The Daniel S. Abraham Center for Peace, a prominent liberal Zionist Israel lobbying group, purchased a full-page newspaper advertisement in Friday’s edition of the New York Times, calling for the immediate separation of Israelis and Palestinians into separate countries to keep Israel as a Jewish majority state.
“Separation between Israelis and Palestinians is Essential. No separation today means a Palestinian majority by 2020,” warned the public service announcement.
Israel’s population is about 20 percent Palestinian, so what the ad rejects is Israel having to be responsible for millions of more Palestinians who are now living in-not-their own state. At the same time, the head of the organization, Clinton ally former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, denies that there is something called an occupation in the West Bank. There is the not-so-subtle Trumpian suggestions that the Palestinian citizens of Israel will be living elsewhere if the two-state solution happens. Maybe they’ll go willingly to live in a country now foreign to them. Maybe not. Remains to be seen. But this suggests large, (maybe coerced who knows?) transfers of people are the only way to ensure peace and order between Jews and Arabs, as the ad refers to them.
“It’s Time for Separation,” the advertisement explains. “Separation today means a Jewish majority, State of Israel now and for Generations ahead.”
Or, as Alabama Gov. George Wallace put it: “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!”
In 1968, Wallace ran for president of the United States as a “Dixiecrat,” a dissident Southern Democrat outraged by their party leadership’s support for ending segregation in the South. (Like the Confederates he idolized, he also lost, but carried five Deep South states.) Democrats are coming to a similar impasse over the question of Palestinian rights, and how much they matter. Some Democrats are on the side of the segregationists, but this time they’re the leadership. And the Times helped get the word out about Two State Segregation.
The Daniel S. Abraham Center for Peace, run by a former Democratic Florida congressman Robert Wexler, bought the advertisement to run during the United Nations General Assembly, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday renewed his own call for a two-state solution, and invited Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to speak before the Knesset. President Abbas said settlements were destroying any chance of a two-state solution, and he would bring the matter up at the United Nations.
This isn’t the first time the Center has bought advertising in the Times. In 2015, around Hannukah, the group had said the creation of “demilitarized Palestinian state is not a gift to the Palestinians,” but in Israel’s best interest. “The only way Israel can remain a Jewish, democratic state is the Palestinians have a Palestinian state.”
How the “demilitarizing of the Palestinians” was going to work, the advertisement didn’t explain.” The Abraham Center for Peace has all sorts of charts and helpful brochures about the numbers of “Core Jews,” “Arabs,” and “Others” living there. The map and text in the
The map and text in the Times makes clear the reason the group is so determined to implement a two-state solution is the fear of the dilution of the Jewishness of Israel.
What’s confusing to me, as a reader, about the advertisement is what this means for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Are they supposed to retreat to the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Are the Palestinians in the occupied territories going to stop having kids? The paranoia about Israel losing its Jewish majority is unmistakable. The fear of a binational state is also spelled out in black and white.
“According to a recent poll, 97 percent of Israeli Jews want to live in a Jewish state. Without a two-state solution, Israel will end up as a binational state, half-Jewish and half-Arab,” it reads. “In a few more years, it will be too late. The dream of a Jewish state will be lost.”
And it specifically calls out Netanyahu, “Mr. Prime Minister, your people want to live in Jewish state, not half-Jewish, half-Arab — you can make it happen.”
Posted inIsrael|Comments Off on In full page NYT ad, liberal Zionist group calls for ethnic segregation to retain Jewish majority within Israel
Take the case of Rabbi Marc Schneier, 57, the founder and leader of the Orthodox Hampton Synagogue, and a man who has been married and divorced five times. Schneier is the 18th generation of a rabbinic line, and when he married in January 1981 at the age of 21, to 20-year-old Elissa Shay, the ceremony was officiated by the chief rabbis of Israel and Romania.
At the time, he was a rabbinic student at Yeshiva University, while she was a Brooklyn native studying at Barnard College. Their marriage lasted less than a year.
Young and hopeful, Schneier wed again a few years later, this time to Esther Melamed. Friends believed the marriage was an unhappy one, and the couple divorced in 1992. It was during this marriage that Schneier founded the Hampton Synagogue, an upscale house of worship catering to the well-heeled, often elderly, residents and visitors to the Hamptons.
Schneier took a slightly unusual approach to leadership of the congregation, appointing his own board rather than letting members vote or select representatives.
In 1993, Schneier wed again, this time to Toby Gotesman. The daughter of a prominent Orthodox family from Portland, Oregon, the couple had an exclusive 90-guest ceremony at Gracie Mansion, and friends felt that the union was a good one for both.
Gotesman seemed to enjoy the couple’s lifestyle of entertaining and partying, and the marriage produced a son, Brendan, now 17. In 2005, rumors surfaced that Schneier was cheating with a divorced fashion designer, Tobi Rubinstein, which led to the couple’s divorce. Gotesman went on to write a fictional memoir of the experience, called “Bad Charisma.”
Gotesman told the New York Post that at the time of their split, Schneier was making around $800,000 in total compensation, including a half million dollar salary and mortgage payments toward his $3 million, 5,000-square-foot Westhampton Beach home.
In 2006, Schneier took his fourth walk down the aisle, wedding Rubinstein at the now-closed New York Synagogue, which Schneier also ran. The small 25-person wedding was the start of a celebrated union that included the gift of a 400-pound endangered Asian lion to the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo to commemorate Schneier’s 50th birthday.
Once again, infidelity came between the two when Rubinstein hired a private investigator to look into Schneier’s activities.
The couple divorced in 2010 after Schneier was photographed in the Holy Land with synagogue member Gitty Leiner, during what Schneier had told his wife was a business trip.
In 2013, Leiner and Schneier married, producing a daughter they named Brooke, now two. What came next appears to have been the last straw for his congregation. When his infidelity again broke up his marriage in 2015 and his wife and baby daughter left him, his Orthodox community could no longer stomach Schneier’s behavior.
Posted inDivorce, R. Marc Schneier|Comments Off on “Rabbi To The Stars” Loses Congregation After Five Divorces
Elaine’s dog problem is solved by a rabbi in her apartment complex with a cable show. Elaine later confides in the rabbi about her insecurity about George getting engaged. The rabbi later tells several people, including Jerry, about Elaine’s insecurity towards George’s wedding.
Kramer’s involvement in the dognapping worries him. George decides he wants to postpone the engagement until March 21 (Spring Equinox). His first attempt to postpone the wedding leads to Susan becoming hysterical and bursting into tears. Later George gets the idea to be nonchalant about the whole thing after watching a man break up with his girlfriend at Monk’s. Intending to try a similar approach, he breaks down in tears and begs Susan to postpone the wedding; touched by his show of emotions, Susan agrees to postpone the wedding.
Kramer and Jerry go to see Plan 9 from Outer Space at the cinema. Kramer sneaks in gourmet coffee, spills it, and scalds himself; he says he has a case for a lawsuit (an obvious allusion to the well-known McDonald’s coffee case).
The episode ends with Susan and George watching the rabbi’s TV show and the rabbi recounting the story Elaine told him including a part about George (the rabbi references both Elaine and George by name) wanting to know if it was still cheating if he paid for a prostitute while engaged, resulting in the wedding’s postponement being revoked.
When you confide in a Christian clergyman, you can usually take confidentiality for granted. When you confide in a rabbi, you cannot. Judaism does not mandate rabbis to hold confidentiality.
Rabbi Michael Broyde
Rabbi Yona Reiss
Nathan Diament, Esq.
The “clergyman-penitent privilege” was first introduced in the United States in the State of New York in the early 1800s. Since that time, it has been codified in New York as well as all fifty states and the District of Columbia in various forms which have, in turn, been updated and revised over the years.[1] The most notable revision was the expansion of this privilege from its original application to Catholic priests and their confessors to the clerics of other religions and theirs.[2] Perhaps due to the fact that these statutes grew from the Catholic model, the presumption underlying them is that a clergyman will be directed by his religion not to disclose any information confided in him by a penitent. While, as outlined in the halakhic discussion below, this default position coincides with that of halakha, it does not account for the situations in which halakha calls upon a Rabbi to disclose confided information.
In assessing the various clergy-penitent privilege statutes, there are three basic questions relevant to the practice of a Rabbi:[3]
(1) Who holds the privilege?
(2) What communications are covered by the privilege?
(3) How is the privilege waived?
(1) The holder of a privilege has the power to invoke it or waive it. With regard to the famous attorney-client privilege, for example, it is the client that holds the privilege and thus, it is only the client who can permit the attorney to divulge information revealed to him in their confidential conversations. Among the fifty states, statutes may be found to resort to one of three models as to who holds the clergy-penitent privilege. In the majority of states, including New York, the privilege is held by the “penitent.” [4] In some states, such as Illinois, it is the clergyman who holds the privilege and is thus empowered to waive it.[5] Finally, in some states, such as New Jersey, the privilege is held by both the clergyman and the penitent and both must waive it for disclosure to be permitted.[6]
(2) Although states vary with regard to who holds and may waive the privilege, there is general consensus with regard to what type of communication falls within the scope of the privilege. Not surprisingly, not everything said by a person to a Rabbi is protected by this privilege; rather, the communications must be made to the clergyman, in the words of New York’s statute, “in his professional character as spiritual adviser.” Thus, New York’s highest court ruled over a decade ago, that a Rabbi had not breached the confidentiality statute in revealing an accused murderer’s communications to him when the only purposes for which the accused contacted the Rabbi were for his help in finding him a lawyer and negotiating with the prosecutor’s office. [7] This is not to say, however, that it is only matters that are “religious” which are privileged. Secular matters that arise in the context of a conversation with a Rabbi in which the Rabbi has been approached to provide spiritual guidance and counseling will be included under the privilege’s umbrella. In some states, it has been held that the privilege only bars the clergyman from disclosing communications from the penitent, but that the clergyman may relate his “observations.”
(3) Like other privileges, the clergy-penitent privilege is statutorily constructed to prevent a clergyman from being compelled to testify in a legal proceeding about the matters confided in him by the penitent. If the privilege is found not to have “attached” in the first place, or is explicitly waived, the Rabbi may then disclose the confidential communication. As mentioned above, the privilege will not arise when the communication was not made to the Rabbi in the context of his professional capacity for the purpose of spiritual guidance. Also, like other privileges, this privilege will not attach when the circumstances of the communication are not entirely confidential in the first place; for example, if a third person who is not a member of the clergy is in the room. [8] Under current law, in states such as New York where the penitent holds a properly created privilege, that person must explicitly waive it to permit the Rabbi to disclose the confidential communication. In states such as Illinois, where the clergyman holds the privilege, it falls to the clergyman to waive it. In states where both hold it, generally, both must waive. It is, however, important to note the newly amended provision of New Jersey’s law which may be adopted up by other states in the future. As mentioned above, New Jersey bestows the privilege upon both the clergyman and the penitent and thus, in general, both must waive it. The law now provides that when “the privileged communication pertains to a future criminal act…the cleric alone may, but is not required to, waive the privilege.”
Two points are important to note in concluding this brief discussion. First, rabbis may be aware that the federal and state constitutions protect the “free exercise of religion.” Thus, one might be led to assume that such a constitutional protection will protect the Rabbi in a case where he discloses otherwise confidential information when he does so pursuant to a religious imperative. While one would hope this position would be clearly and widely recognized, it is not as of yet. [9] Moreover, there are precedents in American law which could very well suggest that a secular judge might not recognize a free exercise exception to these statutes. [10] This, as well as the entire foregoing outline, leads to the second point: rabbis would be well advised to consult with their personal attorneys [11] in dealing with any situation in which the issues of confidentiality and privilege arise.
Posted inRabbis|Comments Off on Seinfeld: The Postponement
An Orthodox friend told me the other day: “The type of nativism and nationalism Donald Trump is stirring up is dangerous for Jews. We might not be safe here in five years. I’m preparing to move to Israel.”
Luke: “We Jews have the Jewish state, why shouldn’t gentiles have their own states.”
Friend: “Of course.”
Luke: “When you say that as gentiles become more nationalistic, they become more anti-Jewish, are you saying that Jews are not in the interests of gentile nationalisms?”
Friend: “Of course. Do you think Israel would be better off with a dramatic increase in its Filipino population? My ancestors fought and bled to establish Israel. I don’t want to give up my land to foreigners.”
Luke: “So you’re saying Israel would be better off without its Arab citizens?”
Friend: “Of course. No state is better off with the presence of minorities who resent it.”
Luke: “No dominantly Protestant state has slaughtered Jews. WASPs don’t slaughter Jews. WASPs look at people as individuals, not as members of groups.”
Friend: “I don’t trust that.”
Posted inNationalism|Comments Off on Gentile Nationalisms Are Dangerous For Jews
After a 30-second scuffle on a train, it took 20 months and £15,000 to clear my name
For 20 months, I stood accused of a hate crime: homophobically motivated common assault. The British Transport Police pursued my case with extraordinary zeal. So too did the Crown Prosecution Service. I was plunged into a world where common sense withered and died.
The nightmare began when I was travelling home to London after a funeral in Kent. I was chatting with a friend on the train when a strange man started shouting at us from across the carriage. ‘Shut up!’ he yelled before accusing us of conducting a sexist and misogynistic conversation at high volume. This was, in his opinion, ‘offensive’.
We were bemused. Talking at a normal volume for a private conversation, we were in fact discussing a male colleague, admittedly using the occasional swear word. Jabbing his finger at us, our accuser insisted we were using derogatory language about a woman. We weren’t. I suggested that he might like to stop his tirade. But he carried on screaming at us. When he went to get up, I decided to defend myself by trying to keep him in his seat. I thought it would be safer that way. My friend was 66 and not well. At this point our accuser leapt to his feet and punched me in the face. A playground grappling session ensued. I’m no fighter and nor was he. It was a non-event, handbags. No one was hurt.
Someone had dialled 999, the guard arrived and I returned to my seat. The entire altercation lasted about 30 seconds. The train halted at Tunbridge Wells, a police officer took our statements separately and informed me that my accuser didn’t want to press charges. Nor did I. He got off the train, I continued my journey and that was the end of it. Or so I thought.
A day later a British Transport Police officer rang my adversary — who turned out to be a university lecturer. For reasons I will never know, this call led to a change of heart by my accuser. The BTP subsequently interviewed me, and before I knew what had happened I was being accused of homophobic abuse and assault. I was stunned. I had allegedly interrupted the man’s attempts to make a phone call by asking him if he was ringing his gay lover.
This allegation could have ruined my life. Had I been found guilty, as a television critic and pundit who appears on the box and the radio regularly, my career would have been over.
The man had no evidence to support his claim. On my side, I had several witnesses who had heard nothing of the sort, plus CCTV footage that showed our altercation had been no more than an insignificant skirmish. Still, the police investigated my case with ardour. The investigating officers’ florid report to the CPS made it sound as if I’d beaten the hell out of the guy. It was nonsense. Nevertheless, charges were duly pressed.
COMMENTS:
* This guy was conducting a loud, offensive conversation with his equally loutish friend, then was asked to keep his voice down, then proceeded to threaten, insult, and assault a member of the public.
* I know very well that the zealous little British Transport coppers who tried to ruin my life did so because the successful prosecution of hate crimes gets them promoted. So sorry it didn’t work out for them. And really hope they enjoyed reading my article in The Spectator.
* Recently, here in NYC, a story occurred whereby a white mma fighter obliterated two muslim teens in front of their mosque. The media erupted with “hate crime” paranoia, parroting the mosques’ fabricated story of how the wonderfully innocent teens were carrying canned goods to the local orphanage and offered to help a stranded woman in her car before being set on by this beast shouting anti-islamic epithets.
Turns out these teens had fondled the woman, insulted her in her car, tried to reach in through the window to harass her. The boyfriend had come out and beat the ever-loving snot out of them. Justice served. But I worry about that man’s life now, being pursued by the lawyers of these rats.
* Alison Saunders, a lesbian and Common Purpose graduate, is at the heart of this war against free speech, conservatism and maleness. The facts and the events described in this piece are unlikely to be entirely unconnected.
* As a person with some experience in conflicts, I recommend: 1- Never touch anyone, even less if the person is not known to you. 2- Never engage in a personal discussion in public with an unknown. Ignore him and go away. 3- If possible, when being addressed by an unknown person, film the interview.
* The process is a large part of the punishment.
This was made clear by my own “hate speech” stalker on these forums, robbersdog, who claimed he would get me prosecuted for alleged “antisemitic hate speech”, and his special identity lobby contacts gave him the opportunity to meet directly with an Assistant Chief Constable, no less, to try to persuade him how much I deserved to be prosecuted for my opinions.
He openly gloated about supposed other victims of his snitching, and how much suffering he hoped would be caused by the mere process of the police arresting me, searching my house and confiscating my computers, long before any actual conviction.
* And whilst we’re on the subject of deletions…I’m going for the big one, ie, the ultimate solution to the Randal problem. I’ve already been in touch with one of Disqus’ two founders in San Francisco, and I’ll be furnishing him with details of the police investigation into your hate-speech. He’s got a Jewish wife and many of his investors (who will be contacted if necessary) are Jewish too. Those Jews eh?
Remember when you told me to “bring it on”? Well…you didn’t expect me to ignore that challenge did you? When an antisemite like you throws down the gauntlet with such misplaced, hubristic machismo, I’m only too happy to oblige. So it’s both odd and ironic that you spend so much time whinging to other people about all of this, because I’m only doing what you asked me to do.
* I have to admire the irony of your position here — essentially you are threatening an (alleged) antisemite with an international Jewish conspiracy against him, no?
Unless this is intended to be some rarified form of comedy that I have misunderstood, one might tentatively suggest that perhaps attempting to confirm the batty conspiracy theories of antisemites everywhere is not a good way to combat antisemitism…
Posted inCensorship|Comments Off on Kevin O’Sullivan: ‘What happened when I was charged with a hate crime’
The only thing that the Coalition of the Fringe has in common is hatred of white people.
From Mic.com: “Carly Pildis is a Political Organizer who has spent her career fighting for social/economic justice and equality. She has worked on a variety of issue campaigns and recently finished work on the Obama campaign. When she isn’t working, she enjoys wandering her neighborhood farmer’s market, watching Boston based sports teams, and being active in her synagogue. All opinions are my own and do not reflect on any employer past or present.”
I AM WOKE: WHY I AM FINALLY RAISING MY VOICE AGAINST JEWISH ERASURE IN THE ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT
Should the values of anti-oppression apply to Jews?
By Carly Pildis
I am blessed to live in an incredibly happy home. A home where we fry latkes, make jollof rice, and spend a lot of time laughing. I have a multi-racial Jewish family. I am an Ashkenazi Jew. My husband is a Ghanaian American Jew.
I revere those who created a world where we can live in relative peace and stability. We are claiming Loving v. Virginia Day a family holiday. We are still debating how to celebrate, but the past two years I’ve made pancakes. It’s the kind of simple, family pleasure we are so grateful to enjoy, and thankful that past generations fought for.
I am well aware that the movement for equality is not over, and I try to be an active participant. I have witnessed my husband being racially profiled, and it was deeply frightening for us both. I have realized that while we live in the same home, we also live in different countries that have different requirements of our behavior. White privilege meant that trespassing in a park, smoking marijuana, and sneaking into a private swimming pool were youthful indiscretions, good memories of the freer days of my youth. They were potential death traps for my husband. Sharing a home with a black man teaches you more about your white privilege than any book could. It teaches you all the time.
I am a part of the anti-oppression movement and the anti-racism movement. Although we are not always welcomed there as Jews, I do believe that teaching people to recognize racism and other forms of oppression and actively fight them in our daily lives is lifesaving work. I believe we are seeing a wave of hatred and violence against people of color and against Jews like we have not seen in my lifetime. I have always fought anti-Semitism with one group, my fellow Jews, and then stood against the oppression of every other group in the world with the anti-racism crowd. But the schism is starting to wear me out. The hopping back-and-forth on one foot is exhausting.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Tabletmag: ‘Sharing a home with a black man teaches you more about your white privilege than any book could’
Comments: Paul Ryan has a degree in nothing from the university of nowhere (economics/Miami University in Ohio). He has little or no personal history applicable to his career. Occupationally, Ryan is a life-long politician with no experience in the real world.
Mitch McConnell also has a degree in nothing from the university of nowhere (history/U. Louisville Ky). Similarly he has little or no personal history and has no experience occupationally except only as a crooked politician.
If either of these guys was applying for a job at Autozone or Walmart they’d likely be rejected for having no verifiable recent work history, no experience and no applicable job skills.
* How about segregating whites from the rest? Make whites live in their own communities, attend their own schools, work in their own businesses, etc.
* The Rahimi’s and their 8 children were just what America needed. Who would bring fried chicken to the ghettos of the Northeast if not for them? Who would shoplift from Filene’s if not for his daughters (the Tsarnaevs women also had arrests for shoplifting, etc.) ? Who would stiff Macy’s for $46,000 if not for them? Who would cheat on their taxes and claim to make only $1,400/month while owning a restaurant if not for them? Who would serve as a baby daddy and not pay child support if not for them? If Mama Rahimi was not arrested for child abuse, how could we maintain full employment in the prison/social work industry?
Long before Ahmad starting leaving pressure cooker bombs around the NY metro area, it was clear that once again America was enriched by the Rahimi clan and their authentic Afghan style fried chicken.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Do We Need Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell?
Many Orthodox Jews I meet went to public school but almost no Orthodox Jews I know sends their kids to public schools today because the schools are riddled with drugs and depravity.
You can’t take your kid to the park on Airdrome and Robertson anymore in 90035 because you will likely encounter black and Mexican four-year old kids hurling f-bombs and beating on each other.
Today’s goyim are nothing like the well-behaved goyim of 1950s America, so Jews have to spend more money and effort to shelter their children. America’s going to hell. It’s filthy out there.
I moved to California from Australia in 1977. It was a nice place. Now it’s largely an extension of Mexico.
Posted inAmerica|Comments Off on Today’s American Goyim Are Nothing Like 1950s American Goyim
GotNews: Facebook’s recently launched voter registration drive is run by a far left anti-Trumper, who also runs Facebook’s privacy program.
Daniel Crowley, whose anti-Trump Facebook posts are shown below, apparently launched Facebook’s voter registration drive, and also runs Facebook’s privacy program.
He previously ran Google’s privacy program, according to his LinkedIn profile.
We thought we were done with Facebook’s left-wing bias when The Daily Caller credited us with shutting down their biased trending news team, but apparently there’s still work to be done.
Posted inFacebook|Comments Off on Facebook Voter Registration Drive Run By Far Left Anti-Trumper, Who Also Runs Facebook’s Privacy Program
John Derbyshire writes: A subset of American Jews—a subset, a minority—suffer from a kind of psychological deformation that keeps them trapped in a particular, strangely atavistic type of paranoia, of victim mentality.
One side effect of this mentality: an unblinking vigilance, a hyper-sensitivity, towards the slightest tendency of the Gentile majority to drift Cossack-wards. This easily and often slops over into—and I am speaking of a subset of a subset of American Jews—into a generalized dislike, a prejudice, against white Christians.
Another side effect: the feeling that, for an oppressed minority—we’re still in 1881, remember: it’s always 1881—for an oppressed minority there is safety in courting and joining with other outsider groups for solidarity against the dangerous, dominant Goyim. The great dream of this mentality, in fact, is to get enough of a coalition of outsiders together to outnumber the Goyim, the white Christians. That’s why so many Jews are so passionately committed to mass Third World immigration.
It’s not hard to find evidence of this. Example: one of the “Intelligence Squared” debate series that took place September 13th. The motion to be debated was “Blame the Elites for the Trump Phenomenon.” It lasts an hour and 44 minutes.[Transcript PDF]
All four debaters were Bigfoot American journalists. Both sides of the debate were anti-Trump; the debate was over whose fault it was that Trump had gotten the GOP nomination. For the motion, arguing that it was the fault of the elites, were Ben Domenech [Email him] and Timothy Carney, [Email him] both Gentiles. Against the motion, arguing that it was not the fault of the elites, were Jennifer Rubin [email her] and Bret Stephens [Email him] both Jewish.
That tells you something by itself. That atavistic style of Jewish paranoia that I spoke about, when it hears the word “elites,” at once flies to the thought: They’re talking about US!… and the hoofbeats of the Cossacks are heard drumming in the distance.
At some mental level Rubin and Stephens read the title of the debate as: “Blame the Jews for the Trump Phenomenon.” That’s why they’re arguing against the motion. No, no, it’s not our fault—it’s those damn peasants!
ORDER IT NOW
This put them on edge. You can see it in the debate. Stephens actually plays the Holocaust Card at 1h22m, brandishing the print-out of an anti-Semitic tweet he got. Earlier, at 56m, the whole debate had almost veered into a straightforward Christians versus Jews joust. Dealing with Mrs. Clinton’s use of the word “irredeemable,” Jay Carney and Jennifer Rubin clashed lances thus:
Clip: (Carney) I disagree with Bret Stephens and with Hillary Clinton that a quarter of the population is unredeemable. And my bias, on the table, is, I’m a Christian and I think everyone is redeemable …
(Rubin) We Jews just believe in good and evil. We don’t think everyone isredeemable.
It’s been a while since I saw the atavistic paranoia of Jews, that subset of them, so starkly presented. The last time was, in fact, when I saw that Sacha Baron Cohen movie Borat, where it’s likewise hard to miss.
If I’m right about Rubin and Stephens, the result of the debate did nothing to soothe their paranoia. Part of the format for these Intelligence Squared debates is that the studio audience is polled at the beginning—how many for, how many against, how many undecided. The debate takes place, then at the end the audience is polled again, to see how many of the undecideds were persuaded which way.
Result: The audience percentage favoring the motion, that our elites were to blame for the rise of Trump, shot up 26 percent, from 32 to 58. The percentage blaming the peasants went up only six percent, 27 to 33.
Uh-oh, here come the Cossacks.
I’ll just add here that if you take exception to all that coming from me, a Gentile, perhaps you’ll take from Caroline Glick, a Jew. (I know I’m not allowed to say “Jewess” because I checked once with a Jewish lady editor I was working for. Quote from her: “We can say it, but you can’t.”)
Ms. Glick covers that same debate from the point of view of an ethnocentric Jew, and her coverage comes out sounding a lot like mine. She points up the rather high level of open anti-Semitism on the political Left. Then—
The problem on the Republican side of the aisle … is not that the party has turned against the Jews. The problem is that a large contingent of prominent Jewish Republicans has decided to commit political suicide …
Rather than … accept the will of their fellow Republicans, this year the most prominent members of the Jewish Republican elite have opted to attack Trump and his voters.
That is, they have decided to commit political suicide. Twilight of American Jewry, Jerusalem Post, September 15, 2016
That’s you she’s talking about, Jennifer Rubin and Bret Stephens.
As I said, both sides in that Intelligence Squared debate were anti-Trump. Whether all four were actually NeverTrumpers was not clear. You can be anti-Trump without being NeverTrump, on the lesser of two evils principle.
But at least one of the Jewish side was a NeverTrumper, though. How do we know this? These are opinion journalists, recall. He wrote about it.
September 12th, the day before the debate, Stephens posted a Q&A column in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, where he is a Deputy Editor and opinion columnist. Both the Qs and the As were apparently written by Stephens himself, a common format in opinion journalism. I’ve done columns in that format myself.
Subtitle: “The nominee has more in common with Kanye West than with Steve Wynn.”
That subtitle threw me. Kanye West I know about at a very vague level. He’s one of those famous-for-being-famous people, right? I couldn’t tell you a single darn thing he’s done, but I see his name on the scandal sheets when I’m in the supermarket checkout line.
Who’s Steve Wynn, though? I had to look him up. He’s a billionaire property developer, very much like Trump. He’s built luxury hotels and casinos.
So what’s he doing in that subtitle? Well, he seems a bit more Upper West Side than Trump. He’s a connoisseur of fine art, for example. I don’t see much otherwise to place him at one end of an acceptability spectrum that has Donald Trump and Kanye West at the other end.
Or do I? Checking a bit further, I see that Steve Wynn, like Bret Stephens, is an American-born Ashkenazi Jew, original name Weinberg. So on that acceptability spectrum, we have two Jews at one end and two Gentiles at the other—just like in the following day’s debate!
Kanye West is a Gentile; I checked. In fact, a couple of years ago he got himself in a spot of bother by telling a New York radio station that “Black people don’t have the same level of connections as Jewish people.”.[Kanye West wants to take back ‘ignorant compliment’ about Jews , Jerusalem Post, December 22, 2013]I wouldn’t be terrifically surprised to learn that it was exactly that remark that lodged itself in Bret Stephens’ mind, causing him to pair off West with Trump at the dark end of the spectrum.
OK, getting past the subtitle, what’s in the column? Well, you can read it for yourself. No, you don’t need a Wall Street Journal subscription—who can afford those things? What you do is, put the title, “NeverTrump for Dummies,” into the search box at Google News. I’ll just pull out one single quote.
ORDER IT NOW
First thing I did was Ctrl-F on the word “nativist.” Yep, there it is. I knew it would be: “Mr. Trump’s nativist brand of politics is much further removed from conservatism than Mrs. Clinton’s mainstream liberalism,” end quote.
There you see the paranoia, the immigration fanaticism. For a politician to be “nativist”—to favor the natives, the people born in his country, over foreigners—is worse, much worse, than Clintonian liberalism, says Bret Stephens.
For him, to be “nativist” is worse than anything, because if a “nativist” gets power, our Coalition of Others will never have numbers to swamp the Goyim. They’ll be dominant for ever, and sooner or later they’ll turn on the Jews! [Hoofbeat sounds].
I know, it sounds nutty. Possibly I am being paranoid. But watching that debate, and then reading Bret Stephens’ print piece, it does seem to me that Bret Stephens’ paranoia, that atavistic fear, is in plain sight, just under the surface.
What, after all, is wrong with nativism? Why is this a pejorative—even on the political Left, never mind from the pen of a self-described conservative.
For a government to favor its own people over foreigners: There’s something wrong with that? What? What, exactly?
Because it’s “hateful”? What nonsense! I favor my own kids over your kids, by a mile and a half; but I don’t hate your kids, so long as they don’t come into my house uninvited. Good luck to them.
* Derb is a nice fellow but he is incapable of writing boldly and honestly about any issue that involves Jews as wrongdoers. Thus, even when he ventures into this taboo-laden area, he squanders half his time back-peddling and apologizing. Is he running for public office?
Derb understands the problem. All too well. But he lacks courage. Derb’s terrified of being labeled an ‘anti-Semite’. Silly boy. But this anxiety disorder affects his judgement.
Unfortunately, America is full of public figures with this affliction. Their cravenness is part of the problem.
The result? Derb is unable to be penetrating, straightforward and boldly critical about you-know-who and you-know-what.
On this topic, he’s a hopeless wimp.
Sorry, Derb, but boldness and honesty are what’s urgently needed right now. Yet you keep failing to deliver. This weak article proves it.
I recommend that you read more essays by Kevin MacDonald, Gilad Aztmon, or Philip Giraldi.
In the meantime, stick to writing about illegal immigration.
And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
* Saying there’s no anti-semitism in your archives is like a Good Progressive saying he’s never written anything politically incorrect. Even if it’s true that doesn’t mean it’ll be true tomorrow. Because there’s no hard definition of an anti-semite. Certainly it doesn’t mean someone who objectively hates Jews. It has come to mean anyone Jews, or those speaking for Jews, don’t like. Jews could start disliking you any day, if they don’t already.
Once that happens, anything in your archive is anti-semitic by definition.
* Why are you talking about Cossacks and 1881 when it would be more to the point to mention Nazis and 1933-1945. That’s where their minds are trapped. Same way for neocons it’s always 1938 or ’39 and we’re Great Britain.
But I suppose it’s a good thing that not every single page on the internet is about Nazis.
* Assuming that theory is true, maybe the goyim wouldn’t turn on the Jews if the Jews didn’t constantly agitate to flood the nation with foreigners and come up with retarded new ways to demonize the domestic population.
That aside, I’m not sure left wing Jews really believe it’s 1881 Russia, or that their Judaic values compel them to be liberals. It’s more likely the other way around. They use their past victimhood as a fearmongering tactic, and their religion as moral support for their political views. Deep down, they are first and foremost true believers, worshiping at the altar of Egalitarianism.
* That’s as anti-semitic as most of the more thoughtful on the alt-right are, Derbyshire. Even /Goebbels/ knew that ‘not all Jews are like that’ – apparently he had a Jewish history teacher who he loved. Your understanding has structure, while that of many lazier-thinking alt-righters does not.
I wonder whether it’s connected to the phenomenon of people never really getting over a defeat – rejection in love, the American South forever mumbling old bones, Mexicans still smarting from the loss of their territory to America. Perhaps the difference in degree is due to Jews’ higher smarts and thus potency in this world, perhaps due to a higher-than-average sense of /their people/. Christ, I’ve heard NPR’s Ira Glass talk about ‘his people’.
* The best way forward for a small, well-connected minority is to align with the dominant ethnic group and go forth from there. This is actually the best way forward for the Jews, and why they don’t simply do this is something I don’t understand. Any Jew who doesn’t want to do this is free to move to Israel – surely the said Jew also wouldn’t want the Palestinian Arabs to out number the Israeli Jews?
The Jews are fighting an unending war to prevent 1933 from ever happening again, never mind that they’ve successfully associated Judaism with (Catholic, and European Protestant) Christianity, that Islam is arguably the most “anti-Semitic” religion out there, that they’d paint themselves into a corner by not looking like the dominant goyim.
This is like setting fire to an oil rig – and its lifeboats – in the North Sea.
* I do not see anything uniquely or especially Jewish about either the far-left anti-white people or elitist anti-Trump Republicans, or all that much similar to each other.
There is certainly a Jewish flavor of white ethnomasochism, and it is as greatly distasteful as the English, Swedish or Popish varieties.
Regarding the global elite, it seems much more at its base Anglo-Saxon and more broadly Western European, and the Jews in it tend to be miscegenated (mostly with NW Europeans, increasingly with NE Asians) and ultra-assimilated. Bret Stephens wasn’t engaging in intensive Torah study at Middlesex boarding school, the University of Chicago, and the London School of Economics.
* Growing up in a Jewish family, I was conditioned to think about pogroms and the Holocaust, whenever the issue of immigration came up. However, I was cured of this neurosis by being exposed to extreme diversity (i.e. getting the feeling that your hometown and school district are no longer part of America). Stephen Miller, a Jewish aide to Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, seems to have had a similar “conversion” experience when he was growing up in Southern California.
* I love that notion that a panel of two Jews, two Christians, all four Lille-White, privileged, connected, “educated”, sit around and bat about the percentage of Trump voters that are irredeemable and deplorable and racist. They name the group, White, working class, lower-caste Trump supporters. Then, they assign varying levels of racism to us? And the Jewish debaters of course, in THEIR racism, assign higher levels of racism to the Trump Goyim than the Christian debaters and of course, the Jews consider US irredeemable more than the Gentile elites at the panel debate.
These are the elites that set the illegals on the rest of us, empower Blacks to their violence (not a word for THEIR racism and violence, of course) and live in their gated communities traveling on armed security details and limousines. This panel, they’re the same coin, different side, both sides elite, except the Jews have more money, no doubt. Being a Multi-Culti Deplorable however, I will happily observe if not assist, the anarchy that goes looking for these elites. When the balloon goes up, when the gated communities are swamped and the mobs are looking for these people to repay the anarchy these elites themselves create, the mobs will not discriminate, they will cut ALL the elite throats. Mustn’t be anti-Semite! In that scenario, ALL the elites die.
* Its funny that people like Rubin and Stephens are all multiculturalism for the US and all nativist apartheid when it comes to Israel. There is a psychological term called projection which states you project onto others your own failings. I think it sums up these gatekeepers except the rabble they lost control over supports their vision of Israel too. The only reason to pay attention to Rubin is to get a good belly laugh from her nativist war propaganda for Israel. The comments section at the Washington Post is always better, with most of the people making fun of her instead of agreeing with her.
* Jews are very politically active as a group, but I’ve never seen groups of Jews protest against immigration and the displacement of whites, or violence against whites in the U.S. or Europe. Jews are far more likely to protest against the displacement of Palestinians by Israel than they are to oppose demographic change in the West, or racial violence and rape directed against whites by minorities, and they aren’t very likely to do even that.
* Lot, maybe you can explain to this poor, dumb Gentile why only Jews seem to be qualified to run the USA’s finances, by having control over the US Treasury and the potent FED?
Current US Treasury Secretary is Jacob Lew, his second is Sarah Bloom. Adam Gzubin is the head of the department flinging the economic sanctions against ME nations and Russia.
Past Treasury heads, have been Tim Geithner; Larry Summers and Robert Rubin-who helped Clinton make it easier for Wall Street casinos to steal our money–all Jews and just for pointing out the truth, I’m guilty of anti-Semitism.
The only Gentile recently was Hank Paulson, who was needed during the Great Depression of 2008 to reassure Americans that there is nothing wrong, go back to sleep.
The FED is run by Janet Yellen, whose second in command, Stanley Fisher, is a dual-citizen, who was the past head of an Israel bank. Before Yellen it was ‘Shalom’ Bernanke, and before him it was Alan Greenspan.
But don’t even think or wonder why no Gentile’s are appointed to these crucial positions, because that’s anti-Semitism and you’ll be hounded until you no longer exist in the cyber world.
I could go into who controls the majority of the thoroughly rotten and corrupt US media, but let’s stick with the FED and Treasury.
* Obviously can’t speak for those who believe in an actual overarching jewish conspiracy, but the evidence for disproportionate jewish influence in media and politics is clearly evident to anyone who experiences censorship and even prosecution for expressing opinions that are “anti-Semitic”. Good luck trying to generate such harassment for anybody expressing equivalently anti-white opinions.
As it happens he hasn’t succeeded with that particular piece of harassment yet, although he succeeded in getting me banned from The National Interest and from Spectator Blogs using the same special connection. Clearly there are some jewish people for whom commitment to freedom of speech is more genuine than for others (such as our host here, I assume).
Shall I try writing to the various white non-Jewish owners and managers of some major publications asking them to ban people who’ve been making anti-white comments? How far do you think I’d get?
* I’m used to pushback from all the special interest groups I annoy by skewering their sacred cows. The amount depends upon the readership of the publication in question, generally. But robbersdog’s the first to ever credibly threaten prosecution (in fairness to others, these anti-dissent laws are only nowadays starting to be properly enforced), and the only one to actually succeed in getting me banned, from two publications (The National Interest and the Spectator blogs), though many have reported me for, variously, “homophobic”, “racist”, “sexist” and other comments advocating traditionalist conservative opinions. Clearly, as well as good timing, jewish would-be censors benefit from institutional and political connections at the highest levels, perhaps more so than the run of the mill special interest identity groups.
Mind you I was banned sharpish from the Guardian (many years ago), but I think that was the management’s decision without any special pleading needed. I don’t mind that, as I’d expect openly leftist publications to frown on traditionalist opinions. It’s the ones who pretend to be “conservative” that annoy me, by their dishonesty.
* I was laying in bed watching TV and flipping channels when I saw CNN’s Jake Tapper sitting in for Charlie Rose. Curious I left it there and Jake was talking with some State Department official about Syria. Tapper brought up Trump’s son’s comment ‘Would you eat from a bowl of Skittles if you knew three of them had been poisoned’ in reference to bringing Syrian refugees to the US. The State Department official squirmed as he had no reasonable reply to Tapper. He switched to his ( Jewish) heritage and filibustered with an cartoonish tale about his Bialystok born step father. Auschwitz,Maidenek, Treblinka. He had been in all of them ( but survived, he always survived though no one else from his school did). On a ‘death march’ in 1945 he runs away and again survives and hides in the woods until he hears the rumble of machinery. Were the Nazis sending Panzers to look for the escaped Jew? No, by the grace of God, instead of the hated swastika there was a white star on the tank. The invincible Jew runs out of the woods waving with joy and, instead of a burst of machinegun fire from the American tank, the hatch pops open and a negro tank commander appears!
The story had all the authenticity of a fairy tale and yet here was a senior State Department official reciting ( probably for the 100th time) it as if it was the truth.
*
Are you singing Dixie and attending Nassacre on a regular basis? Are those the pinnacle of American cultural markers?
Forgive the limits of my goyishe kopf but these are the shibboleths of the American culture despised by Jews. Good, bad or indifferent they among other things are part of the dominant culture which alleged to be “assimilating” Jews should be joining in rather than the other way round. That’s the point – you’re not assimilating when you make the dominant culture more palatable to you and more like your own. You’re asserting supremacy.
I’d say football, apple pie, thanksgiving, love for the works of Hemmingway, Faulkner, Melville , Lee are more American. And plenty of Jews do that. In fact I’d speculate without direct evidence that proportionally similar to the general population.
Right! Somebody has to own the teams! Wakka Wakka:
Who else would tell us that Ahab is a repressed homosexual and the white wale a giant phallus? That’s appreciation if I ever heard it!
It is extremely expensive to remain a Jew [a direct corollary being remaining members are generally wealthier].
You’re going to have to explain why and how one’s ethnicity and religion could be unilaterally expunged by an insufficient income.
Yes, and you have observed all this yourself among the many Jews you call friends and neighbours, am I right? It’s unmitigated nonsense. Spare me the ‘patriotic’ drumbeat please and recount your experience, even a few, where you’ve felt a Jewish person pulling cultural rank over you, and I will show you an idiot. Most likely you don’t have any.
I could start with the childhood experiences of being one of a handful of gentiles at a Jewish summer camp for several years seriatim. It doesn’t matter though since no amount of experience and no number of similar experiences to my own would be sufficient for you. I could never satisfy your challenge since it is by design intended not to be satisfied. From childhood Jews are imbued with ethnic and moral chauvinism and among themselves have no compunction about expressing it.
* Jews (or Organized Jewry) in the US have a disproportionate amount of power in financial circles & media (and a few other areas, but that is beside the point). Well- who zombified you guys ? Who prevented you from having equal or greater media clout ? Is Fox News, the most influential newsmedia, actually “Jewish” ?
In the US, Jews are not dominant in banking- overrepresented yes, but not dominant; nor are they much present in other “moneyed” fields like oil & gas or military-industrial complex. Most big US banks don’t have a strong Jewish influence; to speak of Jews among Seven sisters or Lockheed Martin is outright silly.
Also, media in most European countries (Germany, UK, France, Italy, Denmark, Spain,..) & Russia is in the hands of national, non-Jewish elites. And they- Russia apart- all spout the same liberal nonsense.
Jews or no Jews, this is a phase of European & Europe-derived civilization with its own dynamics, causes & effects. Jewry’s influence is not negligible, but also- far from crucial. The weakness lies elsewhere.
Joe Sobran, a syndicated columnist who was himself accused of anti-Semitism a few years ago, offers this perspective on the Pat Buchanan flap: “Jewish claims are being cut down to size in various ways. It’s coded by a lot of Jews as anti-Semitism. I don’t think it is. It’s more like counter-Semitism.”
Sobran says that “counter-Semitism,” unlike anti-Semitism, does not seek a “negative outcome” for Jews. It is an attempt “to bring Jews down to the level of ordinary civil society.” According to Sobran, he shares with Buchanan, a friend, an urge to diminish “the excessive moral prestige Jews have in the media and the public square. . . . Jews deciding the standards, setting the criteria of humanity. Since they set themselves up as the arbiter, there is, if you’ll pardon the expression, a certain kill-the-umpire impulse. . . . People are looking at them and saying, come off it. This period of moral prestige has kind of ended.”
* I would point out that Jewish power is both; it is vast, and fragile. It is the subverted power of others. It is soft power that depends entirely on the assent of other peoples. When Jews’ good name is lost, so is their power. They know this perfectly.
Every big Jew was once a small Jew. They don’t spring from the eye of Zeus, fully-formed.
I’ll quote John Hartung for the umpteenth time:
“In-groups sandwich an outline for animosity, an organizing principle for prejudice, between layers of social support. Whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, every extremist is supported by a small number of less extreme admirers and each of those supporters is buoyed, in turn, by a larger group of sympathizers. These connections are continuous right down to the bottom of the pyramid, where vaguely sympathetic in-group members are offended by the very extremists who would have no base, and no basis, without them. It is that vague sympathy which needs to be examined.”
* Ethnic networking exists; Jewish ethnocentrism is real; Jews in the US are powerful: but, this is not the dominant, let alone crucial element in the policies of 3rd world immigration swamping, PC muzzle, growing plutocracy & elitism, anti-Euro-American rhetoric in the academia etc.
* There are two sides of the Anglo regard toward Jews, exemplified by the expression, within living memory common among the English, “un-British,” which meant “Jewish.” Like another insular culture’s linguistic distinction of outsiders, “un-British” has its counterpart in the Japanese gaijin.
There is in my experience actually a great deal more evidence of British, especially English, fond romanticizing of Arabs and even of all of Islam, than there is of English fondness for Jews and Judaism.
William Blake’s “Jerusalem” posits the English not as the historical Jewish center of Judeo-Christian culture, but as blessed with the New Testament (New Covenant) opportunity of building “Jerusalem” as the new, English center of Western Civilization “in England’s green and pleasant land.” It is and it remains a distinctly Anglican-Protestant thesis.
Posted inJews|Comments Off on Why Does Organized Jewry Have A Problem With Nativism?
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
This put them on edge. You can see it in the debate. Stephens actually plays the 