Not only sweeping but incorrect– most of them were in Poland.

No one seems to be asking the important question: Why were weapons (from clubs to semi-automatic weapons), shields, and torches allowed at Charlottesville? I am in favor of free speech for both sides. However, reasoned debate does not require semi-automatic weapons, shields, or torches. When a group wants to demonstrate they should be limited to verbal communication, paper handouts stating their position, and signs. NO WEAPONS!! Anyone bringing a weapon (including someone who has a concealed carry permit) should be either turned away or arrested. Rainsrg

If I may weigh-inn on the final aspect of the above comment regarding what Professor Tony m
Martin, long time full professor of Black History at Wellesley College in MA , a prestigious women’s college at the time, and which had notable graduates including Hilary Clinton and Madeline Albright. I am familiar with the most excellent lecture by Dr. Tony Martin where he mentions the issue referred to in the above comment. What I would add to that comment is that Dr. Martin did articulate the source of his information which was the 1830 US Census . And the figures were that 75% of Jewish households owned at least one slave and 25 percent of Americans owned at least one slave. In retrospect I do not know if the 25% specifically consisted of all non-Jews which is what I assumed until this moment. The only reason someone might express grave doubt about the matter of Jews having a high percent of slave ownership is a general ignorance on this matter. Even Dr. martin, in that same lecture, admits that he was generally unaware of the enormous role of Jews in the trans-Atlantic Black African Slave Trade until he encountered the then relatively recent [in early 1990's] Nation of Islam research Dept. produced book called “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks And Jews”. Dr. Martin observed that most often Jews were referred to as Portuguese, Spaniards or Dutch in the accounts, and annals, of the slave trade. That is different than households
owning slaves but it accords with the Jewish attitude toward slavery whose Talmud religion based
rationale for enslaving Blacks was also touched upon in that lecture in which Dr. Martin is wearing a Brown suit which is how I differentiate it from the several others available online. Jews as Marranos, new Christians and as Jews dominated the trans Atlantic Black African slave trade for South & Central America and the Caribbean as a cartel monopoly and it was only natural to include the North American colonies as well. The major departure point, to my surprise when I learned of it,
in the so-called triangle trade , was Newport RI which housed a vibrant jewish community and the one who owned the most slave ships was one Aaron Lopes. Newport has probably the oldest Synagogue, which was built in the 18th century by Black slaves. Lopes OR Lopez, originally from Portugal, was not the only slaver from Newport but he was the richest. Jews there owned 22 Distilleries for making RUM which was a major item used to purchase the Blacks putative slaves . The y traveled to a place on the west coast of Africa which had a permanent facility on an island close to shore for the acquisition and holding of Black people captured by usually other Black people’s chiefs or by Arab traders and brought to the island. After picking up a boatload of Black people the slave ship then went to a Southern port like Charleston and sold the slaves in auction houses usually owned by Jews and usually closed on Jewish holidays. Then either bought Sugar or other commodity or just returned with the cash to Newport along with Black slaves who did not sell due to being sick or in poor shape but once in Newport they were medically cared for and retained there and there is now still an extant Black community in the Newport area whose roots go directly back to those slaves who also built the Synagogue which can be viewed on google images. Also, it is true that Dr. martin as well as the book mentioned by the Nation of Islam acknowledges that most of the sources for research information on the slave trade and slavery are from Jewish sources.
Also, Jews also dominated the supply of the accoutrements of slavery, the many varied shackles and chains used in the slave ships and also on land for transport and other specific purposes plus were the provides of a particular unbleached rough cotton cloth that was commonly used for the slaves clothing in the American colonies. Dr. Tony Martin, originally from Trinidad/Tobago also had received a barrister law degree in the UK. His academic specialty was Marcus Garvey, who also originated from the Caribbean and was a bit of a competitor to he Jewish created NAACP which had only a Black mascot man who obtained a PhD from Harvard but other wise was totally run by Jews for some years until perhaps the early 1920s when it started including Black people in running the organization. But they did not allow a Black [man] to fill the top administrative position until the early mid-1970′s. The famous witty poet and New Yorker author Dorothy Parkers [nee Rothschild]
was left to the NAACP.[ just a curious fact]. “Men Seldom Make Passes At Girls Who Wear Glasses”
was one pithy D. Parker observation in rhyme.

Thank you Mark Green for including the petition and for your comment.I just read a Congressional Resolution generated from the Senate which required the President’s signature though it was not clear to me what that bound the President to do if anything. The Resolution “rejects white nationalism, white supremacy and neo-Nazism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.”
And: “The resolution assiduously avoids blaming any other parties for the deadly violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month, when white supremacists sought to protect Confederate monuments. An alleged white supremacist rammed his car into a group of counter-protestors, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer, who is named and honored in the resolution”. [note: the preceding quotes are from a JTA article of Sept. 7, 2017. I just learned yesterday that Heather Heyer was not struck aby any vehicle but was present at the sight and collapsed with a heart attack and when EMT people were resuscitating her on the ground at the site she had a second cardiac arrest and died. She was obese and I saw no info about her medical history. However, it is unreasonable to blame the driver for her death. There is no mention of the city police stand down.
One interview I saw on youtube was with a young man who was involved in organizing the' unite the right' march and said he that he had worked with the city police for two months planning a march route and police placements that were designed to minimize the likelihood of violent confrontations between the marchers who had obtained a city permit to march and the presumed hostile armed and dangerous ANTIFA/BLM type violent memed anti-White people organizations presumed to be funded by a famed mischievous Billionaire psychopath. But, on the day of the march the city police never showed up and instead surrounding the park were state police who were not interested in the plans made by the city police and forced the marches into a veritable Gauntlet situation where the had to go down s street with crowds of hostile adversaries positioned to left and right and who commenced to physically assault the marchers and throw bags or balloons of feces and urine onto them! It was a set up asserted the young organizer.

A few quick notes as one or another pony is revealed from the above pile –

I’ve applied a colander recovered from a heap in the garage to sift this initial collection —

Permit me to summon as protagonists, Thomas Babington Macaulay and G.K. Chesterton, great writers of the Victorian and the Georgian-Edwardian eras respectively; not merely to aid my meagre pen, but more as observers of a pattern of behaviour [of a virus?] so ably described in their essays. And of course, Shirer of whom and his book Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote ‘ The standard, indeed the classic, history of Nazism. We should be thankful to the historian whose solid work will permanently preserve the truth.’

to

And of course, Shirer of whom and his book Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote ‘ The standard, indeed the classic, history of Nazism. We should be thankful to the historian whose solid work will permanently preserve the truth.’

and after a second pass, to

Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote ‘ The standard, indeed the classic, history of Nazism. We should be thankful to the historian whose solid work will permanently preserve the truth.’

and thence to Lord Dacre himself, Hugh Trevor-Roper.

In 1982 Lord Dacre was called upon to travel to the Swiss bank where Stern magazine had secured 60 volumes of Hitler Diaries for which Stern had paid over $9 million. In spire of the fact that all of the diary books, written over a period of a decade or more, were identical, and that all of them were marked with “FH,” the Gothic “F” mistaken for “A”,

Hugh Trevor-Roper. . . declared the books authentic. http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/diary-of-the-hitler-diary-hoax

The German magazine hosted the requisite press conference to announce publication of Hitler Diaries on April 25, 1983, but within two weeks the obvious inauthenticity of the publishing coup became general knowledge. Handwringing ensued, people were fired, questions were asked, “How could this happen?”
As the editor-in-chief for Die Zeit explained,

“Many people believe that there was simply too much money at stake for anyone to come to their senses.”

So much for Hugh Trevor-$-Roper.

later

… twice as many Jews owned slaves in 1830 America as compared to whites.

Relative to their respective population sizes, that is.

I see that you skipped #413

I don’t think so. I saw comments # 411 and #412 and responded to them before #413 was even posted.

Had I waited a little longer before responding, I would’ve included that one, as well, in my response.

Speaking of skipping things, I noticed you didn’t bother including the paragraph the immediately follows the sentence you quoted, namely:

Indeed, one might note that it has often been critically important for Jews to be able to present a divided front to the gentile society.

Rather odd, as it actually cites Jewish sources that support his assertion. Take a gander:

This has happened repeatedly in the modern world. A particularly common pattern during the period from 1880 to 1940 was for Jewish organizations representing older, more established communities in Western Europe and the United States to oppose the activities and attitudes of more recent immigrants from Eastern Europe (see note 20). The Eastern Euro- pean immigrants tended to be religiously orthodox, politically radical, and sympathetic to Zionism, and they tended to conceptualize themselves in racial and national terms—all qualities that provoked anti-Semitism. In the United States and England, Jewish organizations (such as the American Jewish Com- mittee [AJCommittee]) attempted to minimize Jewish radicalism and gentile perceptions of the radicalism and Zionism of these immigrants (e.g., Cohen 1972; Alderman 1992, 237ff). Highly publicized opposition to these activities dilutes gentile perceptions of Jewish behavior, even in situations where, as occurred in both England and America, the recent immigrants far outnumbered the established Jewish community.

See the names he references? Hard to mistake them for goyim surnames, no?

And when we take a closer look at note 20, we see ever more references to Jewish sources:

20. Concerns about the potential for anti-Semitism resulting from perceptions of foreignness were also behind the attempts by the more established German-American Jews to decrease immigration of their Eastern European coreligionists. Thus in the 1880s a Jewish spokesman tried to prevent European Jewish philanthropies from sending Eastern European Jews to America, by noting that “the Jewish position in America was not yet secure. . . . American Jews could not ‘afford to incur the ill will of their compatriots’ ” (Sachar 1992, 124; see also Neuringer 1971, 15ff). A Jewish publication warned about the “uncouth Asiatics” from Russia, and there were concerns that the new immigrants would ultimately lower the social class of the established Jewish community. These concerns regarding the outlandish behavior of new immigrants continue regarding recent Jewish immigrants into America. Sachar (1992) describes the extreme separatism of the Hasidic Jews who immigrated to the United States after World War II. The Hasidic Jews are so separatist that they are given to viewing rabbis of other sects as “heterodox,” a trend Sachar perceives as ominous: “Even in tolerant America, hairshirt tribalism was a provocative stance for a community ranked among the smallest, and still among the most suspect and vulnerable, of the nation’s ethno-religious minorities” (p. 700).

I must say, this exchange is very reminiscent of a previous one I had with Cornivus in which he alleged Prof. Tony Martin was a liar for publicly stating that twice as many Jews owned slaves in 1830 America as compared to whites. When I pointed out that Prof. Martin was exclusively referencing Jewish sources to make that claim, he/she wasn’t willing to retract the initial accusation that Prof. Martin was a liar.

Something tells me we probably won’t see a retraction from you, either.

When I was younger I read some fiction including Sci-fi, but was never hooked. Today, when one can read the headlines and related stories, I don’t really see the point in reading fiction.

I assume that the Jews have one of the best collective memories of what has happened to them over the centuries and that is a very powerful component in their identity. There is more to being smart than just having a good memory. I think that differences among Jews are real. The Jewish Bolsheviks really did want to cripple and overturn the Jewish capitalists. As best as I can tell you aren’t faking your differences with the right wing types in Israel. So I stand by my opinion that all groups have differences and factions and Jews are not an exception.

But if you are offering up the opinion that at the end of the day identity is the last word, I can’t argue with it.

display differing degrees of unity of purpose, tactics and strategy which can sometimes include feigning disarray in order to create over-confidence in an adversary.

Yet, of all groups, only the Jews, are never really divided, but merely fake it.

Smart fuckers aren’t they?

Are you a Sci-fi fan at all? There is this show from the mid 90′s [I think] called ‘Stargate’. Ran for many years and it features a group of humanoids called the Go’auld, whose every member is endowed with the genetic historical memory of the entire species from the time of their creation. Deviously smart fuckers.

Indeed, one might note that it has often been critically important for Jews to be able to present a divided front to the gentile society

I see that you skipped #413 where he (without presenting any evidence) pulls from the ether the idea that (all) Jews conspire to present a false appearance of differing opinion.

This disregards the obvious fact that, without exception, groups are composed of factions that display differing degrees of unity of purpose, tactics and strategy which can sometimes include feigning disarray in order to create over-confidence in an adversary.

Yet, of all groups, only the Jews, are never really divided, but merely fake it.

Smart fuckers aren’t they?

the extent of genetic influence on behavioral differences between Jews and non-Jews is not an important issue apart from scholarly interest<

group evolutionary strategy

Devastating stuff. Are you sure you didn’t pull these quotes from Mein Kampf? LOL

You must have overlooked the minimum bar I set:

As such, I’ll keep on quoting him, unless or until someone else can produce irrefutable evidence he’s a “Jew hater.”

Far from hating Jews, the quotes you furnished might, and I emphasize “might,” establish, at worst, he is intrigued by them.

Lest I discourage you, please keep digging.

Indeed, one might note that it has often been critically important for Jews to be able to present a divided front to the gentile society

Are we able to present any evidence that Jewish opinion was not, in fact, divided like all groups?

Didn’t think so.

group evolutionary strategy

Academic sounding mumbo jumbo term for Protocols.

the extent of genetic influence on behavioral differences between Jews and non-Jews is not an important issue apart from scholarly interest

Going dumpster diving just because of the challenge you presented to me.

Impossible task with regards to you.

I thought as much… you’ve got absolutely nothing. As such, I’ll keep on quoting him, unless or until someone else can produce irrefutable evidence he’s a “Jew hater.”

are you trying to be insulting?

Yes, but I’m trying to stop being insulting, if that counts for anything.

If you’re able to furnish irrefutable proof that MacDonald’s writings clearly demonstrate he’s a Jew hater

Impossible task with regards to you. You don’t even accept that about yourself.

even while wearing my rubber boots

I already told you; you are not a rubber boots Nazi. You are the pellet dropping type.

I am satisfied with my opinion and no matter what I provided it would not alter yours.

Don’t be so sure. If you’re able to furnish irrefutable proof that MacDonald’s writings clearly demonstrate he’s a Jew hater, I’d gladly denounce him as such, even while wearing my rubber boots.

So put up, or shut up.

but this is rurik, so you actually wouldn’t know that.

are you trying to be insulting?

the id is not something you can dissect a brain and point to, no

rather it’s what might be considered a manifestation of the deep sub-conscious

like the ‘mind’, it can’t be put under a microscope and studied, but we can use the concept for conceptualizing a phenomena; that which drives a person’s instinctive value systems and motivations.

When I was reading Freud (and Jung of course), I found much that was too speculative. But also a lot that resonated. His opinions about religions and Gods and such for instance, I considered provocative. But, at the end of the day, in the Freud vs. Jung debate, I defer to Jung.

but it doesn’t matter if there is an actual id or not, you see. Because all it’s referring to is a neurologically ingrained set of values and motivations (ultimately a process of organic functions) and how those functions ultimately effect our behavior.

your id iffen, is also on display here, did you know?

when someone posts enough of their thoughts and opinions, what the rest of us are able to do is get a glimmer of that person’s id, you see?

it’s actually fun in a way. And then you speculate on how that hardwiring (dendrites, synapsis, molecular soups in the basal ganglia, etc..) came to get that way. Freud and Jung and (from the organic perspective) Pierre Broca and others have given us lots of tools for understanding the brain and the mind and the different motivating principles that are really what’s impelling you as you set about to type some words into the Internet, and express your id for all to contemplate and muse over. Sometimes with wonder, and sometimes with morbid curiosity, and even at times with gracious indulgence.

Care to provide a few snippets of what you’ve read that supports your claim?

I don’t care to take the time to do that. I am satisfied with my opinion and no matter what I provided it would not alter yours. I read enough to know that he is not a rubber boots type. He might even have trouble dropping in the pellets.

From what I have read of MacDonald’s work, it seems to me that he is much more in the lackadaisical anti-Semite camp rather than the virulent one.

Care to provide a few snippets of what you’ve read that supports your claim?

id

You do know that there is no such thing, right?

It was just one fantastic phantasm spun out of one Jewish brain.

Not trying to be harsh, but this is rurik, so you actually wouldn’t know that.

MacDonald is a virulent anti-Semite?

I’ve got to take geo’s side here. From what I have read of MacDonald’s work, it seems to me that he is much more in the lackadaisical anti-Semite camp rather than the virulent one.

I defended you!

You have said conciliatory things Sam. And at one time when you used to speak of the Palestinians as humans with rights, I held great promise in your evolution as an empathetic soul.

It is simply empathy that mostly sets us apart from the sub-humans and reptiles (on two legs) of the planet.

So lately as your rhetoric vis-a-vis the Palestinians seems to have hardened, I’ve become worried about your trajectory.

You’re an intelligent fellow and have contributed to this forum in many ways, not least of which is a glimpse into the modern, secular, liberal Jewish id. We may not always agree on everything, but I still feel we learn things here at the inimitable Unz Review.

But when it comes to putting little old grandmothers in prison for expressing ideas you want suppressed, for your own racial and tribal agendas, I feel you go beyond the Pale. That’s all.

Just as your attempted ‘justifications’ for radical Zionism (continued oppression and theft) are really quite beneath such an urbane and cosmopolitan fellow. How well, I wonder do such views resonate with the London cocktail party circuit these days?

Is that perchance, why our Sam has found a more amenable milieu in NYC for his rather out of fashion- genocidal views?

Not trying to be harsh, just wondering..

So, this is the best available evidence you could muster to demonstrate that Prof, MacDonald is a virulent anti-Semite?:

MacDonald was quoted as saying he was an “agnostic” in regards to the Holocaust, though he denied the accuracy of the quote.

All you have is innuendo. Not one solid fact to support your claim.

And you try to throw me under the bus on the basis of this flimsy “evidence”? Why am I not surprised?

btw – I noticed you, just like John Tooby, didn’t bother challenging any of Prof. MacDonald’s premises and models or any of his insights that were based on them. No surprise there, either.

As I said, and I’ll leave it with my original thought, that asking for knowledge on free market capitalism from a sociologist turned “Austrian school economist” is akin to hoping for tips on elocution from Trappist monks.

You keep MacDonald’s company, a man who counts neo-Nazis, David Duke, Jamie Kelso and the late lamented site Stormfront as his chief protagonists. What else is needed to call a duck a duck?

Disassociation by his colleagues

The psychology department of CSULB, as well as the CSULB academic senate, voted to formally dissociate themselves from his work in 2008.

The academic senate issued the following statement:

While the academic senate defends Dr. Kevin MacDonald’s academic freedom and freedom of speech, as it does for all faculty, it firmly and unequivocally disassociates itself from the anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric views he has expressed.

Two words – “condemns and” (which had originally appeared between “unequivocally” and “disassociates”) – were removed before the public issuance of the statement.

CSULB dissociates from MacDonald’s views
In late 2007 California State University–Long Beach’s Psychology Department began the process of formally dissociating itself from MacDonald’s views on Judaism, which in some cases are “used by publications considered to publicize neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology.” The department’s move to dissociate followed a discussion of MacDonald’s December forum presentation at meeting of the department’s advisory committee that concerned his ethics and methodologies

When your own colleagues feel the great shame of association, is there anything worth redeeming left?

MacDonald testified for Irving the Holocaust denier in court and lost:

MacDonald testified in defense of convicted Holocaust denier David Irving, where he alleged that the suppression of Irving’s work was “an example of Jewish tactics for combating anti-Semitism.” MacDonald stated “I also felt that Lipstadt exaggerated the extent to which Irving denied the Holocaust, since there are many places in his writings where Irving describes Nazis engaged in organized killing of Jews. MacDonald was quoted as saying he was an “agnostic” in regards to the Holocaust, though he denied the accuracy of the quote. MacDonald’s testimony caused a backlash among his colleagues. Deborah Lipstadt’s lawyer Richard Rampton thought MacDonald’s testimony on behalf of Irving was so ridiculous that he did not bother to cross examine him. Indeed, Mr Justice Gray said in his judgment that the testimony provided by MacDonald was insufficient to establish that he was the victim of a conspiracy from the “traditional enemies of free speech” (i.e. Jews) to discredit Irving.

Staunchly anti-Zionist journalist Max Blumenthal (the son of Sidney Blumenthal, a high-ranking Democratic Party operative), has written that MacDonald has an extensive following among white nationalists and neo-Nazis, which Blumenthal claims is inherently linked with MacDonald’s political leanings (i.e. “Republicanizing the Race Card”). Former Ku Klux Klan leader and former U.S. Representative David Duke praised MacDonald’s work on his website.

Sure, now I see your reasons for the great pride of association with Macdonald. Carry on then and I’ll watch your progress with great interest.

If you ‘understood’ that, what was the purpose of ‘pointing that out simply’?

Simply, to point out that you had misspoken. Nothing more, nothing less.

No more pitiful than the hatred for Jews you very obviously have. You are a disciple Of McDonald, a well-known anti-Semite.

Care to present the best available evidence you have to support these charges against me and Prof. MacDonald?

John Tooby, the founder of MacDonald’s field of evolutionary psychology, criticized MacDonald in an article for Salon in 2000.

Thanks for the wiki excerpt. Especially the reference to the Salon article. It was an interesting read. It prompted me to do a little more digging and I came across this gem. It appears that Judith Shulevitz, a contributor at Slate, had implored John Tooby to publish a refutation of MacDonald’s arguments. While Tooby assured Shulevitz that he would soon do so, he never did. I wonder why?

Here’s an excerpt of an exchange between John Derbyshire and Joey Kurtzman (contributor at Jewcy) discussing the question “Is Kevin MacDonald right about the Jews?”:

I am hereafter discontinuing my laissez faire approach of responding to you unlinked replies. If you continue with it, I shall not follow my previous convention…….

[Yes, I understood that. But you carelessly inserted the word “capitalism” where it didn’t belong. And I simply pointed that out.]

If you ‘understood’ that, what was the purpose of ‘pointing that out simply’? Besides, free-markets and capitalism are practically interchangeable for all intents and purposes. Are you trying to establish yourself the frivolous-point-outer in chief?

[In that case, permit me to rephrase my initial query: Does a Walrasian competitive equilibrium lead to a Pareto efficient allocation of resources. subject to a few conditions being met? T or F?]

I permit you but reserve the right to ask you to list these ‘few conditions’ and their precise forms. Second, I shall permit myself to observe that little toy models can always be constructed to have precise answers. Not the domain of economics clearly meant in the context of my comment. Most of Economics does not have unequivocal answers. When I made that statement, you feverishly searched for a trivial mathematical model, and even when presenting it forgot it was a simple mathematical construct, which therefore requires strict formulation. Not the thrust of my original argument. If and when I present a mathematical argument, you won’t mistake it for anything else, I assure you.

[ see you are the kind of person who is fond of trying to push people’s buttons. A very revealing (and pitiful) character trait.]

I see. Sure I’ll push your buttons to ferret out your true feeling and intentions. No more pitiful than the hatred for Jews you very obviously have. You are a disciple Of McDonald, a well-known anti-Semite.

John Tooby, the founder of MacDonald’s field of evolutionary psychology, criticized MacDonald in an article for Salon in 2000. He wrote, “MacDonald’s ideas—not just on Jews—violate fundamental principles of the field.” Tooby posits that MacDonald is not an evolutionary psychologist, and advocates models incorporating group-selection theory, a view of natural selection whose importance is disputed.

Steven Pinker, while acknowledging that he had “not plowed through MacDonald’s trilogy and therefore run the complementary risks of being unfair to his arguments, and of not refuting them resoundingly enough to distance them from my own views on evolutionary psychology”, states that MacDonald’s theses are unable to pass the threshold of attention-worthiness or peer-approval, and contain a “consistently invidious portrayal of Jews, couched in value-laden, disparaging language”.

The One People’s Project claims that MacDonald has promoted anti-Semitic propaganda under the guise of what he says is a legitimate and academic search for truth.

Lieberman accused MacDonald of dishonestly made up lines from the work of Holocaust denier David Irving. Citing Irving’s Uprising, which was published in 1981 for the twenty-fifth anniversary of Hungary’s failed anti-Communist revolution in 1956, MacDonald asserted in the Culture of Critique:

The domination of the Hungarian communist Jewish bureaucracy thus appears to have had overtones of sexual and reproductive domination of gentiles in which Jewish males were able to have disproportionate sexual access to gentile females.

[Wiki]

Noting the above is not pushing anyone’s buttons. It is merely observing the company they keep and therefore what their obvious beliefs are, protestations to the contrary being worth exactly nothing.

[Sam Shama didn’t approve of me saying that, and it seemed that he wished some harm might come to me for it, but that only bolstered my fortitude as being morally on target]

LOL. Quite right Don Quixote. Your “fortitude” shines through as does your anonymous courage, especially when you ducked out of sight when Revusky threatened to doxx you and I defended you! HAHAHAHAH

that being clearly the case, I will proudly accept the title and wear it with pride.

you’ve got a point Carroll

they’re going to call us all that anyways, so maybe we should just co-opt it. Wear it as a badge of honor.

I remember reading how the zio-government of Germany was sending an elegant 90 year old grandmother to prison for having opinions that are verboten vis-a-vis the Holocaust.

I said at the time that if that lady deserved prison for ‘Holocaust denial’, then I am a Holocaust denier too.

Sam Shama didn’t approve of me saying that, and it seemed that he wished some harm might come to me for it, but that only bolstered my fortitude as being morally on target.

it’s like being on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list. It’s a sign of integrity.

I was clearly writing about the central principle around which American markets are organised, one of voluntary transactions as opposed to involuntary ones.

Yes, I understood that. But you carelessly inserted the word “capitalism” where it didn’t belong. And I simply pointed that out.

unless all agents’ utilities are mutually orthogonal.

In that case, permit me to rephrase my initial query: Does a Walrasian competitive equilibrium lead to a Pareto efficient allocation of resources. subject to a few conditions being met? T or F?

… although they frequently insert Jew-hatred in every discussion.

I see you are the kind of person who is fond of trying to push people’s buttons. A very revealing (and pitiful) character trait.

Notice how I didn’t call them antisemitic, although they frequently insert Jew-hatred in every discussion

I think that if they exhibit Jew hatred in every discussion we should go ahead and call it a duck.

I’ll issue a pass on the definition of capitalism since semantics are less important than the meaning of the doctrine. Free-market Capitalism refutes “from each according to his ability to each according to his need, etc” malarky. I was clearly writing about the central principle around which American markets are organised, one of voluntary transactions as opposed to involuntary ones.

When you introduce concepts derived from narrow mathematical models, it is incumbent upon you to be complete in the mathematical/model sense. Thus one can have a competitive equilibrium, but not necessarily efficiency in the Pareto sense, unless all agents’ utilities are mutually orthogonal.

That is not “dissembling”, nor any other term approved by the central language committee of the professional complaining class. Notice how I didn’t call them antisemitic, although they frequently insert Jew-hatred in every discussion. I’ll wait for the predictable and reflexive reply.

Now you two are getting quite ridiculous shedding all plausibility from my plot. Anyone would think you were insultingly purporting to “add verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative” but really queering my pitch to Disney. Now where was I? DNA tests have indicated that some of Werner Heisenberg’s semen must have been stolen by a Jewish nurse in a WW1 military hospital (or was it when he was having his appendix out in a civilian hospital? We must get the details right in these fact-checking days).

You probably know more about this than I but it does occur to me that the very important early financial support from one or more English Rothschilds might have had less to do with any old dreams of return to the Promised Land (which it is hard to imagine a Rothschild doing – apart from the odd lowish-for-a-Rothschild-IQ recovering LSD taker going to a kibbutz) than typical worthy English upper and upper middle class philanthropy which included everything from Wakefieldian settlement of South Australia to mddical missionary activìties like Livingstone’s. Just as Gladstone went into bat for Bulgarian Christians, so an upper class Rothschild would naturally want to help poor Eastern European Jews – and, very likely, as was analogously true of assimilating German Jews, discoueage them from coming to England.

Were any of the Rothschilds seriously religious? I guess they were a little bit tribal but maybe even less than the atheist Einstein who called Jews his tribe.

No doubt there are lots of interesting letters and diaries. (I have just Googled “Were the Rothschilds Zionists” and been discouraged by the same sort of ranting anti-Semitic sludge one has to wade through in UR threads although the first page does refer to some Rothschilds being for and some against a Zionist project – how very Jewish of them ….).

Not unequivocally true.

Of course not… especially for someone who is fond of equivocating.

You can define capitalism to be anything that fits your whimsy,

Yes, of course. If you are a first rate dissembler, I suppose anything can be defined according to one’s “whimsy.”

What on earth is “self life?” Is that some species of deeply delicious amoral concept I missed in Nietzsche’s work?

Yes, of course. I’ve become keenly aware of your fondness of “deeply delicious amoral” things…no surprise there.

[A Walrasian competitive equilibrium leads to a Pareto efficient allocation of resources? T or F?]

Not unequivocally true. It depends if each economic agent’s utility function is mathematically orthogonal to the utility function of all other economic agents. Ouch. I think I got your goat a bit eh? Sorry I actually do respect sociologists.

[No, the important word is ‘capitalism.” And it is patently false to claim that “capitalism has existed ever since voluntary exchange emerged amongst human groups,” and you know it… or you should know it, if you really are in possession of a PhD in Math. Economics.]

LOL. You are knotting yourself over [once again] semantics. Understand the key concept. You can define capitalism to be anything that fits your whimsy, but most economists, freshwater or saltwater, would require transactions to be voluntary. The most standard understanding of the word ‘capitalism’ is that it is something which annoys virtue-signaling socialists or sociologists?……there, that is a definition you might not quarrel with, eh?

[Unlike widgets, which are specifically created for the market, Land, L, K are not produced for sale on the market, and according to Polanyi, they should, given their distinctive properties, be accorded protected rights.]

As I said, you and fellow travelers are welcome to exclusive rights on Polanyi and his Austrian School of thought.

Factors of production, Land, Labour and Capital, [inputs in the Production Function], are exchanged in free markets [naturally in the real world there are frictions], your dreams to the contrary notwithstanding. There are other things in a modern economy, that are not “produced” in the old sense but still exchanged in voluntary markets. Can you think of any?[hint: something which is very likely the next frontier in humanity's progress] In any case whatever you mean by “reserved” makes little difference. They are exchanged in free markets perhaps under certain constraints.

[Speaking of fictitious things, it appears the Zionist project is increasingly regarded as a fictitious state by more and more Jews. You’d think this might prompt some high IQ individuals to reconsider the prudence of investing vast sums of monies to perpetuate something that has a limited self life. But I’m not holding my breath.]

Nice try, but that little ending rant has nothing to do with what I pointed out to you: if monies are fictitious, you ought not to get yourself into impossible pretzel-like poses over the sums sent to the Lobby, should you? What on earth is “self life?” Is that some species of deeply delicious amoral concept I missed in Nietzsche’s work?

There is hardly anything unequivocally ‘true’ or ‘false’ in economics.

Oh, really? How ’bout this:

A Walrasian competitive equilibrium leads to a Pareto efficient allocation of resources? T or F?

If there is great treasure to be had there, it is yours to take; exclusively.

Exclusively? Try, again.

The important word is ‘voluntary’. Transactions create markets but voluntary ones lead to free and competitive general equilibria.

No, the important word is ‘capitalism.” And it is patently false to claim that “capitalism has existed ever since voluntary exchange emerged amongst human groups,” and you know it… or you should know it, if you really are in possession of a PhD in Math. Economics.

Land, Labour and money are fictitious commodities then? Well, explain that to me in your own words please, not cut and pastes.

Unlike widgets, which are specifically created for the market, Land, L, K are not produced for sale on the market, and according to Polanyi, they should, given their distinctive properties, be accorded protected rights.

If you believe so why do you tie yourself up in knots over the fictitious monies sent the Lobby’s way by its members or the sums sent to the ‘Villa in the Jungle’? You should think it over, before replying.

Speaking of fictitious things, it appears the Zionist project is increasingly regarded as a fictitious state by more and more Jews. You’d think this might prompt some high IQ individuals to reconsider the prudence of investing vast sums of monies to perpetuate something that has a limited self life. But I’m not holding my breath.

“Czarist era oppression” was not the main impetus for zionism. Zionism’s roots had more to do with Jewish ideologies and quasi-religious impulses — the “return to zion” had long been a theme among Jews; a number of writers and leaders in Poland/Lithuania/Russia raised the notion to a fever-pitch.

As well, the early 20th century was one of deep economic distress, not least for Jews, who had massively over-reproduced. Economic opportunity drove migration.

Brad Pitt as First Lieutenant Aldo “The Apache” Raine Part II

You chaps are spinning quite a yarn there! I want you to work in a plain talking but highly intelligent hillbilly [which they mostly are imho] as an American captain leading ……

[This is not true]

There is hardly anything unequivocally ‘true’ or ‘false’ in economics. Still, taking economics lessons from a sociologist turned ‘economist’ of the ‘Austrian School’ is rather like asking Benedictine monks for tips on elocution. If there is great treasure to be had there, it is yours to take; exclusively.

The important word is ‘voluntary’. Transactions create markets but voluntary ones lead to free and competitive general equilibria.

Land, Labour and money are fictitious commodities then? Well, explain that to me in your own words please, not cut and pastes. If you believe so why do you tie yourself up in knots over the fictitious monies sent the Lobby’s way by its members or the sums sent to the ‘Villa in the Jungle’? You should think it over, before replying.

Back in the day, we did a lot in the neighborhood and we knew the ground.

Now, no so much. It is going to take a big shock, to create the self-organization needed.

Meanwhile, his maternal uncle narrowly escapes being shot during the crushing of the Bavarian Soviet when a Friekorp Major freezes upon the hallucination of the face of his past lover. The uncle makes his way to Moscow where he becomes a trusted Bolshevik. When WWII comes he is made military Commissar for the Eastern Front. He is at front when a SS unit …

No one would have coined the novel descriptive word “capitalism” if it had existed as long as “voluntary exchange amongst human groups” (many thousands of years in other words). Something like it is needed to mark the replacement of status by contract and landed feudal lords’ authority and source and nature of wealth by the ownedship of productive businesses by those who have aggregated capital.

Yes the Moses idea can be interwoven with mother’s affair with non-Jewish army lieutenanf (and future Nazi general) on New years Eve 1914 just as her Jewish husband has returned to the front……. In 1933 she uses the old affair (including postcard from the front and photo of them together) to get her boy accepted in police officer training school from which he slips into the SS. That’s one of them….Maybe the equally redheaded blue eyed cousin just slips in on a bit of un German carelessness when his cousin fiddles things.

When you profess Learning and feel compelled to lecture, do so knowing your subject really well. A little more objectivity, and a little of the blatant biases.

Couldn’t agree more. That said, I couldn’t help but notice the flawed understanding of the defining characteristics of capitalism displayed in item #1 of your short list of things a good researcher should tell you:

Any researcher worth their salt and academic integrity intact should tell you: (1) capitalism has existed ever since voluntary exchange emerged amongst human groups…

This is not true. According to Karl Polanyi,… the hallmark of capitalism is the establishment of generalized markets for what he called the “fictitious commodities” i.e.., land, labor, and money.

Accordingly, he argued that “not until 1834 was a competitive labor market established in England, hence industrial capitalism as a social system cannot be said to have existed before that date.” – The Great Transformation, p. 87.

Ah OK – I agree there – minus the whole Mongol invasion thing.

Peace.

Moses redux.

I didn’t mean that they weren’t persecuted at different places and different times. I meant that they were able to practice religious, commercial and financial activities across and among many countries within an empire that was relatively stable and somewhat uniform.

Zionism gained major momentum before AH was born; it was a fait accompli by 1917.

We can’t know for sure, but I believe that the Holocaust was essential to gain the acquiescence of Britain and the US to the creation of “Israel.” Otherwise we would have had the modified millet system that was envisioned by the Mandate coming out of WWI and Jews would have been a protected minority within a larger political entity. Certainly the Holocaust plays a major role in continuing support and sympathy for Israel which is why anti-Semites while away their hours polishing their denial scenarios.

You contradict yourself, a fait accompli by defintion does not need to be completed.

You need to put in a genetics hook; powerful Nazi leader meets genetic testing and finds out he was adopted, meanwhile prominent Zionist also ….

Who is to say if we are tuned out?

Not me, I still check my inbox every day, even after forty or so years; nothing yet.

Millions of people like me who believe that if anybody “deserves” a nation-state of their own, it is these people.

That’s not data. That’s mob psychology in action.

What do all of those “millions” know about the history of zionism?

Zionism gained major momentum before AH was born; it was a fait accompli by 1917.

Zionists needed someone like AH to complete their plans; that’s one reason a great deal of Jewish money supported him.

Hah. A fine plot Wiz; I detect shades of Tarantino. You may have noticed Iffen and I were speaking of the Coen Bros. earlier. Might suit their tastes as well, who knows? I hear they are very approachable…….

Why would Jews in the Soviet Union in the 30s and 40s have continued the escape from Czarist era oppression? No doubt there would have been a trickle of Polish Jews but how would a new state have come about? Indeed Zionists pushed to desperate measures to maintain momentum may have just about destroyed most of their support.

If not for Zionist Jews, AH would not have come along. He would have retired an architect or painter. But he did come along as a result of the same disgusting, stifling, over-bearing condtiotins and attitudes on display here in this country today. From what I am able to determine, social and economic conditions are strikingly similar to what they were in German during the 1920s and early 30s, with over-bearing Jews being way over-represented in virtually every aspect of German life. from university professors, doctors, lawyers, and of course bankers. Plus, they owned the news media (printed press at that time) just like they own it in this country today. Self respecting people can put up with only so much. Considering and comparing what conditions were like in Germany then and what they are becoming in this country today, I have no doubt they would gladly do it all over again. Even knowing that the final results would be no different from what they turned out to be. Like my Confederate kin and their brothers who died fighting for an independent country free of Yankee ways and attitudes, I also thank the German soldiers who died fighting for basically the same things. May god rest their souls.

I have a scenario in mind that needs Jewish producer and director. Redhaired blue-eyed Jewish cousins Sol Sphincter and Sid Sceiße-Esser join the SS and immediately settle in as the Milo Minderbinder Bros of their quartermaster and transport companies. Of course they save many Jewish lives and only charge the unpleasant and ungrateful ones their whole Picasso collections. They end up of course immensely rich and their picaresque passage of 1945 impersonations, travels via Istanbul and Palestine (far too dangerous), donations to found the Simon Wiesenthal Centre Inc and own its name, on to South America and then much later on to NYC and LA where they float into Republican and Democrat ruling circles with the trophy wives on their arms at the fundraisers and new names Solomon Samson and Sidney Sherman. Then I envisage a final scene modeled on the great South Park spoof of McCain and Obama getting together to rob the Smithsonian but deciding McCain could take the loot and Obama stay on as President.

I started off with an idea which made me want to ask “how long before one could dare think of making it?” but now think it’s well within the purview of “The Book of Mormon’s” South Park producers. Are they Jewish? I’m about to Google….well Matt Stone has a Jewish mother…

You make an excellent point. Anyway you look at it, all white people who refuse to willing bow their heads and surrender their culture will, by default, become Nazis. There are no alternatives. None. So, with that being clearly the case, I will proudly accept the title and wear it with pride.

we had a failure of the rule of law and a continuing collapse of professional journalism and only a few people realize or know this.

shallow and trite

the meaning of Charlottesville runs as deep as the oceans

Sometimes identity formation is pushed to a self-sustaining level by the opposition.

you had it right the first time

Many people talk to God frequently, often without the benefit of official sanction, or maybe with the “wrong one”. Many Unz readers are in those groups. Who is to say if we are tuned out?

the meaning of Charlottesville

The meaning of Charlottesville is that we had a failure of the rule of law and a continuing collapse of professional journalism and only a few people realize or know this.

On Topic!

The Mayor of Charlottesville has taken himself out of the loop in the creation of the plan for riot and its execution. He says he was not allowed to assist with the plan, nor was he allowed in the “war room” on Saturday. According to him, the plan was created and implemented by the City Manager and the Police Chief; further, he says McAuliffe made the decision to shut down the legally permitted assembly in Emancipation Park and it was the State Police, not Charlottesville PD, that pushed the UTR people out of the park and into the streets where the antifas were waiting.

Zionists who supported the Nazis

I’ve read some of the stuff posted here by the compulsive pasters and there was no significant “support for” the Nazis. It was more along the line of making hay while the sun was shining in order to save a few lives.

BTW, feeble or non-existent enforcement of immigration law translates as a practical matter into unlimited immigration, or rather, the limits are set by the immigrants.

Sometimes identity formation is pushed to a self-sustaining level by the opposition.

the meaning of Charlottesville

kudos

“According to one of the leaked emails, Clinton told Banco Itau in 2013, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders … ”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clintons-apparent-call-open-borders-trade-draws-scrutiny/story?id=42669657

[I’m sticking with the Coen bros.]

Me too, man! “Burn after Reading” a huge favourite.

[Inside information from and partiality by the cosmic CEO. ]

Hahaaa. Until he inserts certain clauses, i.e,…….

Et voilà, If-it provides the motive for Zionists who supported the Nazis.

Looks like you’re spreading Fake News.

There is no unlimited immigration of any kind. And there’s nothing to oppose because nobody’s proposing open borders (except some goofy Libertarians).

Hey iffen,

Yeah – that’s too general. The Muslim world’s experience with its Jewish minority has been quite varied depending on time and location. Depending on context you might find Jews; fighting and dying alongside Muslims to defend Muslim lands or being fought and killed by Muslims in battle, living in squalor in isolated enclaves or fully and vibrantly integrated into the economy and neighborhoods, pursuing and contributing to science and medicine or contributing nothing other than small labor and services, being rescued by Muslims from pogroms or at the receiving end of a pogrom by Muslims, etc. But yes, a while after the Enlightenment kicked in (mostly around the 18th century onward), the West was generally a better place to reside as a Jew (except for certain – ahem – notable incidences).

As late as 1799, Haim Farhi – the Jewish adviser to the Ottoman governor – held Acre’s defenses together against Napoleon’s forces and refused to switch sides even though Napoleon promised him a nascent Zionist plan:
“The city’s ruler and commander, Jezzar Pasha, had a trusted Jewish advisor whom Bonaparte attempted to win over with a surprising declaration. On April 20, 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte had an order penned, declaring that when he conquered the territory, Jews, who he called the ‘rightful heirs of Palestine,’ would inherit the land.
France and his army, Napoleon wrote to the Jews in what many today point to as one of the first iterations of modern Zionism, ‘offers to you at this very time, and contrary to all expectations, Israel’s patrimony.’ Haim Farhi, Jezzar Pasha’s advisor, was not, however, wooed by the French general’s promises of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel.”

http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/This-Week-in-History-Napoleon-is-repelled-from-Acre

Peace.

Atta boy Sam, you tell’im, and like I told him, “make your own damn movies,” I’m sticking with the Coen bros.

The penultimate paragraph should read:

The Civil War in the minds of Americans was an internal dispute and a plurality of Americans today, do not consider its symbols repugnant. Lee’s statue is the statue of an American general and reminds many of us of a great heritage of the South. It should be re-erected. No one in the US believes in Slavery today. Similarly, the Confederate Flag may not be banned. The flag is a reminder of the people’s desire to avert an excessive interference from the central government.

“but Assimilate to WHAT, exactly? Is there an “American” culture?”

Your post was written to resurrect something impossible, indeed antithetical to the idea of American Exceptionalism.

American Exceptionalism does not mean the people are exceptional. It is the exceptional will of the people to embrace certain ideas: of the primacy of the individual rights and duties, of freedom from taxation without representation and, the freedom to enter into voluntary transactions. These were the exceptional ideas which set apart the Old World from the New World.

American Exceptionalism demands that each idea, each enterprise, each proposal, be subject to the marketplace; of ideas, enterprises, and proposals. The exceptionally good win the day and the poorly conceived lose. What starts as the Irish, Polish, German, Italian, English, Jewish enclave, gives way to that which emerges as the most desired by a majority of inhabitants. That is the American way.

There is a world of difference between Americans rejecting Nazi symbols like the crooked-cross and dismantling statues of Lee. American GIs were instrumental in putting an end to that dark period of German history, thus a plurality of Americans consider it a repugnant symbol.

The Civil War in the minds of Americans today, was an internal dispute and a plurality of Americans do not consider it a repugnant symbol. It is, in fact, a statue of an American general who reminds many of us of a great heritage of the South. It should be re-erected. The Confederate Flag may not be banned. The flag is a reminder of the people’s desire to avert an excessive interference from the central government.

That is how this Jew feels.

Why are Jews so heavily represented in the pursuits of capitalism? No easy answers

Inside information from and partiality by the cosmic CEO.

One more sweeping generalization:

The Jews have been riding the crest of the wave for quite some time. They spent centuries honing their skills in the relative stability of the Muslim world, then hit the Italian beaches and into Central Europe at just the right time to cash in on the Enlightenment and the industrialization of the West.

What you say about Jews, particularly in the UK, surely has quite a lot to do with class does it not? That is to say intelligent educated successful Jews leaping into the Enlightenment, then finding themselves in the country which for two or three generations was plausibly at the leading edge of civilisation in the new age of Progress, happily sought to assimilate to the best of the upper classes and to traditions and rituals which seemed comfortably to be stable parts of it.

Yes indeed it does have a great deal to do with class, although Brit politeness and tradition requires a total rejection of overt display of class, preferring understated yet unmistakable breeding which can only come with education and lineage. And of course the stiff upper lip. Lineages do expand to accommodate the new. BTW I’ve experienced the very same in good breeding, education, comportment and culture in all the Anglosphere nations, some of the best Down Under :-). Jews aspiring join British, or more to the point, English society, since being English is rather more difficult than being British, did face difficulties as might be expected. It is a matter best explained by resistance arising from both sides of the divide. I reckon that particular rubicon has been crossed to a large extent.

As to your older friend’s experience, I can only surmise that it is not quite out of the ordinary. I vaguely recall reading a piece written by Roger Cohen [whose father emigrated en famille from South Africa to the U.K. ] which dealt with that subject matter. I’ll send it your way if I manage to locate it.

Many Brit Jews are opposed to the hard-nosed Israeli policies.

On what set of data do you place that belief?

Millions of people like me who believe that if anybody “deserves” a nation-state of their own, it is these people.

I really believe that Zionism would have died on the vine had AH not come along. Sometimes identity formation is pushed to a self-sustaining level by the opposition.

On what set of data do you place that belief?

Zionism was far more about Russian Jews than Germans — Russians pushed zionism.

Hey iffen,

I really believe that Zionism would have died on the vine had AH not come along.

Likely. And if Arab nationalism had also not come about and torn apart the Ottoman Empire. It was the rise of ethno-nationalism in that part of the world and we are dealing with the consequences.

Israel was always a European Jewish project based upon the European Jewish experience – I don’t recall reading anything about Jews in Morocco, Iraq, Istanbul, etc. pining for carving out a separate place for themselves – probably, as you said, they were doing relatively OK. Sure they went there after Israel was established and the SHTF, but that desire always seemed to be foreign to the Levant and the Middle East.

The Jewish-Iraqi poet, Anwar Sha’ul once wrote:

My heart beats with love of the Arabs,
My mouth proudly spekas their tongue.
Do they and I not share a common source?
The distant past drew us together.
That day in al-Ablq, when al-Samaw’al incorporated,
In the book of faithfulness an Arab example.
Today we march towards glory,
together we long for a happy tomorrow.
My childhood blossomed by the waters of the Tigris.
The days of my youth drank of the Euphrates.
O Homeland of Arabism, blessed be you as a shelter
Whose Beauty shines throughout the country.
I love my dear homeland and those
Whoenobled me with their love.
Our fates have been bound together in a homeland,
Which is water, air and glamor to us.

Is an Iraqi Jew any more an Iraqi Jew if he doesn’t live in his ancient homeland between the Tigris and Euphrates? How long before his unique identity is erased? Yemeni Jews? Persian Jews?

I’m hoping with enough time and cooler heads prevailing, things can go back to a semblance of how they were before the foreign ideology of secular ethno-nationalism took root. Eventually, they’ll have to decide – do they want a “lead role in a cage” or go back to being able to travel and settle freely in the wider Middle East. It’ll require honest and sincere efforts and compromise from both sides.

Peace.

Jewish success in wealth creation is attributable to their ability to see opportunity first, and to migrate to take advantage of opportunity; and conversely, to recognize when an economic situation is failing and divest from it quickly, moving away if expedient ….

Here, you betray more than a general lack of knowledge and understanding of capitalism. Waters too deep for a community college training and interaction [per your own admission] to allow safe navigation. I say that with utmost sincerity and without a trace of snobbery.

Any researcher worth their salt and academic integrity intact should tell you: (1) capitalism has existed ever since voluntary exchange emerged amongst human groups (2) central to capitalism is the idea of creative destruction, which requires less efficient enterprises to be replaced by more efficient ones; something which Jews do understand and you possibly don’t (3) modernisation of exchange systems and intertemporal cost of capital are two key insights which propelled capitalism and sent modern economies on a path of economic growth unwitnessed in prior eras and, (4) Jews were the most important group in the development of (3).

Furthermore,
(5) Innovation and Entrepreneurship have always seen dis-proportionately heavy Jewish representation. This is evident amongst all Jewish groups immigrating to the U.S. from various national origins. For example, amongst German and Austrian immigrants to the United States [1750-present] Jewish immigrants were 3% but accounted for more than 32% of the major enterprises [think department stores, catalogue shopping, Reuters, Bloomberg, Sears-Roebuck, Theater, Cinema, vaudeville, Nickelodeon, professional sports, etc. the list can go on]

(6) Jewish minds were the avant garde of modern monetary and fiscal economics. Well, John Maynard Keynes was the towering giant and a rare exception, but his more than worthy Antigone, Paul Samuelson truly revolutionised matters. Modern Banking is the practical child of this tradition, embraced by all industrialised nations and really, the world at large.

(7) Why are Jews so heavily represented in the pursuits of capitalism? No easy answers [you might have the predictably superficial ones], but there are two other similar groups: Armenians and certain Indian castes.

When you profess Learning and feel compelled to lecture, do so knowing your subject really well. A little more objectivity, and a little of the blatant biases.

Actually we are caught in a civil war between Jews which began in the 1st century AD. After a lull of a few hundred years, it picked up speed after the Jewish emancipation and hit overdrive with the rise of nation-state nationalism and into the modern era. On one side are the followers of Jesus, the apostate who stole the Jewish God and gave it to the non-Jews. On the other side are the Jews who wish to keep the Jewish God just for themselves. It’s a Jewish world; we just live in it.

Apologies to Yuri Slezkine.

They described the Germans as being very polite.

that’s what I’ve heard as well, but then if you were a Russian living in Stalingrad, not so much I’m assuming.

but the Germans never would have marched on Stalingrad had there been no genocidal Bolshevik threat.

and all of that is being re-lived today with the very same actors in the very same roles. The International Jews running the commie, Antifa show with their armies of orcs and losers, and the beleaguered white men playing the role of Nazi – a label they’ll give us whether we like it or not.

and just like with Germany, they will keep agitating for our collective subjugation, or we will be forced to crush their movement under our iron will to persevere.

only this time it isn’t just Germany and Eastern Europe who’re fighting to be free, but the entire Western civilization is being targeted for defeat and humiliation and far, far worse.

I cannot believe some of the things these activists are saying.

In my opinion the far right currently has minimal support, but conditions continuously change.

I really believe that Zionism would have died on the vine had AH not come along. Sometimes identity formation is pushed to a self-sustaining level by the opposition.

If you don’t like the movies from Hollywood, make your own.

If you don’t like the fact that your congress critters are bought and paid for by AIPAC, buy your own congress critters.

It’s the American way!

The fact remains that most Americans are quite accepting of people of other races and cultures; it is the death of, or abandonment of, the ideal of assimilation along with the government acquiescing to unlimited illegal immigration that is causing the current heartburn.

Two points: (maybe three, I lost track)

1. AGREE, most people are accepting — even delight in — other cultures: most people aspire to travel to experience other cultures.

2. but Assimilate to WHAT, exactly? Is there an “American” culture?
Neal Gabler argues in “An Empire of their Own” that Jews who run Hollywood created a fantasy version of USA that, thru the dominance of Jews in media and dominance of Hollywood in US culture, has come to define American culture.

Is there some American culture that did not pass thru the Jewish filter?

Why would people with a proud heritage wish to assimilate to what is, in my view, a debased culture? “The American dream” is a Jewish – Hollywood invention; it involves getting a job, buying a house, sending kids to college, retiring.
Really?
Is that anything that speaks to the grandeur of the human spirit?

3. Anyway, why would anyone wish to reduce the flavor of his own cultural background to plain vanilla, to assimilate.

In the good ole days, immigrants lived in neighborhoods and communities that reflected their cultures: there were Little Italies and Deutschtowns and the Polish section; the Catholic church was organized in parishes that frequently were defined by a dominant ethnic group — when I was a kid, there was the Irish parish (St Patrick’s — how original), the Polish church (St Stanislaus), an Italian parish, one for Hungarians. These parishes/neighborhoods held ethnic festivals and parades that celebrated and featured the particular culture, but everybody in the area participated and enjoyed.

What has broken down today — what is being deliberately demeaned and erased — is that ethnic pride: it happened in major ways with Germans in the era of the wars: Germans had had singing clubs; German was taught in public schools, many neighborhoods were multilingual. German culture was preserved and respected and enjoyed by Germans AND non Germans.
Then that got forcibly erased.

Similar things are happening to other Old Europe ethnic identities: they are systematically demeaned and insulted.

If society is going to be multiculti, its government should strike down actions that set about destroying the cultural legacy of one ethnic group in favor of another.

Read again the explication Avraham and the Idol Shop: Abraham formed the belief that HIS notions were right, the stargazers* were wrong, that all other ideas were wrong, and that he had the right to destroy other people’s icons because they were not his, correct, icon.

This is the myth-religious basis for the phenomenon that Priss described here: http://www.unz.com/article/thoughts-on-charlottesville-and-what-it-means-for-us/#comment-1968957

First, we need to ask, what is the ruling power in America? It is Jewish Power, . . .

What is the nature of this power? It is supremacist. What do I mean by this? Supremacism is domination over others. . . .

Why is Jewish Power supremacist? Because it demands that non-Jews, especially whites, suspend or nullify their own identity, interests, and agenda to serve the needs of Jewish Power.

The Jewish people in my neighborhood do not set out to smash other people’s icons — well, come to think of it, maybe they would: if I flew a swastika from my front porch, they’d see that Jewish enforcers had it removed —
I agree w/ Lady Redouf https://justice4germans.wordpress.com that to display such symbols plays into the hands of the Predator, but on another level, why should I or anyone be forbidden to display a swastika? Because it offends the hysterical concocted sensibilities of a small group? That’s their problem. If the swastika can be banned, then the Confederate flag can be banned, then the Stars and Stripes can be banned. Why should Jews be given special protections — that is truly un-American.

My relatives and friends who lived through WW2 in Europe had no problem pointing out the Bolshevik communist “commissars” (who were primarily jews) to the Germans. ANYTHING was better than living under the boot heel of communism. They described the Germans as being very polite. When troop movements were in play, the occupants of the town were politely requested to stay indoors until the troops moved through. There were many individual acts of kindness rendered to the townspeople by German soldiers.
They tell of their experiences growing up, dirt poor, while seeing the communist party officials live like royalty. Quite often the communists would sell hard-to-get foreign goods to them, making money in the transaction.
While Christian and Russian Orthodox churches were “repurposed” as warehouses and stables by the Bolsheviks, NOT ONE SYNAGOGUE was touched.
It is interesting to note that the majority of Bolsheviks were not ethnic Russians, but were primarily Ashkenazic jews. Sorta tells you something…

You are correct. However, assimilation is only expected of whites. Other cultures are praised for NOT assimilating.
Acceptance of people of other cultures by whites is not the problem. However, it is the increasing demonization of white people, denying by law, the ability for whites to form organizations that promote our own self-interests that is the problem. One-sided application of “civil-rights” protections IS a big problem.
Blaming whites for all of our country’s problems will result in “blowback”. It’s already occurring.
Already, white people are “going to ground” and forming (what the $PLC and other “hate groups” consider) semi-clandestine organizations in order to advance our own interests. White people are tired of being blamed for all of the world’s ills.
It is long overdue for us whites to turn our altruism inward, to benefit ourselves, the other cultures be damned.
Regards,

Hey iffen,

I’m not even White and I think it’s pretty stupid how White people are talked about in the public sphere. I cannot believe some of the things these activists are saying.

Well, you may replace us, but you are going to need to pack a lunch

There will be no replacement. White people aren’t going anywhere. The only ones that will be replaced are those choosing not to have kids; they will be replaced by other Whites and non-Whites who choose otherwise – this is basic logic and mathematics.

Peace.

Hey Talha,

Nazis or Antifa? Hmmm…

What would like for dinner; crap casserole or a sh** sandwich?

yep, and if you replace Antifa with Bolshevik/communist, (which is pretty accurate) then you’d have the dilemma that millions of people all over Europe were faced with in the 1930s and 40s.

If you were an Ukrainian or Pole, and had just watched the NKVD genocide your fellow citizens, you might hate the Nazis with a passion, but considering the alternative, donning a Wehrmacht uniform might have been your only, (if unpalatable) choice.

and that’s what it’s coming down to again. The Antifa are demanding that white men have no rights. We need to be discriminated against, no matter how impoverished, and maligned and demonized and replaced. We need to have every monument to our heritage and traditions destroyed and pulled down. We need to have all ‘dead old white men’ purged from our text books and excoriated as evil and racist.

in a word, we need to bow our heads in collective shame and hand over all we have, out of guilt.

or

we can tell them all to f**k off, and eat ****

which will make us de-facto ‘Nazis’

it’s our choice I guess

Peace

Brilliant!

Most of those “types” are actually government-paid “agents provocateur” and are used to further the anti-white, leftist political agenda.

Incorrect; only a small number are poseurs and provocateurs, because only a few are needed.

Multiculturalism and diversity are code-words for white genocide.

This slogan has limited appeal which is demonstrated by the fact that it has been around forever and has not produced much in the way of results. It is true that the current political dynamics and emphasis by the left on identity politics is giving diversity a bad name. The fact remains that most Americans are quite accepting of people of other races and cultures; it is the death of, or abandonment of, the ideal of assimilation along with the government acquiescing to unlimited illegal immigration that is causing the current heartburn.

Jews have always used low IQ blacks as a battering ram behind which to push civil rights, politically correct, and gay rights legislation and court decisions, that in the end benefit them more than anyone else. They’re now using blacks to spark a new cultural revolution, that if allowed to run it’s course, will result in the destruction of every statue and monument connected in any way to the proven superiority of Caucasian culture over all others.

“What if it turns out that the politically more acceptable counter-demonstrators deliberately provoked the violence and were allowed to get away with it?”

Assuming the demonstration was not a complete set-up (which is looking more and more likely all the time) I don’t think there’s any doubt the counter-demonstrators provoked the violence. Because, if they had not been there (without a permit) and allowed to come in contact with the legitimate (neo-Nazis) demonstrators, little if any violence would have occurred. What everyone seems to be missing in their efforts to assign blame, is regardless of who was a fault, the Marxist agitators represented by ANTIFA got everything they wanted, and more too. Which was the removal (nationwide) of numerous other monuments and statues without even asking. If that’s not brilliant strategy, what is?

Most of those “types” are actually government-paid “agents provocateur” and are used to further the anti-white, leftist political agenda.
Multiculturalism and diversity are code-words for white genocide.

And I might add, its easier to “play the game” for white men because all we need to do is reveal the truth. Its a lot harder for our enemies who must lie.

They have to convince themselves (and everyone else) that a Dodge Charger is a Nazi and that a raging mob with clubs are an innocent white woman.

You are correct of course, but my comment carried with it two unexpressed thoughts or assumptions. The first being that the neo-Nazis label applied by Marxist agitators to anyone holding traditional or nationalist values is a clever ruse. It’s name-calling and nothing more. With the other unexpressed thought being that when push comes to shove, surely the average American will to see through the ruse and side with those who clearly support their values and way of life -but I wouldn’t bet on it.

not opinion, but FACT…

Lady Michele Redouf made this presentation in Vancouver in 2015.

There’s a great deal of wisdom in it.

https://justice4germans.wordpress.com

Lady Redouf counseled these Do s and Don’t s for those Europeans who are activists on behalf of their national sovereignty

the DON’T s:

–> resist “prancing around like Hollywood neo-Nazis” and

–> reject use of Nazi symbols; and also to

–> refrain from political nostalgia — work for the future;

–> avoid conspiracy theories

–> avoid using the term “far right;” “this is the Predator’s term applied to us; we are Identarians.”

but (and this is geared to Germans)

DO

–> claim for Germans the historical fact that they were holocausted — innocent Germans were deliberately burned alive; Germans should claim that ‘brand’

–> Germans should use facts and evidence to inform, unequivocally, that Germans did not start the war;

–> define goals in terms of cultural identity rather than political party: Lady Redouf said:

“Wagner said, If we had art, meaning, if we had culture and understood our own Identity and could understand the Predator, we would not need politics. We just need a leader who would understand and protect us from the Predator, and keeps our Identity, makes us proud and wishing to uphold that identity.”