Even if this outbreak leads to massive blindness of survivors and continued outbreaks of Ebola, isn’t that a small price to pay for continuing our responsibility to help Africa?
* I’ve been dealing with women who don’t know the difference between right and left (in space). They have a poor sense of spacial direction and I believe this is generally true of women when compared with men. They also tend to get hysterical once a month. No wonder Judaism won’t accept women as witnesses.
* Americans have the right to insult Islam…and Judaism, the Holocaust, Christianity, cripples, gays, blacks, every group.
* Friend: “What’s a tough call for me is whether the illuminati only want to take down the whites incidentally–only because the whites have happened to be awesome–or if the illuminati has it in for whites right to the end for some reason. The latter possibility is demonic.”
* A friend says: “White holocaust. Who cares? What really would be lost if the blue eyes were all gone?”
* “Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it. Folkways correspond to it to cover both the inner and the outer relation. Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways the only right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn. Opprobrious epithets are derived from these differences. … For our present purpose the most important fact is that ethnocentrism leads a people to exaggerate and intensify everything in their own folkways which is peculiar and which differentiates them from others. It therefore strengthens the folkways.” (William Sumner)
* Can individualist Western civilization survive cutthroat competition between impermeable racial groups? (Culture of Critique)
* Is not a given ethnic group better off if other competing groups have fewer numbers, fewer resources, lower social status, lower fertility and less political power? (Culture of Critique)
* “A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader, whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might, so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the filling Empire they were the great slave traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force?
Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mold the modern world.” (Goldwin Smith)
* The White Canada policy died in 1962. “This important policy change was made not as a result of parliamentary or popular demand, but because some senior officials in Canada, including Dr. George Davidson [Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and later a senior administrator at the United Nations] rightly saw that Canada could not operate effectively within the United Nations, or in the multiracial Commonwealth, with the millstone of a racially discriminatory immigration policy round her neck.”
“The primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin… Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work to build the foundations of urban and rural life… The idea that other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts, might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts, was anathema.” (Frieda Hawkins)
* “Since all British Jews are, or are descended from, immigrants, it was unethical — even immoral, for a Jew to support immigration control.” (Geoffrey Alderman, 1983, p. 148-149)
* “All restrictions on immigration are in principle retrogressive steps, particularly for this country, and a disappointment to those throughout the world who would like to see the limitations on the freedom of movement reduced rather than increased.” (Jewish Chronicle of London, Oct. 20, 1961)
* B’nai B’rith got a grant [circa 1987] from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to bring German representatives to Israel because Israel is “a diverse, formative society, which, under strains of war, terrorism, and massive, deprived, immigration, has strived to develop a just, democratic and tolerant society.” “Our view was that the multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-fissured, democratic society of Israel… could provide a credible and worthwhile point of comparison for others coming from a similarly highly-charged society.” (Culture of Critique)
* In 1952, Senator McCarran said: “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. America is indeed a joining together of many streams which go to form a mighty river which we call the American way. However, we have in the United States today hard- core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. . . . I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.” (Senator Pat McCarran, Cong. Rec., March 2, 1953, p. 1518.)
* “Imagine one immigrant, say an engineering student, who was studying in the U. S. during the 1960’s. If he found a job after graduation, he could then bring over his wife [as the spouse of a resident alien], and six years later, after being naturalized, his bothers and sisters [as siblings of a citizen]. They, in turn, could bring their wives, husbands, and children. Within a dozen years, one immigrant entering as a skilled worker could easily generate 25 visas for in- laws, nieces, and nephews.” (McConnell 1988, p. 98).
* Representative Blanton, complaining of the difficulty of getting restrictionist legislation through Congress, noted “When at least 65 per cent of the sentiment of this House, in my judgment, is in favor of the exclusion of all foreigners for five years, why do we not put that into law? Has Brother Sabath such a tremendous influence over us that he holds us down on this proposition?” (Cong. Rec. April 5, 1924, p. 5685)
* When restrictionist arguments appeared in the media, the AJCommittee made sophisticated replies, based on scholarly data and typically couched in universalist terms as benefiting the whole society (e. g., Neuringer 1971, p. 44).
* In undertaking to sway immigration policy in a liberal direction, Jewish spokesmen and organizations demonstrated a degree of energy unsurpassed by any other interested pressure group. Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years, their spokesmen had assiduously attended congressional hearings, and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such non- sectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons. (Neuringer 1971, p. ii) (Culture of Critique)
