Europe's Immigration Crisis

[Jay Cunningham]

I'm thoroughly against this immigration wave, but I read through the guy's comments at the site you link. I basically agree with a lot of what he says . . . until he gets to this: "The Left, mainly orchestrated by Zionist interests."

First, he's factually wrong. There are many left-wing Jews in Europe, the US and Israel, but most of them are far from Zionists. Second, this is how outrage at stupid and suicidal policies get branded as being "Nazi." The Jews, much less the Zionists, have little to nothing to do with this. It is guilt-ridden politicians like Merkel (the daughter of a Lutheran pastor) and NGO's that are supporting the mass immigration. And the assumption that "Zionists" are behind it shows the lingering power of the old European anti-Semitism, combined with the new (usually left-wing) anti-Zionism.

It's a shame that otherwise sensible people are falling for the old anti-Semitic canard.

It's naive to dismiss *any links at all* between Zionism and an open borders agenda for America and Europe.

Historically, you'll often find both individual Jews and Jewish groups at the forefront of promoting immigration into America and Europe. Here's a recent article from an Israeli news source discussing a Jewish unified front regarding immigration:

"Ten Jewish groups urge Congress to allow Syrian refugees into U.S."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/news/1.686976

There are IN FACT wealthy, ardent Zionists such as Sheldon Adelson (American/Israeli dual citizen, and big Republican contributor) and Haim Saban (American/Israeli dual citizen, and big Democrat contributor) who are pro open borders for America, yet simultaneously advocate for a walled-off Israeli ethnostate with DNA-based (ethnically Jewish) immigration laws.

All Zionists aren't Jews - and all Jews aren't Zionists - but to dismiss the overlap between the two groups is naive. It's just as naive to dismiss the historical links between Zionist Christians, Zionist Jews and secular Jews, and American/European open borders advocacy.

[Dagga Boy]

Unfortunately, the Jews have this long history with progressive liberals I do not understand for the life of me. Their "lets just get along and try to fit in" mentality that has failed for centuries and usually puts them at the front of the line for "those to blame and eradicate". It is why we are at the end of Judism as a religion and Jews as a cultural group.....and that is coming from one.

Also keep in mind.......Jews are as prone to stupid folks in their ranks as the rest of America, which is why we are also in the decline of our nation.

Oh yea, I would also be happy to take Syrian Jews and Christians. Both are on genocidal tracks in the middle east outside of Israel, and actually qualify by treaty for refugee status.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Unfortunately, the Jews have this long history with progressive liberals I do not understand for the life of me.

There is an historical and religious basis in Judaism of helping one's fellow human. Standard conservative doctrine was not seen as being in accord with that.

Next, in Europe active defense of self was discouraged as it was thought to be futile. It goes like this:
If a Cossack rape Emma and we kill the Cossack, the Cossacks will come and kill everyone in the village. This translated into passivity. The best defense was to flee.

In the USA, until recently the country had no real interest in Jewish refugees and Christians were prone to antisemitism. Brandeis University was founded to have quality institution that would take Jews. The Ivies were notoriously antisemitic. The SATs were in part developed to give objective measures to allow students to enter colleges. Note, that when it was discovered that a large portion would be Jews - other measures were used (extra curriculars, etc.). The same happened to Asians in the UC system. Large public universities, like CUNY, gave a quality education to many Jews - and were tough to get into.

That was destroyed by open administrations.

The only way to challenge discrimination in the USA was through liberal politics and the Civil Rights acts. This was the domain of liberals and not Conservatives.

Thus, you get antipathy to firearms and support for big progressive agendas. However, the former is stupid and the latter went out of control.

So the strategy for the blame and eradicate was not to resist and hope some survive. This leads to the 'surrender' jews who feel that fighting to defend yourself here (with guns) or in Israel is somehow not moral. It is thought if you make nice to your enemies, they will like you and leave you alone (or with acceptable losses).

[RoyGBiv]

There is an historical and religious basis in Judaism of helping one's fellow human. Standard conservative doctrine was not seen as being in accord with that.

Next, in Europe active defense of self was discouraged as it was thought to be futile. It goes like this:
If a Cossack rape Emma and we kill the Cossack, the Cossacks will come and kill everyone in the village. This translated into passivity. The best defense was to flee.

In the USA, until recently the country had no real interest in Jewish refugees and Christians were prone to antisemitism. Brandeis University was founded to have quality institution that would take Jews. The Ivies were notoriously antisemitic. The SATs were in part developed to give objective measures to allow students to enter colleges. Note, that when it was discovered that a large portion would be Jews - other measures were used (extra curriculars, etc.). The same happened to Asians in the UC system. Large public universities, like CUNY, gave a quality education to many Jews - and were tough to get into.

That was destroyed by open administrations.

The only way to challenge discrimination in the USA was through liberal politics and the Civil Rights acts. This was the domain of liberals and not Conservatives.

Thus, you get antipathy to firearms and support for big progressive agendas. However, the former is stupid and the latter went out of control.

So the strategy for the blame and eradicate was not to resist and hope some survive. This leads to the 'surrender' jews who feel that fighting to defend yourself here (with guns) or in Israel is somehow not moral. It is thought if you make nice to your enemies, they will like you and leave you alone (or with acceptable losses).

I had some of this conversation with my mother last night. She's a 70-something Gen-1 American of Eastern European "Poli-Stan" decent. She remembers family gatherings where more than one person wore a number tattoo.

Mom is staunchly anti-BHO/HRC. Her friends, bar none, will not talk politics with her. Fingers in ears, "NANANANANANANA". Mom feels that it derives mostly from years of big city liberal brainwashing. Most of her era immigrants came through the immigrant ghettos in big city America. Lot's of groupthink. Now that this population is aging, she feels that the progressives are "keeping them stuck" believing that progressiveism is friendly to them and to Israel, by setting up the GOP as THE threat to their entitlements.

Get a person hooked on the drug of entitlements and convince them the other guy will take it away. When you're too old to start over, that's pretty powerful manipulation.

Yes, mom realizes it's all lies... it baffles her why her peers refuse to see through it...or admit they see through it.

FWIW.

[Drang]

The only way to challenge discrimination in the USA was through liberal politics and the Civil Rights acts. This was the domain of liberals and not Conservatives.

As long as you mean "liberal" and "conservative" as opposed to "Democrat" and "Republican", that's fine, but as is well-known, the Republican Party was founded on the plank of abolition, the Democrat were the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation. The Federal Civil Service was well on the way to integration, with promotions based on merit, when Woodrow Wilson introduced America to the joys of statist progressivism, and re-segregated everything. Later, of course, the Civil Rights Act was written and passed by Republicans, and co-opted by LBJ as the means to "get them ******s voting Democrat for a thousand years."

[Joe in PNG]

As long as you mean "liberal" and "conservative" as opposed to "Democrat" and "Republican", that's fine, but as is well-known, the Republican Party was founded on the plank of abolition, the Democrat were the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws and segregation. The Federal Civil Service was well on the way to integration, with promotions based on merit, when Woodrow Wilson introduced America to the joys of statist progressivism, and re-segregated everything. Later, of course, the Civil Rights Act was written and passed by Republicans, and co-opted by LBJ as the means to "get them ******s voting Democrat for a thousand years."

For many in the Democratic party, the thought is that thanks to the Evil Nixon's Southern Strategy, all the racist, segregationist, and other bad peoples were enticed into joining the Republicans. Because now with the magic of secret 'dog whistles' and coded language*, issues like "smaller government", "welfare reform", "law and order", even "gun rights" are all really just coded racism for the prejudice of the lumpen-proletariat.

*For a few easy payments to your local university, you too can learn the proper semiotics to decode anything a Republican says as racist, homophobic hate speech!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I understand the party names and the great shakeup that happened with Goldwater. It shook the liberal Republicans to the Democrats and the Conservative Democrats to the Republications. This group polarization led to each party pandered to their extremes and setting up pass/fail litmus tests for being a true believer.

[Joe in PNG]

I understand the party names and the great shakeup that happened with Goldwater. It shook the liberal Republicans to the Democrats and the Conservative Democrats to the Republications. This group polarization led to each party pandered to their extremes and setting up pass/fail litmus tests for being a true believer.

There's also the Leftist insurgency under Gene McCarthy back in '68 that had a good part in the Democratic Party shift to the Left. This helped lead to the McGovern nod in 72, and the eventual Carter win in '76. Many of the hippie kids that went 'Clean for Gene' and knocked doors in '68 stayed on, and are now the elder 'statesmen'. Meanwhile, the traditional, more conservative Democrats were pretty much driven out by the young radicals- a good number of whom held grudges from the Chicago convention.

[Jeep]

For many in the Democratic party, the thought is that thanks to the Evil Nixon's Southern Strategy, all the racist, segregationist, and other bad peoples were enticed into joining the Republicans. Because now with the magic of secret 'dog whistles' and coded language*, issues like "smaller government", "welfare reform", "law and order", even "gun rights" are all really just coded racism for the prejudice of the lumpen-proletariat.

*For a few easy payments to your local university, you too can learn the proper semiotics to decode anything a Republican says as racist, homophobic hate speech!

In fact, the poor southern whites who were the backbone of the KKK continued to vote Dem after 1964 and many vote Dem to this day. In 2008 in the Virginia coal country (right on the border of southern West Virginia), Obama supposedly told an audience of white, union, coal miners that "I understand that you say that you'd rather vote for a n***** than a Republican. I'm here to give you that choice." (I give credit to Obama for very little, but I had to give him credit for that line).

The southerners who switched to the GOP were overwhelmingly middle class, and it was the white middle class (both Dem and Rep) that led the white rejection of racism and segregation in the South. Thus, the idea that the racists switched parties and the Reps became the party of racism was simply one more lefty untruth.

And, of course, as the Black Lives Matter movement and its various offshoots at colleges show, racism in America is now becoming a heavily black thing--once again pushed by the left wing. "People of color" are inherently good; whites are inherently evil; and as always with lefties, the heavy hand of government should be used to smash the bad race.

Thanks to the left's never-ending collectivist view of the world in which individuals are always subordinate to some group or the other, we continue to be a long way from where we need to be--a country in which people are judged by the "content of their character" and not by "the color of their skin."

[Joe in PNG]

Jeep- the fun thing is, many of the leftist in leadership roles are making good money by exasperating the problems. I doubt Benji Crump take a Greyhound to the scene of the latest #BLM martyrdom. The politicians, especially those in failed hellholes like Chicago, can continue to get votes by playing the race card while avoiding accountability for their actions.