Evidence: The latest and most comprehensive study published in the British Medical Journal showed the Alexander Technique can reduce back pain by a staggering 85%, offering more significant long-term benefits than having a massage or standard medical care.
How it works: Students learn to recognise, understand and prevent the consequences of poor postural and movement habits. By improving postural tone, co-ordination, mobility and balance, they experience a significant reduction in back pain. Dr Al-Kashi says: “In one particular study, the benefit was not only sustained up to the 12-month follow-up but continued.”
Cost: A course of 20-30 sessions, at around £40 each, is normally recommended. Contact the Society of Teachers of the Alexander Technique ( stat.org.uk ) for your nearest practitioner.
Dennis Prager writes: Whenever I have received a call from a listener to my radio show challenging Israel’s legitimacy, I have asked these people if they ever called a radio show to challenge any other country’s legitimacy. In particular, I ask, have they ever questioned the legitimacy of Pakistan?
The answer, of course, is always “no.” In fact, no caller ever understood why I even mentioned Pakistan.
There are two reasons for this.
First, of all the 200-plus countries in the world, only Israel’s legitimacy is challenged. So mentioning any other country seems strange to a caller. Second, almost no one outside of India and Pakistan knows anything about the founding of Pakistan.
Only months before the U.N. adopted a proposal to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state in 1947, India was partitioned into a Muslim and a Hindu state. The Hindu state was, of course, India. And the Muslim state became known as Pakistan. It comprises 310,000 square miles, about 40,000 square miles larger than Texas.
In both cases, the declaration of an independent state resulted in violence. As soon as the newly established state of Israel was declared in May 1948, it was invaded by six Arab armies. And the partition of India led to a terrible violence between Muslims and Hindus.
According to the final report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission from Dec. 28, 1949, the 1948 war of Israel’s independence created 726,000 Arabs refugees. Many sources put the figure at about 200,000 less. A roughly equal number of Jewish refugees — approximately 700,000 — were created when they were forcibly expelled from the Arab countries where they had lived for countless generations. In addition, approximately 10,000 Arabs were killed in the fighting that ensued after the Arab invasion of Israel.
Now let’s turn to the creation of Pakistan. According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, the creation of Pakistan resulted in 14 million refugees — Hindus fleeing Pakistan and Muslims fleeing India. Assuming a 50-50 split, the creation of Pakistan produced about seven million Hindu refugees — at least 10 times the number of Arab refugees that resulted from the war surrounding Israel’s creation. And the Mideast war, it should be recalled, was started by the Arab nations surrounding Israel. Were it not for the Arab rejection of Israel’s creation (and existence within any borders) and the subsequent Arab invasion, there would have been no Arab refugees.
And regarding deaths, the highest estimate of Arab deaths during the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine is 10,000. The number of deaths that resulted from the creation of Pakistan is around one million.
This writer carries no brief for Israel. All that is written and argued about “Israel’s right to exist” is nonsense. Neither Israel nor the United States nor any other nation has a right to exist. A state’s ability to survive depends solely on its own social cohesion, economic viability, and domestic political, international, and military behavior and actions, not on some non-existent right the Israel-First lobby dreamed-up to use to propagandized the American people into eternally supporting a nation that is completely irrelevant — and, indeed, bloodily counter-productive — to genuine U.S. national security interests.
That said, Israel and all nation-states have an absolute right to defend themselves in the manner they deem mandatory for their survival. In the now-dying Western democracies that defense includes the process of national elections to choose national political leaders. For a foreign nation to interfere in such elections — as the disloyal U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters and Mexican governments routinely do in U.S. elections — is to undermine the intervened-in nation’s absolute right of self-defense. The Obama administration’s State Department apparently identified disloyal Israeli citizens in Israel and transferred to them at least $350,000 for to use in a campaign meant to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in the recent Israeli election. Such intervention is tantamount to an act of war, just as it is criminal negligence for any government to refuse to identify and aggressively prosecute those of its citizens who use foreign money to influence a national election.
JEFF* says: Dennis Prager knows nothing about the partition of India and apparently very little about the founding of Israel as well.
This has nothing to do with a state’s legitimacy or its right to defend itself (both of which are dealt with better in Scheuer’s piece) but with propaganda to deliberately misstate established historical facts.
In the case of India and Pakistan, the division of British Imperial India into West Pakistan, India and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was agreed to by the parties. As far as I know, the Arabs never agreed to the partition of Palestine. Not all Muslims fled the new India for Pakistan. India is the country with the second largest number of Muslims, after Indonesia and well ahead of Pakistan. Neither the Indians nor Pakistanis were European refugees. With the exception of Kashmir in which the Indian government persuaded the ruling prince to join India rather than allow a plebiscite in the majority Muslim state, there was little fighting between Indian and Pakistani forces. There are many histories of this. I would refer him to Nirad Choudhuri, or even for popular history Collins and LaPierre, but if he paid attention to the movie Gandhi he would have evinced a higher understanding than his comments you quoted.
Prager states that 700,000 Jews were expelled by Arab states at the same time as Israel was founded. This is not true. Ultimately 700,000 Jews emigrated to Israel, but this was after the war of Independence and most of them were not “expelled.” Many of them regretted coming to Israel.
Prager minimizes the impact of the War of Independence by saying 10,000 Arabs were killed. When one considers that he means civilians, it is a pretty fucked up statement. Benny Morris, Tom Segev and other respected Israeli historians show that the neighboring Arab states never asked the native Palestinians to flee until their armies could come in and defeat the nascent Jewish state. Ari Shavit writes in great detail about the war crimes perpetrated by Israel to ethnically cleanse Arab areas desired by the Israeli government. Perhaps these people weren’t killed, but they were forced out of ancestral houses and land at gunpoint with only what they could carry or load in an oxcart.
Posted inIsrael|Comments Off on Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel?
Blacks die sooner than whites. How many votes has this cost Democrats?
Research has shown that blacks are not dying in excess because of differences in genetic endowment or health behavior. Instead, health disparities reflect racial and class inequality and an accumulation of stressors, including segregation, discrimination, exposure to pollution and unequal access to health-care resources, to name a few.
These social determinants of health depend to a great extent on politics. Thus, the harsher physical and social environment that blacks face is the direct and indirect result of political decisions, past and present.
Ultimately, the authors point out a troubling feedback effect whereby premature deaths among blacks affect the balance of political power among blacks and whites in the United States. And given the differences between blacks and whites in their political agendas and policy views, excess black death rates weaken overall support for policies — such as antipoverty programs, public education and job training — that affect the social status (and, therefore, health status) of blacks and many non-blacks, too.
The tragic deaths of unarmed black men have again generated conversations about racial inequality in the United States. This paper shows us another way in which “black lives matter” — one that affects a key element of our representative democracy: the composition of the electorate. For this reason, excess mortality of blacks relative to whites has consequences not only for the health of blacks but also for the health of our democracy.
The article makes no mention of whites having a lower life expectancy than asians. Life expectancy correlates with IQ.
Posted inAsians, Blacks, IQ, Race, Whites|Comments Off on Whites die sooner than Asians. How many votes has this cost Republicans?
This helps explains Fox News’s pro-immigrant slant.
A column in the Guardian complains that Britain’s right-wing press doomed Labor in last week’s election: “… the Sun, which – under instructions from its owner, Rupert Murdoch – has been careful to avoid overt criticism of immigration.”
Posted inEngland, Immigration|Comments Off on Rupert Murdoch – Friend To Immigrants
* The main problem the NYT has to contend with is that it was the black DA for Baltimore who charged the black van driver with the worst charges. So it really doesn’t matter how the NYT spins the story, from this point.
As to the charges themselves, it appears that everyone involved in the apprehension, arrest, and transport of Freddie is being held equally culpable. Legalistically, that seems to imply the kind of collective responsibility you would see in a conspiracy case or a felony murder case. But that doesn’t seem to apply here, either. I think this was a case where both barrels of a shotgun of charges were fired, in the hopes that someone will turn on the others, although I think it is more likely that it was done for PR reasons, in response to the mob.
If Freddie suffered the injury that would kill him it was probably during the pursuit and arrest, but those three officers can’t be held culpable for whatever happened to him in the van. At most, then, Freddie suffered a tort up to and including his arrest (which, depending on who you consult, was a legitimate arrest.) The three street officers are not responsible for his death.
As to the three van officers, it’s hard to establish, first, that the nature of the injury was as serious as it turned out to be, whether the delay in getting Freddie to the hospital was consequential in terms of his death, and so on. Apparently, the officer who is being charged most harshly, Goodson, was the only one who could have made a determination to take Freddie directly to the hospital, and therefore, theoretically, is liable for his death.
However, this looks like an accidental death. The City faces a civil suit, which they will settle in the low millions. I still don’t see evidence of a crime, much less the “total eclipse of the heart” or whatever it is that Officer Goodson is being charged with.
* The lying NYT are as always trying to deflect attention from the simple fact that if young black males are responsible for half the murders then the police – of whatever color – are going to be more hyped up when dealing with young black males.
* “The van driver, Officer Caesar Goodson, also black, is an old-timer at 45. Described by colleagues as “passive,” he never moved up the ranks.”
In any other context, this is the sort of racial stereotype at which the NYT would express outrage. It’s virtually describing Goodson as a lazy old Negro who barely performs his job.
Posted inBlacks|Comments Off on Steve Sailer: NYT Tries to Set Up White Cops to Take the Fall in Baltimore”
* But without BDS, how else will the ADL extort money form elderly Holocaust survivors who are worried that they’re Boycotting the Jews again? You’re assuming this is a bad thing.
* American Jews will distance themselves even more from Israel as the try to stay on the correct side of political correctness. A tenant of PC is selling out and betraying anyone who is not in line. There goes Israel into the dumpster. Truth is Jews like most people are more concerned with money and prestige than principle. They can’t believe their favored status is in jeopardy. Look for a lot of posturing and self abasement.
* Why would Jews ever join with Christian Whites? Protection from the political and economic non-entities comprising NAMs? I just don’t see it.
* “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.
We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”
– Raab, E. (1993). Jewish Bulletin, February 19.
* But what would happen if the irresistible force of the Holocaust met the immovable victimhood of campus grievance groups? My guess? The browns don’t own the newspaper, and may find themselves less useful idiots than previously.
And did anyone see the article on Rubio’s billionaire sponsor today? He’s not Sheldon Adelson, but rest assured, he is pro-Israel. Does this explain Rubio’s gang-of-eight amnesty participation?
* The sooner the Jews figure out the Progressives are going to dump them, and worse, then the sooner the Jews will dump the Progressives. We may actually get a border fence out of this. My favorite quote in the above: “There are so many students who now see Israel as part of the establishment they’re against“. The establishment they are against? Until when? How many of these social justice warriors are going to put on their resume when applying for that law firm opening or an investment banking analyst position or even that job as a Hollywood intern: “BDS Chairman, UCLA?” Good luck at the commune in Oregon.
* Jews are White. Lee Kwan Yew was right. In a multi-racial society, your skin color is your uniform.
* White Westerners are supposed to feel massive guilt over shit that happened in our countries long before we were born, but people from Egypt and other Turd World countries aren’t blamed for the shit that happened in their home countries five minutes ago, while they were alive, and against which they have quite often not uttered a peep of protest.
“Check my privilege”? If you feel so oppressed in the USA, or in Europe, get the hell back to your own country, where I’m sure you were treated like a superstar by folks who look and believe just the same as you.
* JPOST: When we grew up in England of the 1960s and 1970s, the majority of the country’s Jews voted for the Labour Party. This was the party that represented Jewish values of welfare and social responsibility. It was also the party which stood up for minorities, ethnic groups and immigrants….
But if a recent poll of The Jewish Chronicle is to be believed, it appears that, for the first time in British political history, a majority of British Jews will vote for the Conservative Party of David Cameron in this week’s national elections, turning their backs on the first ever Jewish candidate to run on behalf of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband.
* Beverly Hills is full of the families that cashed in on such a criminal scale during the 1970s oil boom in Iran that the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah came to power. Do they ever feel guilty?
* Have you ever met a black person who spoke well of Jews? I haven’t.
Barry’s dissing of Israel (not visiting, for instance) was not only to curry favor with the Arab world but also to keep his black base happy and proud (“Lookie–our man not bowing down to those Jews”).
* What does it matter if Jewish Americans have nine million opinions? What matters is the small, elite minority that controls the piggy banks! Those elites do not have nine million different opinions, when it comes to “Is it good for the Jews?”
* Jews are way over-represented in a mainstream media that pretty clearly has a deep, burning hatred for straight white goy men. Especially Christians and Southerners. Especially strong, masculine ones. Personally, I’ve got nothing against Jews. But I can’t help but think that a lot of them have a whole lot against me and people like me.
* The truly privileged are those who may not be criticized, so the campus jews are really complaining about a loss of privilege. They want to maintain their privilege of being deemed “un-privileged.” This is important because the Left redefined the word “privilege” like the word “racism” to signify its the opposite of its original meaning– so that politically-correct use of the word signals group membership and befuddles ordinary people. The campus jews correctly understand the argument over how they will be labeled as a surface manifestation of a more serious dispute, which is whether jews will remain leaders of the Left movement in America or be cast out, as their ancestors were once purged from Eastern European Communist leadership.
Posted inHolocaust, Jews|Comments Off on NYT: Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities
I can usually keep a cool head but then suddenly I’ll get triggered and my chest will flush and I will feel angry.
I’ve read about the Institute for Historical Review (its detractors call is Holocaust denial), almost all of it negative, but several Jewish friends tell me it is worth hearing IHR make its case. This is hard for me to do because I have been educated that the IHR crowd is evil and should be shunned.
Over the past year, I’ve changed from primarily viewing the world in terms of good and evil (with my group, the Jews, the quintessence of good and our enemies the quintessence of evil) to instead primarily viewing the world in terms of clashing group interests (while maintaining my beliefs about good and evil, God and the divine origins of the Torah, but putting them aside at times to get clarity on clashing group interests).
I am not a historian, but in these three lectures below, Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review, seems to stick to the facts. I disagree with many of his interpretations but I respect his fidelity to facts.
I have not made a study of Mark Weber’s work so I can only comment here on these three lectures.
I may be way off base here, but it seems that Weber is simply a proponent for the interests of his people (whites aka goyim) and that his love of whites necessitates negative views of those groups that hurt the interests of his people. So when Jewish groups push for more non-white immigration into the West, this hurts the solidarity and strength of whites, and thus Weber opposes Jews on this.
Every nationalism, be it Jewish nationalism, white nationalism, black nationalism, Chinese nationalism, Arab nationalism, etc, contains a victimology and negative views of out-groups. The more Jewish/Christian/American/black/asian you get in your identity, the more likely you are to feel suspicion and contempt and even hatred for out-groups.
From the perspective of the major Jewish groups, Jews are safest in cosmopolitan, individualist, atomistic societies such as the US, Australia, England, Canada, France, etc.
As I listened to Mark talk, I thought, what if what is good for my group (Jews) is bad for his group and vice versa? Are Jews and goyim fated for tragic conflict?
For the past 25 years, I’ve thought that what is good for the Jews is good for the world. What is good for the Jews is good for America. What is good for the Jews is good for the Middle East. What is good for the Jews is good for England, France, Germany, Australia, etc.
I’m tending more towards a view that different groups have different interests and that what is good for the Jews is not necessarily good for every other group. Resources are finite. If Jews get more of finite resources such as land and water, does that not mean that other groups get less? On the other hand, if Jews create wealth and prosperity, is that not good for non-Jews? Jews gave the world Google and Facebook and many medical advances. Who can complain about that?
In one lecture, Mark Weber makes clear that nobody in the audience, including him, wants Jews as individuals hurt. They simply want Jewish power reduced so it does not hurt white people.
I remember going to a TV talkshow in Orlando circa 1993 where my rabbi was going up against a guy who was criticizing the Talmud. At the taping, I walked over to a couple burly KKK members in the audience and asked them how they felt about Jews. One guy said, “We have nothing against Jews, we just think they have too much power.” Then my Jewish friends told me to stop talking to the KKK guys and to just ignore them.
I did not get angry listening to Mark Weber. I did not sense that he wanted to put me in a concentration camp. I did not get the sense he was making stuff up to hurt Jews. I simply got the sense that he loved his people as much as I love Jews and just as an identifying Jew may have some fear and contempt for the goyim, so too his people may feel similarly towards Jews.
Deborah Lipstadt’s 1993 history of the early revisionist movement is enlightening and I refer the reader to it for a more detailed narrative than space allows here. Since revisionists argue vehemently against Lipstadt’s claim that they are neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and anti- Semites, and in my last editorial (Vol. 2, #3) I stated we would “avoid ad hominem attacks,” I met and interviewed them personally in order to allow them to present their claims in their own words. In general, I found them quite pleasant and willing to talk about the movement and its members, as well as supply me with a large sampling of their published literature. In history, however, as in all scientific endeavors, the facts never just speak for themselves. They are interpreted through colored lenses, and thus it is constructive to know something about the backgrounds and motivations of the revisionists in order to understand how their bias has influenced their interpretation of the historical data.
The present Holocaust revisionist movement primarily centers around the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) its Journal for Historical Review (JHR), and a handful of eccentric personalities, including IHR Director Tom Marcellus, JHR Editor Mark Weber, author and biographer David Irving, pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zuendel, and, curiously, Jewish revisionist David Cole.
The IHR. In 1978 the IHR was founded and primarily supported by Willis Carto, who published the virulently anti-Jewish newsletters Right and American Mercury, and runs Noontide Press, all part of the ultra- right-wing organization, Liberty Lobby. In 1980, the IHR made headlines with its $50,000 challenge for proof that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. When Mel Mermelstein attempted to meet this challenge, headlines (and a television movie) also detailed his collection of the award and an additional $40,000 for “personal suffering.” The IHR’s first director, William McCalden (AKA Lewis Brandon, Sondra Ross, David Berg, Julius Finkelstein, and David Stanford), resigned in 1981 due to conflicts with Carto, and was followed by Tom Marcellus, a Field Staff Member for the Church of Scientology who had been an editor for one of its publications. According to David Cole, if the IHR ever folded, “there would be jobs aplenty waiting for him at the Church of Scientology” (1994).
Mark Weber. The editor of the JHR since 1991 and, with the possible exception of David Irving, the most knowledgeable of history (he has a Master’s degree in Modern European history from Indiana University), Mark Weber arrived on the revisionist scene with his appearance as a defense witness at Ernst Zuendel’s “free speech” Holocaust trial. Weber denied to me any racial or anti-Semitic feelings, and claimed that “I don’t know anything more about the neo-Nazi movement in Germany than what I read in the papers” (1994b). Weber was once the news editor of the National Vanguard, the voice of William Pierce’s neo-Nazi, anti- Semitic organization, the National Alliance. Weber also does not deny his comments in a 1989 interview for the University of Nebraska Sower, regarding his fear that the U.S. was becoming “a sort of Mexicanized, Puerto Ricanized country” due to the failure of “white Americans” to reproduce adequately. And on February 27, 1993, Weber was the victim of a Wiesenthal Center sting operation when researcher Yaron Svoray, calling himself Ron Furey, met with Weber in a cafe to discuss The Right Way, a bogus magazine created to trick neo-Nazis. The meeting was secretly filmed by CBS but Weber quickly figured out that Svoray “was an agent for someone” and “was obviously lying.” Weber left not realizing that the Wiesenthal Center would make an ordeal out of this event.
Such deceitful actions are certainly questionable, but one must wonder why Weber, if he is trying to distance himself from the neo-Nazi fringe of revisionism (as he claims), would even agree to such a meeting. Even David Cole, who is his friend, confesses that “Weber doesn’t really see any problems with a society that is not only disciplined by fear and violence, but also where a government feeds its people lies in order to keep them well-ordered.” Ironically, says Cole, “revisionists criticize the Jews for lying to its people or the world, and yet a lot of these same revisionists will speak very complimentarily of what the Nazis did in feeding their people lies and falsehoods in order to keep morale up and to keep this notion of the master race” (1994). Too bad, since Weber is extremely bright and very personable, and one could believe that he might be capable of good historical scholarship if he ended his fixation on the Jews and the Holocaust. This, I suspect, is not likely to happen…
David Cole. The most paradoxical of all the revisionists is the 25- year old Jew (his mother “was raised as a secular Jew” and his father “was raised Orthodox in London during the Blitz”) who proudly displays his heritage while simultaneously denying its most significant modern historical event. As he says (1994), he is “damned if I do and damned if I don’t. That is, if I don’t mention the Judaism I will be accused of being ashamed. If I mention it up front I will be accused of exploiting it.” For his views he was physically beaten at UCLA in a debate on the Holocaust; he has received regular death threats from “a small group of people that genuinely hate me with a passion;” and the JDL, the ADL, and Jewish organizations in general “are a little harder on me because I am Jewish.” He has been called a self-hating Jew, anti-Semitic, a race traitor, and compared to Hitler, Hussein, and Arafat in an editorial in The Jewish News. Though Cole’s personality is affable and his attitude sanguine, he sees himself as a rebel in search of a cause. Where the other revisionists are political and/or racial ideologues, Cole’s interests run at a deeper level. He is a meta-ideologue–an existentialist on a quest to understand how ideologues invent their realities. In the process, Cole has joined every conceivable organization, including the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Workers World Party, the John Birchers, Lyndon LaRouchers, the Libertarians, the atheists, the humanists, and yes, even the Skeptics Society. Revisionism, then, is just one in a long line of ideologies that has fascinated Cole since he was expelled from Hamilton High.
With no college background, and a parental stipend for self- education, Cole’s personal library houses thousands of volumes, including a considerable Holocaust section. He knows his subject and, as he says, can “debate the facts until the cows come home.” Where other fringe claims only held his attention for a few months to a year, the Holocaust “is more about real physical things than some abstract concept that requires faith. We are talking about something for which much of the evidence still exists.” And much of that physical evidence has been filmed by Cole on a fact-finding mission over the summer of 1992, financed by revisionist Bradley Smith. “I figured I needed $15,000 to $20,000, and Bradley set to work–it took him about a month and a half to raise that amount.” Cole’s stated goal in his research (discussed in detail later) “is to try to move revisionism away from the fringe and into the mainstream.” To do so he has tried to reach professional historians, but has shot himself in the foot by associating so closely with revisionists, despite his claim to the contrary:
I want to get people who are not right-wingers or neo-Nazis. Right now it is in a very dangerous position because there is a vacuum created by mainstream historians denouncing revisionism. The vacuum has been filled with the likes of Ernst Zuendel. Zuendel is a very likable human being, but he is a fascist and he is not the person I would like to see recognized as the world’s leading Holocaust revisionist.
But there is another side to Cole that goes beyond intellectual curiosity. He likes to stir things up, and not just for historians. Cole, for example, might attend a revisionist social event where white supremacists will be present, with an African-American date, “just to watch them squirm and stare.” Even though he disagrees mightily with many revisionists’ beliefs and most of their politics, he will introduce himself to the media as a “revisionist” knowing it will draw scorn and sometimes physical abuse. He wants his video footage to be studied by professional scholars (and he has offered it to his Israeli contact), but will probably end up editing it down to a marketable product to be sold through the IHR and their right-wing mailing list, as he did his first video of Auschwitz, which sold over 30,000 copies.
What is an outsider like Cole to do? He is angry that he has been locked out by historians who, he says, “are not gods, are not religious figures, and are not priests. We have a right to ask them for further explanations. I am not ashamed to ask the questions I am asking.” One wonders, however, why such questions are being asked?
Posted inAnti-Semitism, Holocaust, Whites|Comments Off on Can I Listen To Lectures Critical Of Jews Without Losing My Temper?
REPORT: “The Norwegian people should take Syrian refugees into their own homes, says deputy leader of the Norwegian Christian Party (KrF), Bjørg Tysdal Moe.”
Chaim Amalek writes: “Once again, the Jews are NOT to blame for the impulse of European WASPS to commit suicide. It is a weakness in the genes of the goy and goyella that leads especially the goyella to sleep with a large dog and dream of her savior as a Somali with a scimitar. White goyim are simply undeserving of the space they take up on this planet, as they themselves would be the first to admit.”
Chaim Amalek writes: “A doomed race. What a pity, as their women are among the most attractive on the planet. I know one such woman, or did. Mid forties and no kids, now or ever. A death wish.”
Posted inImmigration, Norway|Comments Off on Accept A Syrian Into Your Home?
This 2010 book by Thilo Sarrazin has sold nearly two million copies in Germany. Why hasn’t it been translated into English? Is there something in English-language publishing that does not want to publish some books? Are there people who still hold a burn against Germany? I would love to read this book if it were translated into English.
Sarrazin advocates a restrictive immigration policy (with the exception of the highly skilled) and the reduction of state welfare benefits. There were severe reactions to his statements on economic and immigration policy in Berlin, which were published in September 2009 in Lettre International, a German cultural quarterly. In it he described many Arab and Turkish immigrants as unwilling to integrate. He said, among other things:
“Integration requires effort from those that are to be integrated. I will not show respect for anyone that is not making that effort. I do not have to acknowledge anyone who lives by welfare, denies the legitimacy of the very state that provides that welfare, refuses to care for the education of his children and constantly produces new little headscarf-girls. This holds true for 70 percent of the Turkish and 90 percent of the Arab population in Berlin.”[23][24][25]
He has also said regarding Islam, “No other religion in Europe makes so many demands. No immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime. No group emphasizes their differences so strongly in public, especially through women’s clothing. In no other religion is the transition to violence, dictatorship and terrorism so fluid.”[26]
Sarrazin’s statements were criticized by the chairman of the Interior Committee of the German Bundestag, Sebastian Edathy (SPD), the ver.di union and the political scientist Gerd Wiegel. The Central Council of Jews in Germany has strongly criticized Sarrazin, condemning him as racist.[27][28][29] Sigmar Gabriel, the General Secretary of the SPD, condemned Sarrazin for his eugenic approach.[30]
Sarrazin’s book came under criticism for claiming that Germany’s immigrant Muslim population is reluctant to integrate and tends to rely more on social services than to be productive. Moreover, he calculates that their population growth may well overwhelm the German population within a couple of generations at the current rate, and that their intelligence is lower as well. He proposes stringent reforms for the welfare system to rectify the problems.[31][32] The first edition of his book sold out within a few days. By the end of the year, the book had become Germany’s number 1 hard-cover non-fiction bestseller for the year and was still at the top of the lists.
Chaim Amalek: “Let’s see if Sheldon Adelson won’t prepare a special translation of these works.”
Why was the greatest writer of the past 60 years (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) unable to find an English-language publisher for his history of Jews & Russians?
Posted inGermany, Immigration|Comments Off on ‘Germany Abolishes Itself’
