Steve Sailer writes:
Muslim Mass Migration: Is It Good for the Jews?
With Muslim terrorists committing anti-Semitic massacres in France and Denmark earlier this year, and Middle Eastern and African youths routinely harassing Jews on the street in European cities, one might think that facilitating another massive influx of Muslims, along with all the chain migration to follow, would be considered not good for the Jews.
Some Eastern European countries have offered to accept persecuted Syrian Christian refugees, but not Muslims. You might think that would be considered a reasonable compromise good for the Jews, right?
But that is simply unthinkable to the current mind. The important thing is not to do practical things to help actual European Jews, the important thing is to stick to the Narrative and follow out its symbolic logic.
What is derisively called “Holocaust denial” is at its highest IQ level, denial that the Holocaust is the prism through which issues of diversity must be viewed, and that because of the Holocaust, we can’t talk about important things such as preventing illegal immigration, and we can’t talk about noticing racial and religious patterns.
Just as there’s no such thing as “White supremacy,” it’s just a slur hurled at whites who want to preserve their civilization, so too there is not so much “Holocaust denial” as denial that Jewish suffering means we can’t discuss important issues.
The healthy goy should not make one change in what he wants to do because of the Holocaust or because of Pearl Harbor or because of African genocides. The healthy goy should do what is healthy for him and for his people and he should not allow strangers to push him around. If the goy wants to write numbers on the arms of illegal immigrants getting placed on trains, he should do it and not allow memories of the Holocaust to sway him. The goy should not get triggered by the Holocaust.
Similarly, Jews should not get triggered by genocides of goyim and the Japanese should not get triggered by mention of African genocides, etc. Every people should pursue their group interest and be merciless towards those who try to subvert them.
Those pushing “Holocaust denial” have different messages for people of different IQ. For low IQ types, they might say, the Holocaust didn’t happen. It was a fraud perpetrated by Jews. High IQ types behind “Holocaust denial” (such as the late William Pierce) don’t deny the deaths of approximately six million Jews in Europe during WWII. They deny that it is the most important thing that ever happened in history and they deny that the Holocaust prevents white people from preserving their culture and they may deny that this mass killing of Jews was a bad thing.
The current flood of African and Syrian refugees into Europe has nothing to do with the Holocaust. It is the very opposite of the Holocaust. During WWII, Jews weren’t flooding into Nazi Germany to better their economic condition. Still, the MSM loves to invoke the Holocaust to batter Europeans who wish to preserve their way of life.
A healthy society does not accommodate itself to minorities. Instead, the healthy society demands that minorities accommodate themselves to its norms and conduct themselves according to what benefits the majority. There’s no more reason for non-Jewish Europeans to alter anything in their own interest because of the Holocaust then there is for Jews to alter things in their interest because of the Ukraine famine and other genocides under Stalin that some Jews assisted.
All groups have special gifts and conflicts of interests with other groups. We should be able to name and discuss these gifts and conflicts.
According to Steve Sailer: “The greatest trick the intelligent ever pulled was convincing the world intelligence doesn’t exist.”
Steve Sailer wrote in 2006: “Jewish intellectuals have a tendency that on any topic related to Jews, they tend to think baroquely many steps down the line. Thus, the full panoply of the subjects that have been assumed to be bad-for-the-Jews and therefore ruled out of discussion in polite society is breathtakingly broad — for example, IQ has been driven out of the media in large part because it is feared that mentioning that Jews have higher average IQs would lead, many steps down the line, to pogroms.”
Steve Sailer wrote in 2010:
To quantify the statement that “Jews are a small group, but influential in their areas of concentration,” in 2009, the Atlantic Monthly came up with a list of the top 50 opinion pundits: half are of Jewish background.
Over 1/3rd of the 2009 Forbes 400 are of Jewish background, according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency’s reporter who covers Jewish philanthropy.
Joel Stein of the LA Times found in 2007 that people of Jewish background hold a large majority of the most powerful positions in Hollywood.
This is not to say that influential Jews are at all united in what they favor. On the other hand, it is more or less true that Jews hold something of a veto over what topics are considered appropriate for discussion in the press, Jewish influence itself being the most obvious example of a topic that is off the table in polite society.
John Derbyshire wrote in 2007: “I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT—not ever again—be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.”
Today though the New York Times goes mad with Holocaust analogies, a goy with strength will not be intimidated:
BUDAPEST — In Hungary, hundreds of migrants surrounded by armed police officers were tricked into boarding a train with promises of freedom, only to be taken to a “reception” camp. In the Czech Republic, the police hustled more than 200 migrants off a train and wrote identification numbers on their hands with indelible markers, stopping only when someone pointed out that this was more than a little like the tattoos the Nazis put on concentration camp inmates.
Razor-wire fences rise along national borders in Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary and France. Many political leaders stoke rising nationalism by portraying the migrants as dangerous outsiders whose foreign cultures and Muslim religion could overwhelm cherished traditional ways.
“It was horrifying when I saw those images of police putting numbers on people’s arms,” said Robert Frolich, the chief rabbi of Hungary. “It reminded me of Auschwitz. And then putting people on a train with armed guards to take them to a camp where they are closed in? Of course there are echoes of the Holocaust.”
Europeans are facing one of the Continent’s worst humanitarian crises since World War II, yet many seem blind to images that recall that blackest time in their history.
This migrant crisis is no genocide. The issue throughout the Continent is how to register, house, resettle or repatriate hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees, a daunting logistical challenge. But perhaps not since the Jews were rounded up by Nazi Germany have there been as many images coming out of Europe of people locked into trains, babies handed over barbed wire, men in military gear herding large crowds of bedraggled men, women and children.
At the same time, the images may reveal a deeper truth about Europe and its seeming unpreparedness for a crisis so long in the making: While extolling the virtues of human rights and humanism, it remains, in many parts, a place resistant to immigration and diversity.
As a result, some here are reacting in ways that recall some of the Continent’s darkest impulses.
“They must be oblivious because who would do that if they had any historical memory whatsoever,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “It’s amazing, really. Certainly those images of the trains can’t help but conjure up nightmares of the Holocaust.”
Rabbi Frolich was especially struck by the lies used to manipulate the migrants.
“They tell them that the train was going to Austria and then take them to a camp instead,” the rabbi said. “I don’t think the police got instructions from the government to do it this way, but it is very similar to what happened to Jews in the 1940s.”
Jan Munk, chairman of the Jewish Community of Prague, was inclined to be generous in his interpretation of the episode.
“I understand the reasons why the police marked migrants with numbers,” he said. “They are under a lot of pressure and stress and simply did not realize the connotations it would have. It was indeed tasteless and reminded me of the numbers at Auschwitz, but I know it was not done on purpose.”
But for others, the fact that it was not done on purpose was even more frightening, showing a puzzling historical disconnect in many of the very places that the Holocaust caused the deepest devastation.
“It may be correct that they didn’t know, but the insensitivity and the ignorance of the imagery their actions evoked is stunning; it’s just sickening,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, in New York.
It is not that the Holocaust has been forgotten or ignored. There are memorials in nearly every major city on the Continent. Just this summer, Romania’s president signed into law a bill making it illegal to deny the Holocaust or to display fascist symbols.
One of the most revered memorials in Budapest is a series of shoes perched along the Danube riverfront. They refer to the World War II massacre of Jews by fascists who forced them to take off their shoes and shot them, letting their bodies fall into the river.
“And this memorial, that you cannot walk past without pausing to contemplate, this beautiful memorial, is in the same city where many of these other things are happening now,” said Babar Baloch, regional spokesman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “It’s mind-boggling.”
The historical parallels are sometimes inescapable.
Why does no humanitarian crisis remind the media of the genocides of communism? Why are there so many museums of Nazi genocides but so few museums about communist genocides? For the same reason. The whole Holocaust game as played by the elites is all about keeping the goy on the defensive.
How often do you read articles in the MSM about the downsides of diversity and immigration? Almost never. Why? Because Holocaust.
Jason Richwine wrote in 2009:
Science is telling us that ethnic diversity causes significant problems by diminishing valuable social capital. What then should we do about it?
It was not the kind of message a Harvard seminar expects to hear. Ethnic diversity causes a lot of problems, our guest speaker told us. It reduces interpersonal trust, civic engagement, and charitable giving. It causes us to disengage from society, like turtles shrinking into their shells, reducing our overall quality of life. The more diversity we experience in our lives, the less happy we are.
I came to Harvard to study public policy in the fall of 2004. All of the first-years like me had to take a special seminar class where we would discuss the philosophy of science and the nature of good research. The best class days featured established scholars who would come to present their own papers, which were real-life examples of good research.
The guest speaker who came to discuss diversity was political scientist Robert Putnam, who is something of a celebrity in academic circles. With the publication of his 1995 article “Bowling Alone,” Putnam helped bring the issues of social trust and civic participation to the forefront of social science. His article became a popular book, also called Bowling Alone, in 2000. Written for a general audience, the book chronicled the rapid decline in civic engagement that had taken place in the United States since 1950, and argued that communities without strong social ties are less happy and less successful. The article and the book garnered Putnam numerous media appearances and spawned reams of response articles in academia.
Putnam began by telling us about one result he encountered that was thoroughly upsetting to him—the more ethnically diverse a community is, the less social capital it possesses. When a person lives in a diverse community, he trusts everyone less, including those of his own ethnic group.
So how did Putnam come to conclude that ethnic diversity is so problematic? The answer begins with the notion of “social capital,” which Putnam defines in simple terms—“social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.” Social capital turns out to be an exceptionally valuable commodity. Building complex networks of friends and associates, trusting others to keep their word, and maintaining social norms and expectations all grease the wheels of business by enabling cooperation.
But the value of social capital goes well beyond economics. Many of the activities from which people draw the most deep and lasting satisfactions are stronger and more prevalent in areas with high social capital. People living in these places tend to have more friends, care more about their community, and participate more in civic causes. Where social capital is greater, Putnam says, “children grow up healthier, safer, and better educated; people live longer, happier lives; and democracy and the economy work better.”
Europeans have every reason in the world to prevent illegal immigrants from invading their countries. All great societies are sunk by the invasion of people unsuited to it.
Unlike whites in America, Canada, and Australia, European whites often grow up and live all of their lives in the same place. They tend to have stronger ties to blood and soil and are less naive about the supposed benefits of immigration and diversity.
