, wrong framework guys.
* Jews like everyone else want to live where it is comfortable. Life in the United States, if you have a 110+ IQ and a family support structure, is cushy as compared to anywhere else. Jews almost all get college degrees either in useful subjects or from elite schools and that combined with ethnic nepotism gets them a comfortable job.
Sure they could make aliyah and go to Israel, but Israel is a hot desert garrison state with universal military service. Most jobs pay poorly there as opposed to New York or LA jobs Jews tend to get.
Or yes, they could go to a genuinely diverse place. Jobs pay less well than in Israel and unlike the US or Western Europe, many of the denizens there don’t like Jews and will say so to your face. Occasionally they may act on their feelings.
So the US it is for so many Jews. Like Muslims, they feel guilty about supporting something so alien to them as US society is. But where Muslims blow stuff up or kill people in spastic criminal events, Jews get in positions of power and argue for policies that will undermine their own comfortable existence but which are good for keeping the tribe unified and fighting. That these policies, often called tikkum olan (“repairing the world”, in the sense that building the goofiest looking rat rod imaginable out of a noble classic antique car can be said to be ‘repairing’it) are poisonous to the host society is irrelevant.
* No GOP Presidential candidate has won a majority of the Jewish vote since the creating of exit polling.
No Dem presidential candidate has won a majority of the white male vote since 1964.
Most evidence seems to indicate that about one-third of Jews are vaguely patriotic, and at least one-half are virulently hostile to the traditional American majority. The rates of enlistment in the military by their community are quite telling.
If you are Jewish and patriotic, you need to spend zero energy on arguing with the Right. You need to be calling out you co-religionists for supporting the odious Chuck Schumer & co. Deeds, not words, will convince the doubters.
I don’t always think it is hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is populary imagined as “saying one thing, and doing another”. What the charge actually represents is “claiming values that you do not actually hold”. This isn’t a mere semantic difference, the former represents inconsistency and a failure to live up to your values. The latter is the true sting of the charge.
Most of the Jewish community genuinely believe in a double standard, few actually claim to be universalist liberals.
The “fellow white person” trick, however, is obvious hypocrisy.
* Citizenism was always a triple bank shot to keep whites as the majority of the population and to keep Anglo-Saxon culture and traditions as the backbone of society. It may have had a shot back in the 1980s or even as late as the 1990s, but it’s certainly over now.
People keep saying that whites can appeal to minorities’ self-interest to back Citizenism. Baloney. When has that ever happened over a long period of time in a multi-racial society? The world is tribal. People will side with their corrupt elites before they’ll side with honest non-tribe members. Look at blacks and Hispanics.
All people but whites vote by tribe in a multi-racial society, and that may change here over time as even SJWs start to notice that other groups will never like them. Ripping on others because they may not have a better soluation doesn’t change the fact that Citizenism won’t work. Citizenism is not the least worst solution. It’s a solution that won’t work. Period. So stop acting as though it’s still alive.
The best that I could see is a United States of reasonably equal groups gingerly working together. Every tribe to do the best for their own but realizing that pushing things too far could cause trouble. That’s a somewhat workable solution.
* I suspect a generational divide is at work. It really is possible to notice and be opposed to Jewish supremacy in our culture and institutions and also have no affinity for a German leader from 75 years ago who led his nation into ruin. It is possible to notice jewish patterns throughout history and not care a whit for Richard Spencer. It’s quite likely that Steve/Jared Taylor/Derb/Whiskey are all on the boomer side of the aisle, and the JQ is just something that’s not done. Many of the younger folk have no such sensitivities because we, I’m Gen-X, have left our youth a basket case of a country, primarily due to a tribe of people who’ve arrived here since 1880 and promoted alienation and dissent where community and nationhood once prevailed.
* Liberty, freedom of speech, etc., are only possible if the populace has the set of behavioral characteristics that allow them to flourish. Those behavioral characteristics are largely hereditary. Writing a bill of rights into the Liberian or Congolese or Haitian constitution will do exactly nothing to improve the state of those societies because the populace is unfit. The Iraq debacle was an illustration of this.
Now obviously the existence of a populace with these behavioral characteristics is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for liberty to flourish. The examples of East and West Germany, North and South Korea, etc., show this–a good populace can still end up in a terrible situation due to a bad regime. But a good regime or legal framework cannot ever fix a bad populace.
To be more specific populations need:
Impulse control–if you say something that makes me angry, I don’t immediately react with violence. Without this free speech is impossible in practice. Impulse control is largely hereditary.
Novelty seeking–also a hereditary personality trait. Individuals who are novelty seeking are more likely to accept a degree of political pluralism and nonconformity, essential for liberty as well as scientific and technological advancement.
Conscientiousness–also a hereditary personality trait. In order to have a functional nation of laws, individuals must follow laws even when enforcement is not always practical or possible. Conscientious individuals are likelier to do this. Without enough conscientious individuals in a society the only two options are anarchy or a police state. For example Iraq, Syria.
Intelligence–also hereditary. A society of dummies will be unable to meet its basic needs for food, sanitation, healthcare, etc., and will become a Hobbesian hellhole; higher level values are irrelevant when you can’t feed or clothe yourself.
The general concept of ‘liberty’ and representative democracy work only in certain populations that have particular genetic characteristics. These are predominantly European, as well as East Asian.
* I don’t especially care how much or how little influence groups like the ADL have on Israeli policy. For all I really care, Israel can run every African out of the country or keep them all – they can turn their country into a Woodstock festival hippie love-in, or into Enver Hoxna’s Albania, with a border of barbed wire and pill-boxes with machineguns every hundred yards. It isn’t my country. My advice to Israel, would be to expel all the illegal aliens, vigilantly guard their borders, and jealously guard the privilege of their citizenship, so that they remain not just a “Jewish State” but an actually jewish nation. I like the idea of nation states, even when they aren’t my own. But it’s their business.
No, my concern is with the influence that groups like the ADL have on my country and its immigration policies. That influence is real, it is injurious to my country, and I don’t like it.
* I think the Alt-Lite has fragmented and come apart:
Some have clearly joined the Alt Right (Faith Goldy)
Some have joined the Neocohens (Ben Shapiro)
Some are staking out a moderate Identitarian position between the Darkness and the Lite (Lauren Southern, Brittany Pettibone)
I am extremely sympathetic to the final category, which overlaps with those former & current Alt Right like RamzPaul and Vox Day who have disavowed the Alt-Reich’s Stormerism*.
This moderate ethnonationalist/Identitarian cohort I think clearly does differ from Steve Sailer’s race-blind Citizenism, though I suspect Sailer has at least some sympathy with their position. But he, like Trump, may still hope for a non-ethnonationalist solution. I guess I was in the same position 5 year ago, but it seems untenable now that the mainstream Left is clearly moving towards explicit advocacy of white genocide as their preferred Final Solution. In this extremely hostile environment, we have to accept that we need to take our own side.
We have to secure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.
* The Israeli Supreme Court appears to be somewhat self-selecting, and is the only branch of government to give representation to the Arab Minority. An Arab PM or President appears to be unspeakable, even asking for an Arab quota alongside a gender quota. But at the same time, Israel doesn’t have a written Constitution so the Court is much less powerful to permanently alter policy in the way the US Supreme Court does.
What is more important, is that the Labor party has been reduced from its previous dominant state due to its weakness in reacting to the Intifada. But even Labor has an explicit policy of maintaining Israel as a supermajority Jewish state. In the US Congress, only Steve King of Iowa has explicitly said that whites should be the ethnic supermajority in the US, and he was still in favor of assimilation.
* For people who aren’t sure what the alt-right is, a good single test is if they consider Anglin and Stormer on their “side” where side is defined as broadly as “the alt right.”
Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch, Matthew Heimbach, Greg Johnson, et al. say “yes” to that question so anyone saying “no” is either not alt-right or very confused. At a certain point it is what it is and no true Scotsman fallacies don’t help. When the inventor of the term alt-right and the ADL agree Anglin has the highest trafficked alt-right website, we can close the book on that question.
And anyone who’s not alt-right will not be unsure of where they stand with Anglin, which is part of his charm. Milo, Ben Shapiro, et al. can tell you that. (Another part of his charm is, as Richard Spencer said when talking about all of the people on the alt-right who say they “used to be” libertarians, republicans or even libs*, “you never hear someone say they were devoted to the daily stormer but now they’re a moderate cuckservative.”
* The Jews who do not see whites as the enemy are the Jews who do not have a column in the New York Times, a show on NPR, a university chair, a billion-dollar foundation, or an office in the State Department.
* This is similar to when a member of Congress from a highly competitive district gets to vote against their party’s position on a particular issue because the party knows they already have enough votes. So they allow a particular member to publicly go against them knowing, a) it won’t affect the outcome, and b) it will help that member in a tough reelection campaign.
* How can citizenism work when the only political options are two variations on right-wing liberalism, an ideology which is explicitly opposed to nationalism?
For the majority of citizens to vote in a non-tribal way you need more options. For citizenism to work you at least need four voting options: a populist party, a socialist/green party, a liberal/libertarian party and a conservative party. The populist party would provide an option for working class whites and blacks who lean left on economic matters, and right on social issues. Providing a libertarian/liberal party option for urban yuppies and SWPLs would help counter the excessive power of the military industrial complex.
Citizenism might work, but it requires radical changes to the political system to override entrenched voting patterns. And right-wing liberals and conservatives would probably have to accept higher taxes in return for greater patriotism from the poor. A poor black man isn’t going to vote for immigration restrictionism if you threaten to take away his welfare.
* Christianity is a universalist religion open to all and gentile society was highly integrationist. The ancient European tribes are gone. There simply are no Picts or Gauls or Goths or Angles or Vandals left. They were all absorbed into the common genetic legacy of particular regions and nations. The two tribes that refused integration–the Jews and later the gypsies–worked very hard to stay separate. Most of the proscriptions accreted onto Judaism over the years serve to separate Jews and discourage their interations with Gentiles–a bunch of them explicitly, serving no other purpose. A Jew who–all freedom of religiony–decided to hang out with Gentiles would lose his livelyhood and his family. He’d be cut off. (And become my ancestor instead of Ben Shapiro’s). Jews survived as a separate tribe because they *wanted* to be a separate tribe and worked very hard at separatism. Judaism pitched as an ideology of integration and we-are-the-world cosmopolitanism is a ridiculous reverse-of-reality joke.
The makers of this documentary (Hollywoodism: The Ideology that has Devoured Western Culture), Red Ice Radio, are not big fans of the Jews.
I found it painful to watch.
Hollywood serves as a garnish to my life. When I’m tired and want to escape, I like to watch a movie or a good TV show.
Ironically, for Orthodox Jews, Hollywood is not a good thing. Orthodox Jews have many of the same complaints as the makers of this documentary, i.e. that Hollywood tears down and mocks things that should be considered sacred. Traditional Orthodox Jews consume very little that Hollywood produces. Traditional Orthodox Jews consider themselves at war with Hollywoodism.
Fear of anti-Semitism is a major Hollywood theme but the more religious you go in Orthodox life, the less concern there is with fighting anti-Semitism. Orthodox Jews are so busy observing their religion they have no time nor inclination to fixate on anti-Semitism. There is no mitzvah to fight prejudice and bigotry and racism and anti-Semitism. These are preoccupations of some secular Jews such as the ADL crowd.
Hollywoodism starts with three minutes of clips from the movie, “Jews, Hollywood and the American Dream,” which is based on the Neal Gabler book, “An Empire of Their Own: How Jews Invented Hollywood”.
Narrator from the Neal Gabler documentary: “Among these immigrants were the future founders of the studios, but they brought with them a new vision of America. Hollywood was a dream dreamt by Jews.”
Expert: “I’m not sure there was an American dream before the Jews came to Hollywood and invented it. Today we have a popular culture that creates dreams.”
Narrator: “The moguls created the images, the icons, and the visual forms that we identify with the American way of life.
Neal Gabler: “They created their own America, an America which is not the real America, but it is their own version of the real America, but ultimately this shadow America becomes so popular that its images and values come to devour the real America. Americans come to define themselves by the shadow America created by Eastern European Jews.”
“Anyone anywhere could identify with so many of the themes of American movies, one of which was the identity of the outsiders. Jews being outsiders making movies about outsiders.”
Narrator: “Identification with the little guy, the prize fighters, the loner, and the gangsters.”
Expert: “Hollywoodism is the ruling ideology of our culture. Hollywood culture is the dominant culture. It is the fantasy structure that we are all living inside.”
This Hollywoodism documentary concludes: “Hollywoodism is the alien ideology that has infected western culture.”
“Remember, if you see something, say something! Help to deconstruct the mythology of the new religion. Let others know! Expose the agenda, analyze and point out the propaganda and subliminal messages in Hollywood entertainment.”
The documentary concludes with a rant by Douglas Rushkoff, author of Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism: “The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation states, we don’t believe in these ideas of individual gods that protect individual people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense, our detractors have us right in that we are a corrosive force, we’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real and that’s very upsetting to people.”
Orthodox Jews don’t tend to have these attitudes as much as secular left-wing Jews.
Orthodox Jew Robert J. Avrech, a Hollywood screenwriter with many credits, writes for Jewish Action magazine:
Hollywood movies are the most powerful tools of social and political propaganda the world has ever known. Think about it: America wins wars only when Hollywood believes in them and puts itself squarely behind America’s war effort. During World War II, every studio in Hollywood backed the Allied effort against the Axis. Hollywood stars raised money for war bonds, and studios produced films that went all out for freedom and liberty against the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Hollywood played a huge role in America’s victory.
Contrast Vietnam. Hollywood, which was overwhelmingly antiwar, produced a series of movies that undermined the American effort against the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. America lost Vietnam. Hollywood knew that with a few clever, glossy films (such as Coming Home, starring Jane Fonda) and carefully manufactured imagery, it could undermine American foreign policy and turn heroic GIs into psychotic baby killers.
More recently, Hollywood has made about a dozen movies that condemn America’s military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of them was profitable, but the damage was done: America withdrew from both fronts. Islamic tyrannies will fill the vacuum—and Hollywood will never take notice or assume any responsibility.
Even women’s fashion is a reflection of what they see on the screen. Ever since Manolo Blahnik stilettos featured prominently on HBO’s hit show Sex and the City over a decade ago, middle-class women have been willing to walk through fire and water for a pair of Manolos—at something like $900 a pop!
In another essay for Jewish Action, Robert J. Avrech recalls doing battle for his script with a Hollywood executive:
“Look, Robert, I like your script. But this scene undermines women and our fight for equal rights. With all due respect, I am Jewish and I happen to know that Orthodox men say a prayer every morning in which they thank God for not having made them women. Your whole scene endorses the patriarchal family structure that is totally regressive—with all due respect.”
(Note: In Hollywood, when someone says “with all due respect,” what they really mean is “with utter contempt.” Also, when someone uses words such as “patriarchal” and “regressive” in the same sentence, it’s a dead giveaway that he or she took courses in feminist theory and gender studies in college and has been—with all due respect—completely brainwashed.)
This Ivy League-educated young woman—whose father was one of the most powerful producers in Hollywood, who spent summers on her father’s yacht in the south of France, who flashed a solid gold Rolex on her wrist, who elegantly dressed in Armani blouses and skirts, who strutted about in nose-bleed Louboutin heels, who zoomed around Tinseltown in a Porsche that cost more than the average home in America and who was, natch, Jewish—was playing (goodness gracious!) the victim card.