I’m watching this 2014 movie Love and Mercy about Brian Wilson. Half of it takes place in the 1960s and the California beaches seem so white. There’s not a Mexican in sight. Today you go to the Santa Monica beach and it seems like it is mostly Mexican.
According to the movie summary on IMDB.com: “In the 1960s, Beach Boys leader Brian Wilson struggles with emerging psychosis as he attempts to craft his avant-garde pop masterpiece. In the 1980s, he is a broken, confused man under the 24-hour watch of shady therapist Dr. Eugene Landy.”
Dr. Eugene Landy reminds me of those radical Jewish nationalists at the ADL, SPLC and SWC pushing the West to weaken its racial, religious and national ties.
Rabbi Mayer Schiller said in 1999: “The State of Israel poses a problem for Jews living in the diaspora. A Jew living in America, France or England but yet somehow says I am an Israeli or a Zionist, that creates a tremendous amount of tension. Herzl envisioned Zionism as Jews leaving Gentile nations and going to live in Israel, not staying in France and England and saying I am a Zionist. Jews living in America, England, France, etc, have three moral possibilities: They can be loyal citizens, they can be Zionists which means to leave [for Israel] or they can adopt the Neterui Karta position of non-involvement in the affairs of the nations.”
Just as the Jewish nation has no obligation to become less Jewish and Japan has no obligation to become less Japanese and Mexico has no obligation to become less Mexican, so too white nations have no obligation to become less white and Christian nations have no obligation to become less Christian.
Two of the better movies of 2015 are weirdly similar musical biopics about bands from Los Angeles’ south suburbs. Last June’s Love & Mercy profiled Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, who came from Hawthorne, Calif., while gangsta rappers N.W.A, who helped spread the South Central L.A. crack-dealer lifestyle nationally in the late 1980s, are lauded in the overly long but still entertaining Straight Outta Compton. Paul Giamatti even plays virtually identical roles in each movie as the crooked Jewish manager.
Straight Outta Compton is watchable enough, but it could be funnier if the filmmakers hadn’t played down the inherent dark comedy. For example, the movie only passingly alludes to how each of the three main ex-members went to war with one another aligned with their own paramilitary bullyboys. Ice Cube employed Minister Farrakhan’s bow-tied Fruit of Islam, while Dr. Dre used Knight’s Maxi-Me’s: several Suge look-alike 300-pounders. But, sadly, we never quite get to see the muscle employed by Eazy-E and his partner Heller: right-wing Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League.
Fortunately, Straight Outta Compton has one spectacularly funny scene in which Giamatti is finally allowed to cut loose. After almost two full movies of deftly underplaying corrupt Svengali roles, he’s given an unexpected rant.
After Ice Cube goes solo because he’s tired of being ripped off by the Eazy-E/Heller axis, N.W.A’s rump disses Ice Cube with a rap calling him a “Benedict Arnold.” Ice Cube furiously responds with “No Vaseline,” a remarkably antigay denunciation of his ex-friends.
You might expect that the cunning Heller, who had blithely facilitated the Compton youth’s manifold antisocial messages, would encourage this profitable feud to continue. But instead, upon hearing Ice Cube complaining that “You let a Jew break up my crew” and that blacks shouldn’t put up with “a white Jew tellin’ you what to do,” an outraged Heller switches off the stereo and denounces black anti-Semitism for several increasingly hilarious minutes.
Sure, rappers encouraging impressionable youths to deal crack, beat women, battle the police, and murder other blacks is just entertainment, Heller seems to imply. But a rapper protesting the venerable tradition of Jewish agents cheating musicians, black or white, well, that’s beyond the pale!
In 2005, Steve Sailer wrote:
Over the last 150 years, secular Jewish intellectuals have repeatedly reproduced the traditional brilliant rabbi-student relationship in launching powerful cults. Among the more recent examples have been Ayn Rand (see Murray N. Rothbard’s hilarious 1972 article “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult“), Susan Sontag (see Terry Castle’s hilarious 2005 article “Desperately Seeking Susan“), and Leo Strauss (see the unintentionally hilarious 2003 article “What Leo Strauss Was Up To” by two true believers, William Kristol and Steven Lenzer).
Said another Gentile observer:
So you had all these wild-eyed, charismatic, brilliant people, suddenly without the compression of traditional life. What to do with all that fire and brilliance? Answer: Marx, Freud, civil rights, etc…
All of which does make me ever-so-slightly sympathetic to the idea that these brilliant Jews give out advice that’s almost designed to cripple the people it’s given to. All the while claiming it’s for everyone’s good, and charging a pretty penny for doing so. I could never accuse them of being anything but well-meaning. But I had to learn to see through the posing, the fiery eyes, and the preaching….
Many of the Jewish radical kids went on to do very well for themselves.
The documentary Hollywoodism 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.
In another essay for Jewish Action, Robert J. Avrech recalls doing battle for his script with a feminist Hollywood executive.
I hope Douglas Rushkoff’s sentiments are more about leftism than Judaism. Here is an excellent essay (by Nochum Mangel and Shmuel Klatzkin) on Judaism’s attitude towards national borders and it is almost the opposite of what Rushkoff espouses.
For example, there are these classic pro-borders Jewish teachings presented in the essay:
* In Deut. 32:8, Moses says: “When the Most High gave nations their lot, when He separated the sons of man, He set up the boundaries of peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.”
* “Every nation differs from every other nation absolutely in several aspects: its land, its language, its clans and its peoples.” (Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (the Lubavitcher Rebbe), Likkutei Sichot, vol. 8, p. 45. See also Genesis 10:20, 31.)
* “The mighty men of Israel would dwell in the border towns and lock the frontier so no enemies could enter; it was as if it were closed with locks and bars of iron and brass.” (Rashi)
* “In a border city, even if the non-Jews approach you [ostensibly] regarding straw and hay, one must violate the Shabbat to repel them, lest they take over the city and proceed from there to conquer the land.” (R. Joseph Caro, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 229:6.)
* “When Israel [meets the conditions for observing the Jubilee], it is forbidden for us to allow an idolater among us. Even a temporary resident or a merchant who travels from place to place should not be allowed to pass through our land until he accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as the verse states: “They shall not dwell in your land”9—i.e., even temporarily. A person who accepts these seven mitzvot is a ger toshav, “resident alien.”” (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws Regarding Idol Worship 10:6. Some, however, (see for example R. Joshua Falk, Pnei Yehoshua to Talmud, Gittin 45a) disagree, and deny that the acceptance of the seven mitzvot is a requirement. All agree, however, that renouncing of idolatry is essential.)
* “Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: It is quite clear to me that the residents of one town can prevent the resident of another town [from setting up in competition in this town], but not, however, if he pays taxes to that town; and that the resident of an alley cannot prevent another resident of the same alley [from setting up in competition in his alley].” (Talmud, Bava Batra 21b.)
* “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to G‑d for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” (Jeremiah 29:7)
* “Since the prophet commanded us to pray to G‑d for the place to which we were exiled, how could we ordain something the opposite of that, G‑d forbid, thereby transgressing the prophet’s words? To the contrary: the sages warned us to accept the sovereignty and the rule of the nations. After G‑d decreed that we should be under their authority, it is proper for us to accept their rule, and not to act as if the decree were void.” (R. Judah Loew, Be’er Hagolah 7:6.)
Rabbis Abraham Cooper and Yitzhok Adlerstein write Sept. 21, 2015 for The Jerusalem Post: “There is no wiggle-room concerning the consequences of a one-state solution. Combined with a right of return for millions of Palestinians living for decades in Muslim countries, Jews would quickly become a minority in their own land. The lone Jewish state would cease to exist, its inhabitants left as secure as the Yazidis or Christians in Iraq.”
It’s a shame they aren’t similarly dedicated to protecting the borders of their host nation, the United States of America. Instead, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is dedicated to making whites a minority in America and for the United States of America to cease to exist.
As Samuel Francis said: “The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”
The Simon Wiesenthal Center expressed disappointment that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that among other things makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires local law enforcement to determine an individual’s legal status and arrest without warrant a person if there is “reasonable suspicion” that he or she is in the U.S. illegally.
“This isn’t about immigration, it’s about discrimination,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal Center. “We should not forget that we’re a nation of immigrants. This law makes no sense– it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias,” he concluded.
As part of its Tools for Tolerance® diversity programs, the Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles and New York Tolerance Center in Manhattan include training law enforcement professionals across the country to address difficult questions and concerns over racial profiling.
* Link:
In response to the overwhelming concern and fear generated in France by far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen and his National Front party’s victory in the first-round presidential vote, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is releasing its newest report, How Le Pen’s National Front Party Would Change France.
Compiled and written by Center researchers in France, the report touches on the changes the National Front would like to institute if it were to come to power. Topics addressed include immigration, health, crime and safety, and information.
* From Constructing Immigrant ‘Illegality’: Critiques, Experiences, and Responses:
Most of the work with and on behalf of unauthorized immigrants has been undertaken by Christian FBOs. However, some Jewish and Muslim organizations have also been involved. For instance, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has called for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to legalization and citizenship. Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, echoed the ADL’s call, drawing parallels between the Jewish history of immigration and the situation of unauthorized immigrants today.
“For over 350 years, our Jewish ancestors have immigrated to this country is search of a more hopeful life, a life free of religious persecution and economic hardship, a life where family members have a chance to be reunited and have a chance to contribute to their adopted home. Today’s immigrants come here for the same reasons as our Jewish ancestors… Who are we to say now that we are here, now that the courage and the hopes of our parents and grandparents in this nation of immigrants have been so richly vindicated, now the door must be closed?”
Jewish FBOs, including ADL, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center have also been highly critical of SB1070 in Arizona. In the words of Rabbi Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, “This isn’t about immigration, it’s about discrimination. We must not forget that we’re a nation of immigrants. This law makes no sense — it guarantees and stigmatizes people of color as second-class citizens and exposes them to intimidation, and the use of racial profiling as a weapon of bias.”
Why does the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) have nothing to say about the rabbinical edict circulating in Israel—currently signed by more than four dozen rabbis—forbidding the sale or rental of homes to non-Jews?
Or, why has the Center not applauded the dissenting view of Israel’s leading Haredi rabbi, Aaron Leib Steinman, who said, “there are things that should not be done; what if there would be a similar call in Berlin against renting properties to Jews? Where is the public conscience?”
Israel is lurching toward ever-more extreme expressions of religious-nationalism, electing leaders who publicly profess anti-Arab and anti-immigrant views—and legislate accordingly. Israelis increasingly favor gagging their own country’s human rights organizations, journalists, and activists. This swelling anti-democratic impulse is directed toward non-Jews—whose status is necessarily ambiguous in the “Jewish state”—but even toward some who self-identify as Jews.
Meanwhile, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is in “business-as-usual” mode, issuing stern rebukes to those it deems anti-Semites—i.e., those who criticize Israeli policy and advocate equality for all who inhabit the borderless space of Israel/Palestine.
Last week, SWC Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper took the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to task in an over-the-top op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. A sharp correction to Rabbis Hier and Cooper came in a statement issued by the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the PC(USA), which noted that “this is not the first time [SWC rabbis] have wrongly accused Christian traditions that are committed to overcoming injustice in the Holy Land of demonizing the Jewish people.”
So, while ignoring the fact that many of Israel’s religious and secular leaders are fomenting rabid, tribal attitudes, what does the Simon Wiesenthal Center deem worth of attention in its quest for “tolerance”? A visit to the organization’s website lists their current preoccupations:
• Slamming UNESCO for its declaration that the “Haram al-Ibrahim/the Cave of the Patriarchs and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb” are “an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories” and “that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law.” Despite the location of these sites in Hebron/Al Khalil, deep within the Palestinian occupied territories, the Simon Wiesenthal Center characterizes UNESCO’s statement as a move to “steal from the Jewish people one of its most sacred religious sites.” [No mention on the Center’s site of Israel’s state-sponsored stealing from the Palestinian people in establishing settlements for half a million Israelis on occupied and expropriated Palestinian land, in Hebron and elsewhere, in violation of international law.]
• Calling on the Japanese discount retail chain, Don Quixote, to remove a “Nazi” uniform adult costume from its stores throughout Japan and Hawaii.
• Slamming as “anti-Semitic scapegoating” an event in Dublin, Ireland, featuring David Cronin, author of a new book titled Europe’s Alliance with Israel: Aiding the Occupation.
Meanwhile, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is moving ahead on the planning phase of a “Museum of Tolerance” in Jerusalem, incredibly situated atop a Muslim cemetery. The project, a “partnership with the Jerusalem municipality and the Israeli government,” has been condemned by numerous entities, including an Israeli Jewish-Muslim initiative, Americans for Peace Now, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and, of course, descendents of the Palestinians buried there.
In its scorched-earth campaign to deflect appropriate criticism of Israeli policy by smearing advocates of equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, the Simon Wiesenthal Center fails abjectly in key elements of its stated agenda: to “promote human rights and dignity” and “confront bigotry and racism.” It’s a patent double standard: the Wiesenthal Center’s misguided notion of what it means to “stand with Israel” trumps universal human rights regardless of religion and ethnicity.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center has amassed a substantial track-record of self-righteous finger-pointing. It’s time to point the finger back.
I want to start an organization called “Jews for Consistency.” We’ll monitor Jewish organizations to make sure that they seek the same things for Jews that they push on non-Jews, and if they don’t, we’ll point it out.
If Jews want to call anti-Semitism a mental illness, we’ll demand that they apply the same label to Jews who dislike Gentiles.
The philo-Semitic blog Gates of Vienna contained a killer rejoinder in June of 2009 from Avery Bullard. I’ll present it with some context:
But they are never over-represented in organisations or movements that represent the interests of the ethnic majority, only those that weaken that majority. That is why they’ve been expelled from so many very different countries over so many centuries. Yet with the possible exception of Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears) they never want to know the reasons why they’ve been so disliked in order to prevent more tragedies in the future. Instead they dismiss all anti-Semitism as scapegoating…
If they are over-represented in the intelligentsia then they had disproportionate influence in the direction the intelligentsia took. Many Russian intellectuals were Slavo-philes. Before Jews could access the most important U.S. universities the old WASP intelligentsia in the U.S. was much more traditionalist.
I’m fine with Jews staying within the Torah Corral. It’s when they leave it and start pushing for rights for blacks, sodomites and the transgendered that I get nervous.
