Steve Sailer writes: The statespersons of Europe seem baffled over what to do to prevent a large fraction of the 1.1 billion people of Africa from climbing into boats and inundating the heart of Christendom.
One possibility, however, is to do what the Australian government has done with a fair degree of success: post a video on Youtube telling would be Camp of Saintsers that they won’t be let into Australia, so don’t bother trying.
It’s so crazy it just seems to be working!
Nazi invasion of London EXPOSED: World’s top Holocaust deniers… filmed at secret race hate rally where Jews are referred to as the ‘enemy’
Shocking rally seen by undercover team at Grosvenor Hotel saw several speakers unleash sick anti-Semitic rants
Comes as UK marks largest ever Holocaust remembrance event tomorrow, 70 years after Bergen-Belsen liberation
Nazi sympathisers at meeting laughed at Charlie Hebdo massacre and cheered at the mention of Spanish Fascists
Star speaker at rally was self-confessed Nazi Pedro Varela, 57, whose adoration for Adolf Hitler is unrivalled
Wow, this is truly shocking. There was a gathering in London of a group of people whose interests are at odds with the interests of other groups, including Jews. This is the worst thing ever. Nobody should be allowed to question conventional historical narratives. How dare they? The Holocaust belongs to the Jews. Non-Jewish critics of Jews must be crushed.
“Nazi sympathisers, Holocaust deniers and their supporters from across the world have held a sickening secret rally in Britain at which speakers unleashed anti-Semitic rants, referring to Jews as ‘the enemy’ and ‘children of darkness’.”
Well, Jews have enemies and Jews use negative language about their enemies, so what is so shocking that this group regards Jews as their enemy?
In my morning Jewish prayers, there’s a special mention of how rotten Amalek is, and “Amalek” can function flexibly in Jewish life to refer to anyone we don’t like, such as Nazis and Palestinians.
As I wrote recently: Every nationalism contains a victimology and every victimology a nationalism.
From the RCA Artscroll Siddur (Jewish prayer book): The Torah commands that six events be remembered always. Consequently, some authorities maintain that the verses containing these commandments should be recited daily. #3 REMEMBRANCE OF AMALEK’S ATTACK (Deuteronomy 25:17-19): “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way, as you departed from Egypt, How he encountered you on the way and cut down the weaklings trailing behind you, while you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear God. It shall be that when HaShem, your God, lets you rest from your surrounding enemies, in the land that HaShem, your God, gives you as a heritage to bequeath; you are to erase the memory of Amalek from beneath the heaven. Do not forget.”
When Jewish groups campaign for laws against hate speech, is banning this sort of thing what they have in mind?
How is wishing the complete erasure of a group of people not a call for genocide? Why stir up hatred against a people for something their ancestors did?
I put “Amalek Palestinians” into Google and got 42,000 results. “Amalek” is a flexible term that Jews can use on their enemies.
I have no problem with this. I have no objection to Judaism. I have no objection to Jewish texts that say negative things about Jews and non-Jews. I have no objection to Judaism commanding us to wish every day to wipe out Amalek. My objection is when Jewish groups campaign to ban racial and religious vilification but never consider applying these rules to their own group. This is why I started Jews for Consistency, a group dedicated to monitoring Jewish groups to make sure they never seek for non-Jews anything different from what they seek for themselves.
* I covered book publishing for more than 15 years as a reporter, up till the early 2000s, and during that time it was my impression that the editorial side of the business was about 3/4 female, and that many if not most of the men were gay. (It’s a very unappealing field for a straight white male to get involved in.)
And sure, IMHO at least, that fact definitely affects the kinds of books that get published. If boys are reading books less than they once did, that’s at least partly because books (especially fiction) have become a lot less alluring and entertaining (in a boy sense) than they used to be.
Another thing to recall: book-publishing gals don’t tend to be earthy, showbizzy, rock and roll, or motherly types. They’re English-major types, generally. Recall the smartest girls from your college Lit class — that’s the kind of person the book publishing industry is largely staffed by. In another era we wouldn’t have been shy about referring to many of them as librarian or even blue-stocking types. Not the sorts of people whose work is likely to attract the attention of a lot of irreverent, rowdy boys.
* Back in the 90′s, some national organization of bookstores estimated that blacks, who were thirteen percent of the population, were buying one percent of the books sold in the country. Of course, they were lamenting that fact, and blaming whitey for it. But I doubt if that percentage has changed much at all, because the simple fact is that the vast majority of blacks have zero interest in reading. And the books they do buy tend to be trash, and I’m not talking about Toni Morrison or Maya Angelou level hogwash. I’m talking about stuff like Baby Momma Drama and Confessions of a Side Bitch.
* This seems way off to me. Pop publishing for black audiences is a major niche market — go to any Barnes and Nobles in the Northeast or an area with a significant black population and you will see lots and lots of books on the shelves by black authors for black audiences. Black romance (some of which is effectively soft core porn) is a huge genre, so is self-help and religious/christian. Black editors must play a major role in this business.
At the fancier/more literary level, blacks have done pretty well in the major literary award/prestige sweepstakes — James Baldwin and Ralph Ellison back in the day, Toni Morrison today (whatever you think of her she has been very successful in those circles), lots of respected mid-range authors like James Ellroy (genre), Colson Whitehead (literary) etc. When you consider that blacks are just 12% of the population they seem if anything overrepresented in literature at lots of different levels. As they are in many of the creative/performance fields.
* There’s nothing special about books. Many people are prone to get sentimental and/or pompous about “the book,” but in reality “the book” is just a container for content of one sort or another. Books don’t automatically mean wisdom, seriousness, significance or permanence, let alone immortality — most books that are made wind up getting pulped (as in not-sold, and then chewed up by giant machines). Many are dopily commercial, many are padded-out magazine articles or short stories, the fact-checking in many nonfiction books is worse than the fact-checking is (or at least was) at magazines … The idea that the book industry of the past did a lot of responsible caretaking of the culture is a myth. Some publishers and editors did, but a lot of them were pirates, opportunists and bandits.
And now that we have digital electronics, publishing material in book form often doesn’t make a lot of sense. There are often more appealing options. Reference works benefit from constant updating, multimedia and hyperlinks; there are many statements that are better made at shorter rather than longer length; fiction is easier and often more appealing to digest when it’s acted-out and made visual; blogging and social-networking technologies make getting ideas, jokes and observations out in public a lot faster and easier than ever before. Think about the quality, the brains, the quickness and the humor that we Steve fans get from Steve on a near-daily basis, for instance. Those are huge virtues that no book or book-publisher can match. And electronics have enabled lots of people who couldn’t get published before to join in the general cultural conversation. That’s made the conversation a lot richer than it used to be.
What mainly strikes me these days when I prowl a bookstore handling new books is the question, “Did this really need to be a book?” And I’m often struck by the impression that the editors, agents and authors wrestled with that question too. (If you’ve been in and around book publishing, you experience bookstores very differently than civilians do — you see the books, and understand the books, as so many publishing decisions.) Often the answer seems to me to be “No.” A substantial book might take me ten or fifteen hours to read. How many subjects do I really have that much interest in? Very few. Meanwhile, the number of subjects I’ve got a couple of minutes’ or a couple of hours’ worth of interest in is gigantic.
Focusing on “the book” per se often seems to me to be as misguided as focusing on the ad campaign instead of the movie, or focusing on the can instead of the food inside. The important thing is the material, not the packaging.
I say all this as someone who was a bookish kid and who still enjoys book-reading a lot, by the way. 15 years in and around the book biz will burn a lot of illusions off a person, though.
I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that the business is antagonistic to straight guys, though. An ambitious, dynamic, talented male youngster could make a big impact. That said, if that youngster were in many visible ways un (or anti)-PC I think he’d have a very hard time. (There always seem to be some slots for contrarians, though.) What’s happened is a more general, self-reinforcing thing: as the business of book publishing has become more corporate and more female, it’s become more bland and more worthy. And as that has happened (and as other technologies and media have proliferated), boys have lost interest in books and turned their energies and enthusiasms to other fields. I mean: Is the elementary-school world anti-male? I imagine a straight guy could land a job as an elementary school teacher if he really wanted to. But in practical fact there aren’t many straight guys who want to, because, hey, what’s really in it for them?
Nope, there are very few black people in the mainstream publishing business. That’s just a fact of life, and the business subjects itself to regular throes of self-flagellation about it. And reading and writing just aren’t the factors in black life that they are in (say) Jewish life or educated-Brit life. But that certainly doesn’t mean there are no black readers or writers. And black publishing, writing and reading are really interesting topics anyway — I did a lot of reporting about it over the years. There used to be a fairly large number of black bookstores as well as small publishers publishing black writers and catering to black readers. That’s less the case these days — as with book publishing and selling generally, many stores and publishers have closed up shop. As for mainstream publishing, every now and then some phenom (like Terry McMillan) will come along, sell like mad, cause a huge fuss at bookstores and leave publishers thinking, “Good lord, so there *is* a market for black-oriented books after all!” (I liked Terry McMillan’s early novels a lot, fwiw.) But then it all disappears to virtually nothing until the next phenom comes along. But as you point out, there are fairly lively subgenres (erotica, romance, etc) that do cater to black people. But generally speaking black people don’t read or write books (or get involved in the book publishing biz) in anything like the numbers that some other populations do. They’ve got their own verbal traditions: preaching, rap, storytelling, standup, playing the dozens, etc.
* The short version is that everything that is natural for a boy to do is wrong, nonconformist or violent. It seems a short step to me that the same gender that creates its own paper superiority (at who knows what innovation sacrifice) would be similarly bigoted in making decisions regarding what to publish. However, I am acclimatizing to the third world.
Fifteen years ago I remember resolving not to help a choking baby or girl so no angry crowd would mistake me for a pervert. Now when I talk to my age group, we want to survive, we want to not feel this way about our country, but we clearly are looking at keeping quiet in word and deed as a necessary survival strategy. Is whatever we have to offer our country in terms of really applying ourselves (as opposed to dropping out, disconnecting, NEETing and so forth) really worth the undisguised hatred and aggressive violence our country offers to us?
REPORT: Tehran (AFP) – Iran is not willing to accept its nationals being forcibly deported from Australia but will welcome back citizens of their own free will, a top official warned Sunday.
The remarks by deputy foreign minister Hassan Ghashgavi came as Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop visited Tehran but failed to make a breakthrough on a long-running immigration dispute.
Ghashgavi, whose brief covers consular affairs, signalled the two countries are widely at odds and he even launched a thinly veiled dig at foreign states who send people back to their place of origin.
“Any forced deportation is contrary to human rights, but we believe that the voluntary return of every Iranian to his country is not a problem,” the ISNA news agency quoted him as saying.
“All immigration countries make a selection. They welcome those they consider useful to their society… and reject others to be forcib ly deported.”
Iranians make up 23 percent of 1,848 people held in immigration detention centres in Australia, according to official figures from late March.
Under a hardline policy, asylum-seekers arriving by boat in Australia are subject to mandatory detention, and since 2013 have been denied resettlement even if found to be genuine refugees.
LINK: Zerangi can be both ethical and unethical. Coming to America and starting a successful business? That’s zerangi. Finding a way to avoid paying taxes? Also zerangi.
(Hey, David Brooks, if you are reading this, tell Obama to tell Kerry to make that a priority in the nuke negotiations: full extradition of all Iranians. Iran will send us back all the Iranian crooks who ripped off Americans for us to imprison and America will send Iran back all the Iranian crooks who ripped off Iranians for them to imprison. There will be tumbleweeds blowing in the streets of Beverly Hills.)
COMMENTS TO STEVE SAILER:
* This attitude of cutting corners, breaking the law if one is confident you won’t get caught, believing that cheating is a sign of being smart, etc. is common to many societies, not just Iran (you’ll see it in Latin America, Italy, and many other places).
* One can only hope that Iranians in the U.S. will assimilate but how many groups can a society absorb before people stop buying the narrative and there is no longer any predominate group? If they are surrounded by a native culture (the former blondes) that value trust and honesty, over time they would need to conform or be frozen out of local commerce. If there is chaos and no predominate group, they have no pressure to change.
* Years ago there was a scandal it the Los Angeles city purchasing department. An Iranian immigrant and his American buddy had city credit cards and ran up about 1.5 million in overcharges that were kicked back to them. The Iranian found out about the audit (probably another Iranian immigrant) and fled to Iran. The poor American sap had no place to hide.
* “Zerangi” sounds like “Ferengi”, one of the ET races from Star Trek. Not only do the words sound similar, but the Ferengi are depicted as a savvy mercantile culture:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi
They and their culture are characterized by a mercantile obsession with profit and trade, and their constant efforts to swindle unwary customers into unfair deals.
They’ve also been criticized as depicting anti-Semitic stereotypes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi#Interpretation_as_a_parody_of_Judaism
* Can anyone with experience discuss the cultural differences between Arabs and Iranians with regards to these things? The Arabs I’ve known have come across as almost hopelessly naive and idealistic, which would explain their attraction to fundamentalist religious movements. At the same time, they’re weirdly dishonest although very bad at it.
* That ain’t unique to Iran, that’s pretty much the entire non-Germanic/Japanese/Anglo world.
* We must appear as fat dumb gullible sheep to the world. Don’t get me started on the Russians!
* The term “oligarch” unfortunately wasn’t known in America in the mid-1970s when the Shah’s friends started buying bolt-holes in the Hollywood Hills for the coming days of retribution for their thievery.
* Zerangi and the popular admiration of those who display it is not unique to Iranians, as the same outlook is found in all Mohammedan societies and in a great many Moslems.
Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, who has extensive experience of counseling Moslems in Denmark, has written a great deal on the mindset, outlook and behavior of Moslems, who hold themselves blameless because they see everyone and everything else as forces arrayed against them and thus causing and responsible for their behavior.
* Google Books has a few more interesting uses of zerangi:
Zerangi then means “cleverness,” being able to deceive others. Whereas in English this immediately conjures negative connotations, in Persian, it is an ability that is admired and aspired to… This leads to a cultural standard of generally not trusting people; yet not mistrusting in a negative sense, but being expectant of zerangi — it is “part of the game”.
The notion of “zerangi” has a convoluted cultural connotation that far exceeds the straightforward meaning of “cleverness.” It implies the presence of a special, desirable intelligence that takes advantage of an immediate situation, with no regard for larger societal considerations, personal convictions, or moral scruples.
As one specialist noted, Iranians often tried to substitute outward cleverness, or zerangi, for the alternative of putting a substantial effort into a task, and “studying it, by blood, sweat, and tears, so to speak.”
* The Iranian writer F.M. Esfandiary back in the 1960′s wrote about how Middle Eastern tribes lie about their wealth and hide it from outsiders. “The Beggar Rich”
* Arabs are also notorious conspiracy-mongers, attributing all of their failures to dark forces outside their control. With some exceptions (almost completely correlated to the influence of Christianity, i.e., Lebanese and to a letter extent Syrians and Jordanians), they also shun accountability — this is most visible in places like Qatar, where the people are rich and coddled and don’t have to be accountable to anyone or risk material failure, yet still embody the zerangi mindset.
A related character trait in Arabs, shared by other eastern cultures, is the complete lack of directness and transparency (polar opposite to Germans, Dutch, and Scandanavians). An Arab will not tell you no directly, and will think that being honest and transparent tips his hand too much while he’s angling to screw you.
The upshot, I think, is that the “golden rule,” which so elementally defines Western, and especially Anglo-Saxon, culture, simply doesn’t exist in these societies.
* Everything said about Iranians also probably applies to Indians: the tendency to blame corrupt officials while secretly envying them, foreign invaders, Western powers; the blurred lines between cleverness, ingenuity, and cunning.
Steve Sailer writes: A simple reform would be to modernize the refugee application system to the 21st Century and run it solely over the Internet. You can apply from your local Internet cafe in your own country, and if you are Einstein, Solzhenitsyn, or Coetzee, you get in. If you aren’t, too bad, stay home. If you show up without your application being already approved, you get a year in a work camp and a one way ticket home.
This would stop the drownings quick.
The current refugee system is like if you showed up at Harvard in person and demanded they let you be a student, so they say, well, we’ll take a couple of semesters to process your application, so in the meantime here’s the Harvard course catalog!
Funny how Harvard doesn’t work that way.
From 1978: When the Jew is beaten, G-d is profaned! When the Jew is humiliated – G-d is desecrated! When the Jewish is beaten, G-d is profaned! When the Jew is humiliated – G-d is shamed! When the Jew is attacked – it is an assault upon the Name of G-d!
“And when they entered the nations (exiles) thy profaned my holy Name.”
Israel is Kiddush Hashem!
Happiness for the Jew is watching the Phantoms zoom past the roofs of Zion and Jewish children shouting and waving at them. It is seeing “Jewish planes” after existing in a world for so many years in which every planes was “theirs”; in a world in which planes spit their deadly bullets into Jews, their swastika markings etched into Jewish souls as they pronounced “Auschwitz’ upon us; in a world of planes wearing British refugee ship bullseyes which guaranteed that a limping refuge ship would be stopped before it could reach the gates of Zion. But those days are over and will never return because today there are Jewish planes too and only those who endured the enemy when there was no such thing can understand true happiness and security.
Happiness, watching the tanks roll by, huge awesome and once. But above all, happiness is to watch the soldiers, our soldiers. How young they look and how touch they are. Their backs straight and their heads high and their Uzis held just so, There faces and bodies strong and tanned and one can understand the frustration of Sadat – such Jews are, indeed, a disturbing lot….
Happiness is watching the Jewish army and knowing that the spirit of Zion cannot live without a body and that this army is the guarantor of that body’s existence.
I’m watching this documentary made on Neal Gabler’s book about Jews in Hollywood and I’m asking — what if every one else acted like me and my group?
Neal Gabler says the American dream was born in Eastern Europe.
That’s absurd. America was created by Protestants, overwhelmingly descended from Britain. The American dream of a home of your own was not something that Jews invented.
The narrator from the Neal Gabler documentary says: “Among these immigrants were the future founders of the studios, but they brought with them a new vision of America. Hollywood was a dream dreamt by Jews.”
Expert: “I’m not sure there was an American dream before the Jews came to Hollywood and invented it. Today we have a popular culture that creates dreams.”
Narrator: “The moguls created the images, the icons, and the visual forms that we identify with the American way of life.
Neal Gabler: “They created their own America, an America which is not the real America, but it is their own version of the real America, but ultimately this shadow America becomes so popular that its images and values come to devour the real America. Americans come to define themselves by the shadow America created by Eastern European Jews.”
“Anyone anywhere could identify with so many of the themes of American movies, one of which was the identity of the outsiders. Jews being outsiders making movies about outsiders.”
Narrator: “Identification with the little guy, the prize fighters, the loner, and the gangsters.”
If I were a goy, I’m not sure I’d be thrilled to be told that the American dream was invented by Eastern European Jews. I understand Jews may regard themselves as a moral light to Gentiles, but as a goy, I’m not sure I would be thrilled with this attitude. The Jews who created Hollywood were far from moral exemplars. The Jews who run Hollywood today are not paragons of righteousness. They’re expert storytellers, but their values are not my values (speaking as an imaginary goy or as an imaginary Muslim or as an Orthodox Jew).
When the documentary describes the misery of Eastern European Jews, it does not mention that these Jews, in general, had life easier than did the goyim around them. The documentary does not mention that the loathing between Jews and Gentiles in Eastern Europe was mutual and that the goyish dislike for Jews had some basis in the reality of things Jews did (whether it was excelling the goy in open competition or in selling the goy cheap liquor or cheap credit and outdoing him in business, see the book Esau’s Tears by Albert S. Lindemann). Over the past 600 years in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews had more prosperous lives than their Gentile neighbors.
The documentary says that in Eastern Europe, the Jews “were permanent outsiders.” Yes, but wasn’t that in part because of Jewish choice? Jews have long conceived of themselves as a people who dwell alone. If Jews cease to be outsiders in a Gentile land, they start assimilating and stop being Jews. What’s to keep them apart from the goyim if they do not see themselves as a separate people?
Jewish separation has long been as much of a choice by Jews as it has been discrimination by gentiles. A gentile in Israel is always going to be an outsider. The Torah makes no provision for non-Jewish citizenship in the Jewish state. Maimonides forbids allowing a goy in Israel to even be in charge of water carriers. From a Torah perspective, in the Jewish state, no goy would be allowed any leadership role. So why should Jews expect that gentiles would operate differently towards them in gentile lands?
Expert in the documentary: “Most Jews had no positive feelings about the Old Country. Many Jews talked about their last moment in Russia when they would turn around and spit.”
Well, the Old Country felt the same way about them. As an American goy, I would not like the importation of millions of Jews who’ve lived for centuries with loathing for the goyim around them. I would fear that these Jewish immigrants would bring that same loathing for the goy with them to America. Why would America want to import that?
WASPs don’t tend to make as strong in-group vs out-group distinctions as the rest of the world. After the massive immigration of Jews into America, WASPs are at a competitive disadvantage competing with those who have strong in-group loyalties.
Since as far back as the Civil War, a solid majority of Americans have opposed more immigration but they’ve rarely had a chance to cast a meaningful vote in this direction. Immigration was imposed on America against the will of most of its citizens.
Narrator: “When Jews arrived in America, they thought they had found a place where the little guy could make it to the top. Instead they found a Protestant elite whose mission was to educate the immigrants and keep them in their place.”
I don’t see what’s so horrible about a country educating immigrants in the ways of the new land. I don’t see what’s so horrible about an elite trying to keep immigrants in their place. Jews tend to do the same thing with converts to Judaism. This is a universal phenomena. I can’t imagine a country that welcome immigrants and encourages them to take over. America has been as welcoming to immigrants as any country in history.
If the Protestant elite was bent on keeping Jews in their place, they did a lousy job of it because America’s new elites are more likely to be Jewish than WASP. Is America better for that? I am sure in some ways it is better and in some ways it is worse.
As Paul Gottfried wrote recently:
The Eastern European Jews (not the central European ones, as Goldberg incorrectly states) were far less well-disposed toward Gentiles. They came from societies where they had nothing much to do with non-Jews, and what few interactions took place were full of mutual loathing
Eastern European Jews formed alliances with others whom they viewed as marginalized. As Toronto social historian David Verbeeten demonstrates in a dissertation on Jewish philanthropies in the US, the rise to positions of authority by Eastern European Jews in Jewish organizations formerly run by Sephardic and German Jews resulted almost inevitably in moving these operations toward the Left.
This change in personnel also resulted in making Christian anti-Semitism and Zionism major focal points in American Jewish organizations. But the Leftist radicalization did not bring with it any alienation from Jewish national causes. Eastern European Jews who took over American Jewish philanthropies were usually both on the Left and committed to the creation of a Jewish state.
The documentary says that America initially tried to exclude or limit Jews from honorable professions, but this did not last past the 1960s. This view is presented without the context of Eastern European Jews needing to learn the American way. Paying bribes, for example, was a common practice in Eastern Europe but is regarded as dishonorable in WASP lands. German Jews and Sephardim had similar critiques to the Protestants of Eastern Europeans Jews, which is why German Jews and Sephardim have tended to vote along similar lines to the Protestants (just to the left of them). Most of the critiques of Jews by non-Jews in the West have been echoed by Jews (see the book Esau’s Tears).
Documentary: “Hollywood’s future founders quickly distinguished themselves as risk-takers and innovators.”
This “risk-taking” is praised in the documentary but it has a dark side. When Jews have taken big risks in finance and Wall Street, for instance, it has not only been Jews who have paid the price for their buccaneering. When Hollywood has been risky with its glorification of excess, it has not only been Jews who have paid the price.
It is easier to take risks with money and land that is not your own, with alien cultures rather than with your own culture. Judaism has a conservative risk-averse approach to life and yet Jews have often take the opposite approach outside of the Torah world. Similarly, Jewish organizations push for unlimited immigration into America but not to Israel and not into the Jewish people (conversion standards are getting stricter).
Blacks are shockingly portrayed in early Hollywood as dancing in saloons and fighting over women, behavior that is entirely unknown to blacks. This is the most vicious bigotry.
Expert: “Until the immigrants and and learn to be old stock, they’re not really in it yet.”
This is the worst thing ever! Luckily, Jews will teach America how to be multicultural as Judaism is all about celebrating diversity!
The 1916 movie Birth of a Nation is the crowning glory of pre-Jewish cinema. The explicitly racist story is about blacks raping white women (a behavior unknown among blacks) until the blacks are driven off by the KKK (an organization that is the embodiment of evil because it stands up for WASPs).
One of the horrible things about this movie is that it “played upon white America’s fears of racial intermixing.” Judaism, by contrast, is much more enlightened and is all about going to be with out-groups.
Forgive my sarcasm. I have no doubt that there are Jews and there are parts of Judaism that outshine some of the gentile world but just because Jews do something does not mean that they are automatically a light unto the nations. This widespread attitude in much of Jewish life that Jews are automatically superior to the Gentiles is a universal trait among all strongly identifying in-groups but not necessarily true.
Jewish Hollywood has long promoted out-marriage because (1) it makes for good stories and (2) it has been perceived as good for Jews. If Jews could marry into the elite, that meant nothing in America was denied to them.
Documentary: “Hollywood Jews might have wanted to marry into White America, but when it came to music, Hollywood composers looked to Black America.”
Hasia Diner: “Jews served as messengers of black culture. They took it, consumed it, integrated it into their own cultural repetoir and then introduced it to White America that was willing to listen to Jews and partake of what Jews had to offer in a way they would not from blacks.”
I see many wonderful things in introducing black culture into white America, but I also see some downsides. This, however, is not explored in the documentary. Have whites, for example, been influenced by Hollywood to imitate black levels of promiscuity and spontaneity?
If I were a white goy unhappy with the decline of the white race, I might have some resentment towards Hollywood Jews.
“In writing lyrics, Jews turned to immigrant concerns…”
So when Gentiles made movies, they made them with a gentile perspective attuned to gentile concerns, while when Jews made movies, they made them from a Jewish perspective attuned to Jewish concerns.
“The Jewish moguls took a different attitude to African-Americans than did the pre-Jewish filmmakers.”
Is America better or worse for that? Jews funded the Civil Rights war, raising the rights of minorities at the cost of the majority. Is America better off that Americans have lost control of their country to aggrieved minority groups?
“In Hollywood, Jews trying to pass as Gentiles made films about blacks trying to pass as whites.”
I’m imagining now that I am a Jewish Israeli and I have watched immigrant non-Jews come to Israel and dominate the entertainment industry, producing shows attuned to their concerns. As an Israeli Jew, I would not be happy about immigrant goyim coming to the Holy Land and writing songs and movies integrating the perspectives of Palestinians and other downtrodden goyim. So why would a white goy who strongly identifies as a white goy be thrilled with alien groups taking over his culture? Jewish-American political scientist Paul Gottfried argues that Jews have made American culture and politics worse with their left-wing radical Eastern European ethos.
The documentary notes how wonderful it is that Jews wrote many Christmas songs. As goy Steve Sailer wrote: “The Christmas songs that Jews wrote seldom involved religion…” If I were a believing Christian, I would not be thrilled with this subversion of my sacred holiday.
Different groups have different interests. What is good for Jews is not identical to what is good for non-Jewish whites, for blacks, Muslims, Chinese, etc. So when Jews rise in power and come to dominate industries, that has repercussions for everyone else. One group never rises in power without some other group falling in power. Losing power for a group eventually becomes a matter of life and death. In nature, gorillas either expand their territory against rival tribes, killing the males and raping the women, or their territory is invaded, their males are killed and their women raped. So too with people. The powerless get decimated while the powerful get more of what they want.
When Jews or blacks or WASPs or any group grow in power and wealth, they get more sexual access to what they want, which comes at a price to other groups.
In an even fight, Jews are going to dominate many areas of life because they have Jewish gifts such as superior intelligence, drive and in-group solidarity. Different groups have different gifts.
“American musicals were based on classic stories reinterpreted from a Jewish perspective.”
If I were a goy, I’m not sure I would be thrilled with this. If I were an Israeli Jew, I would not be thrilled by an entertainment industry that was dominated by Gentiles who reinterpreted Jewish stories with a Gentile perspective.
“None of them are overtly about Jews but they’re all about Jewish concerns.”
“Irving Berlin did more than any composer to Americanize Jewish aspirations. To understand Berlin is to understand the Hollywood moguls.”
REPORT: A language barrier initially hindered the investigation, Police Chief Toussaint Summers Jr. said.
“The first officers who arrived on scene observed the suspect with a knife,” he told The Associated Press. “They gave him commands and he complied with the commands.”
The quiet neighborhood near railroad tracks was shattered by police activity when officers responded to a call of a man with a knife on Pasteur St. at 11 p.m. Cops searching the victim’s home found two children dead inside and a third, who died at CarolinaEast Medical Center…
“It’s just really hard right now,” said Susan Husson, who likely helped both Htoo and his victims settle in the city through her work as the director of the Interfaith Refugee Ministry. “It’s been really horrific.”
WP: About 17 percent of people 14 to 49 in the U.S. have genital herpes caused by the HSV-2 infection, the CDC reports. There is enormous racial disparity, according to the most recent CDC data, with more than 40 percent of non-Hispanic black women diagnosed with the infection, compared to less than 20 percent of non-Hispanic white women. Condom use reduces but does not eliminate risk of infection. Skin-to-skin contact, even when no sores are present, can spread the virus.
