The Washington Post belatedly begins to understand that perhaps those crazy people saying Obama is, at the very least, pro-Muslim, weren’t necessarily so crazy after all:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S decision to abstain on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States vetoed past resolutions on the grounds that they unreasonably singled out Jewish communities in occupied territories as an obstacle to Middle East peace, and that U.N. action was more likely to impede than advance negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
The measure, approved 14 to 0 by the Security Council Friday, is subject to the same criticism: It will encourage Palestinians to pursue more international sanctions against Israel rather than seriously consider the concessions necessary for statehood, and it will give a boost to the international boycott and divestment movement against the Jewish state, which has become a rallying cause for anti-Zionists. At the same time, it will almost certainly not stop Israeli construction in the West Bank, much less in East Jerusalem, where Jewish housing was also deemed by the resolution to be “a flagrant violation under international law.”
By abstaining, the administration did not explicitly support that position, which has not been U.S. policy since the Carter administration. In explaining the vote, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power pointed out that the council was sanctioning Israel even while failing to take action to stop a potential genocide in South Sudan or the slaughter in Aleppo, Syria. Yet in failing to veto the measure, the Obama administration set itself apart both from previous administrations and from the incoming presidency of Donald Trump, who spoke out strongly against the resolution.
Israeli officials charged that the abstention represented a vindictive parting shot by Mr. Obama at Mr. Netanyahu, with whom he has feuded more bitterly than he did with most U.S. adversaries. The vote could also be seen as an attempt to preempt Mr. Trump, who appears ready to shift U.S. policy to the opposite extreme after naming a militant advocate of the settlements as his ambassador to Israel. Whatever the motivation, Mr. Obama’s gesture is likely to do more harm than good.
It boggles the mind how the American Left fails to understand that importing people from countries where the population is anti-Israel was always going to move the US in an anti-Israel direction.
None other than the Littlest Chickenhawk, (((Ben Shapiro))), reveals himself to be an enemy of the West, the Alt-Right, and America, as he tells lies about the Alt-Right:
Sean Illing: Are there any concrete political goals on the alt-right, apart from restoring a kind of cultural hegemony?
Ben Shapiro: They want to destroy the Republican Party from within and take it over. They want the constitutional right destroyed. They actually hate the constitutional right more than they hate the left. They don’t actually hate the left. They think the left is wrong about racism but they don’t object to big government that takes care of people; rather, they think you should have special privileges if you’re of European descent. They want what they call “Christendom” protected from foreign bodies.
VP Reader: And with that last line, I knew that Shapiro was not an ally of the West, even though he claims to be one. He is an ally of the “West” that is most beneficial to him and his tribe while keeping Christianity down to a sufficient degree that it does not, once again, become the culturally dominant worldview of the West. But that kind of an ally is no ally at all.
He’s also lying. Four times in six sentences.
We don’t want the constitutional right destroyed. We want them to come to their senses, stop relying on the magic words “muh Constitution”, and start defending the posterity that the Constitution was written to defend.
We don’t actually hate the constitutional right. We think they are misguided, outdated, and naive, but we don’t hate them. We expect them to join us one day.
We hate the Left. We know they will never join us and we look forward to relegating them to the ash heap of history. Therefore, we hate them more than the constitutional right, whom we don’t hate.
We do actually hate the Left.
And while many of us would prefer small government, we recognize that if we do not stop and reverse the invasion, the small government vs large government debate will be rendered moot, because all of the invading foreign bodies prefer large government.
It is all too typical that dishonest “journalists” like Illing prefer to interview enemies of Christendom and the Alt-Right about the Alt-Right rather than speak directly to anyone from me to Richard Spencer to Greg Johnson to Andrew Anglin.
I don’t care if someone immigrates here so long as they’re willing to imbibe the principles of Western civilization. I don’t care what someone’s race happens to be. This is consistent with the founding vision of the country. But the alt-right doesn’t accept that. – (((Ben Shapiro)))
(((Shapiro)))’s position is not at all consistent with the founding vision of the country. The Alt-Right doesn’t accept that because it is obviously untrue. It is conclusively disproven by the Preamble to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Naturalization Law of 1790. From Infogalactic:
The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians. It also provided for citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad, but specified that the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
And if you’re dumb enough to cite a five-word sentence fragment of the Declaration of Independence in a futile attempt to prove that (((Shapiro))) is correct, I have six words for you: READ THE REST OF IT, MORON.
For years, whenever Jews and Muslims engaged in dialogue and activism together, it usually concerned — or foundered — on one issue: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Donald Trump’s ascent to the presidency, that appears to be changing. Regardless of what’s happening across the ocean, Jews and Muslims in the United States are joining together to fight for shared domestic concerns.
“It is a perhaps growing recognition that [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] cannot define how American Jews and American Muslims relate to one another,” said Rabbi David Fox Sandmel, the Anti-Defamation League’s director of interreligious engagement. “The shared concerns we have about prejudice, about bias, about threats of violence, about disenfranchisement — these are the kinds of things that can bring us together.”
On Monday, the American Jewish Committee and the Islamic Society of North America launched the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, a group of religious and business leaders from both communities who will help draft domestic policy legislation and advocate on issues of shared concern.
From Infogalactic: For the most part, the invasion of the Moors was welcomed by the Jews of Iberia. Both Muslim and Catholic sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders. Once captured, the defense of Córdoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada, Málaga, Seville, and Toledo were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors. The Chronicle of Lucas de Tuy records that “when the Catholics left Toledo on Sunday before Easter to go to the Church of the Holy Laodicea to listen to the divine sermon, the Jews acted treacherously and informed the Saracens. Then they closed the gates of the city before the Catholics and opened them for the Moors.”
White Christian Americans helped establish and fund and defend Israel. And this is the gratitude they receive? This is the thanks they get? ANOTHER Jewish-Muslim alliance against them in their own country? It’s not as if Americans don’t know who opened the gates in 1965.
Guess what’s likely to come of this sort of behavior. Come on, just one guess. And what sort of bizarre, ahistorical logic do people whose single metric is “is it good for the Jews” use to conclude that this behavior is, somehow, going to be good for the Jews? Epic stupidity doesn’t even begin to describe this.
Trump received 49% of the Israeli-American vote, while Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got 44%, according to the poll conducted by get-out-the-vote organization iVoteIsrael and KEEVOON Global Research. Another 2% voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
I’ll admit it, I did NOT see THAT coming. That suggests Hillary won’t hold the usual heavy Democratic advantage among the Jewish vote. She won’t hold it among, blacks, Hispanics, or women either. So, you know what that means….
UPDATE: Upon further review, this may not be good news after all. Obama only got 15 percent against Romney and 24 percent against McCain. Also, turnout was reportedly down 50,000 from 2012. I don’t know what to make of that.
UPDATE: But news that Trump is now OH +5, AZ +5, NH +1, NC +3, NV +6, CO tie, and VA +3 in various state polls is all very promising indeed.
So long as there are Jews in the world, Haman and Amalek will always find a way to justify their enmity and hatred. That is simply the way it is in this present world. My primary concern, however, lies elsewhere. My concern is with the willing defection from God and Torah-observance of my brethren, a defection which infuses the persecution of the Jews by the nations with plausibility.
Consequently, the sense of security and comfort of which many Jews in this country boast couldn’t be more illusory, hollow, and false. And the Jews who boast the loudest are often the ones who have shirked their duty as Jews with the greatest fervor, while imagining that they could buy the friendship of the nations and permanently secure that friendship by discarding everything that distinguishes them as Jews. In other words, they thought they could sell their birthright for a pot of stew and no one would notice, least of all God.
So, what has happened here in America? In no other place and in no other time have Jews failed to demonstrate to the nations how to live a life of Divine service more than here in America; here in America, where Jews have enjoyed the unprecedented benefits of citizenship, we have failed to show ourselves as loyal servants of God. Instead, we have fought to secure and maintain those benefits, in large part, by slackening our hands and diminishing our commitment to God and Torah observance.
For the most part, we have not related to American society in a very positive way. We have done very little to inspire our fellow-citizens to live righteously. Instead, we have advanced causes which are not only contrary to God and His ways, but we have also championed policies and lobbied on behalf of political agendas which have worked against the peace and prosperity of this nation whose welfare was supposed be our chief concern during our temporary sojourn here. Surely, there must be a reason that the phrase “What’s good for the goyim?” never embedded itself in the collective conscience of the non-Jewish world to which we have been exiled.
What the Jews of the West would do well to understand is that the men of the West are now entirely immune to their complaints about anti-semitism, their appeals to pity the poor homeless Jew, and their cries of historical persecution. The situation has changed. Christendom is once more an invaded warzone, and there is no longer any room for tolerating those who are in, but not of the West, especially those who are inclined to tolerate, and even sympathize, with the invaders. War is coming, and war seldom spares those who are not on one side or the other.
Furthermore, Jews once needed the refuge of the West. (And it was a refuge, obviously, that’s why they kept returning to Western lands after being periodically exiled from one after another.) But now, thanks to the charity of the West and the staunch courage of the early Zionists, Jews are no longer a landless, gypsy nation dependent upon the toleration of strangers. They have a national homeland, a strong, independent, militarily powerful country to call their own. Israelis do not cower and cry and complain about those who identify them, they are proud to stand before the world as men of Israel and Jews.
The rabbi is right. The Prime Minister of Israel is right. Are we seriously supposed to believe they are anti-semites and Jew-haters for advising other Jews to follow their example?
Now we know why (((Mark Levin))) and (((Ben Shapiro))) are suddenly frantic to get back in the good graces of the Trump-supporting Republicans. The message has clearly been delivered, as this Jerusalem Post article demonstrates that Israel is gradually becoming aware that the Democrats are actively anti-Israel, while the Republican masses are done pursuing Israeli interests at the expense of American interests:
The problem on the Republican side of the aisle then is not that the party has turned against the Jews. The problem is that a large contingent of prominent Jewish Republicans has decided to commit political suicide.
Back in the mid-1970s, disgusted by the radicalization of the Democratic Party, particularly in connection with its prosecution of the Cold War, a significant group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals led by the likes of Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz came to the conclusion that they could no longer maintain their loyalty to the Democratic Party – which had been their political home for decades. With the rise of Ronald Reagan on the Republican side of the aisle, these prominent Jews broke with the Democrats, called themselves neoconservatives, and cast their lot with the GOP.
Some members of this group received influential appointments in the Reagan administration. Others used their intellectual skills and their media outlets to set out the intellectual basis for much of Reagan’s foreign and economic policies.
These Jewish Republicans enjoyed a far less congenial relationship with Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush. But all the same, by and large they remained loyal Republicans. For their efforts they were appointed to significant positions in the George W. Bush administration.
After the September 11 attacks, prominent Jewish Republicans like Bush’s deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz rose to national fame as they were widely credited – and often credited themselves – with shaping Bush’s counter-terrorism policies, including his decision to overthrow the Iraqi government and to make democratizing the Islamic world the goal of his counter-terrorism strategies worldwide.
Their star rose as quickly as it fell. As the public soured on Bush’s war policies, the first to be blamed for his failures were the Jewish Republicans who had been so outspoken about their roles in shaping his policies.
Some of the criticism was substantive and deserved. Much of it was bigoted.
The Republican establishment, for its part, remained staunchly loyal to Bush’s policies. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney supported them to varying degrees during their presidential bids.
That support was not shared by Republican voters, however. Over Obama’s eight years in office, the Republican base and as well as lawmakers became increasing hostile to the democratic interventionism championed by the Bush administration and disaffected with the war in Iraq.
Seemingly unaware of the shift, the same Jewish Republican policy-makers and writers most identified in the public mind with Bush’s failures went into the 2016 race assuming that as was the case in 2008 and 2012, the party would choose a candidate that largely supported their views.
Two prominent Republican candidates, Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Jeb Bush, met that expectation.
But contrary to their expectations, Rubio and Bush were flops. The voters rejected them. The two candidates that secured significant support – Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, were outspoken opponents of Bush’s policies.
Rather than repeat their practice from 1992 and accept the will of their fellow Republicans, this year the most prominent members of the Jewish Republican elite have opted to attack Trump and his voters.
That is, they have decided to commit political suicide.
Wolfowitz, along with Bush’s second term Treasury secretary Hank Paulson and several prominent lower level Jewish Republican policy-makers, announced they are voting for Clinton. Most members of the Jewish Republican elite have sufficed with refusing to endorse Trump. Some have become his most outspoken and vituperative critics.
Objectively, their behavior is irrational. With the radical takeover of the Democratic Party, these Republican rebels cannot hope to receive influential roles in a Clinton administration even if she throws some table scraps in their direction. And by attacking Trump and his voters, they are dooming themselves to political homelessness for at least a generation.
The prominence of Jewish Republicans in the Never Trump camp is liable to impact more than their personal career prospects. It is liable to adversely affect Republican attitudes toward Jews as Jews. And to their disgrace, the Jewish Republicans at the heart of the Never Trump camp are playing right into this unhealthy dynamic.
This week the Intelligence Squared debating society held a public debate in New York. The debate was posted on Real Clear Politics website.
Two sides debated the proposition that the American elites are to blame for Trump’s rise. Arguing in favor of the proposition were two Christian journalists – Tim Carney and Ben Domenech.
Arguing against it were two Jewish journalists – Bret Stephens (a former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief) and Jennifer Rubin.
Both Rubin and Stephens voiced their support for Clinton’s controversial assertion that half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable, unworthy of attention, un-American and irredeemable.
For their part, Domenech and Carney argued that Stephens and Rubin were ignoring the social and economic dislocation of the lower middle class. They argued that the suffering of members of this group has caused millions of Americans to feel betrayed by their political elites and turn to Trump to put a stop to a political game they believe is rigged against them.
Two-thirds of the way through the event, Carney brought up religion.
Carney allowed that many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bigoted. However, he said that “as a Christian,” he couldn’t accept that they are irredeemable because Christianity teaches that all men can be saved.
Rather than grant his point or simply ignore it, Rubin chose to respond in the name of Judaism. In so doing, she turned the debate into a contest between Christianity and Judaism.
Incorrectly arguing that Judaism does not believe in repentance as a road to redemption, Rubin pointed to herself and Stephens and said sardonically, “We Jews just believe in good and evil. We don’t believe that everyone is redeemable.”
The Christians won the debate in a knockout.
The heart of the problem, of course, is that far too many Jews, like (((Bret Stephens))) and (((Jennifer Rubin))), don’t give a damn about America or about Americans. Which would be fine; neither do most Somalis or Argentinians. The problem is that US-based Jews have been influencing US foreign and domestic policy to the detriment of Americans for the last seven decades, and Americans are now increasingly aware of this. Hence the rise of Donald Trump and the rise of the Alt-Right, among other things.
That’s why Jewish Republicans like (((Levin))), (((Shapiro))) and (((Goldberg))) are so uncharacteristically out of tune with the American electorate. Their behavior is proof of the wisdom of the Christ they reject, who warned us that a man cannot serve two masters.
Israel has nothing to fear from America, but anyone who insists on trying to convince Americans to continue acting against their own national interest eventually will, whether one prefers to regard them as an foreign enemy or a domestic one. Just as those who oppose Zionism are anti-semitic, anyone who opposes nationalism is an enemy of that nation.
Regardless, it should be readily apparent that anyone who first seeks “what is good for the Jews” rather than “what is good for the Americans” is no genuine American. In fact, it is very clear that they hate America and Americans.
“The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” – (((Ben Wattenberg))), Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
“Judeo-Christian is not merely anti-Christian propaganda, but as one rabbi points out, it is also antisemitic:
The Constitution entitles you to your opinions and religious beliefs and even affords you the right to express those convictions in your pursuit of public office. But as a Jew and a rabbi, I am writing to ask you to please leave me, Judaism and my people out of your rhetoric. Don’t use “Judeo-Christian” to try to appropriate my religion and my people’s history to advance your agenda.
I can appreciate that Jews and Christians share many similar values and beliefs, just as I recognize that many of the values I learn from my tradition are also shared by many other religions. But while our respective religions have many things in common, we also diverge in significant ways. You and I read the same Bible very differently and draw sometimes contradictory conclusions from it. I honor those differences and I affirm that Jews and Christians (as well as Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and many others) can come together to exchange ideas and live at peace with one another. But your particular brand of Christianity bears little resemblance to the Judaism I practice, and when you use the term “Judeo-Christian” to really mean “Christian,” you erase the distinctions between our faiths — and you essentially erase Jews….
When you use the term “Judeo-Christian,” you give your particular brand of Christian ideology a veneer of universalism it does not merit. It is misleading to suggest that your ideas are part of a “Judeo-Christian tradition.” The term “Judeo-Christian” was originally coined in the 1930s by liberal Christians and Jews who sought to encourage ecumenical relations between those two faiths for the purpose of fighting the growing racism, xenophobia and nativism of that time. But in the 1950s the term was adopted by political conservatives who used the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” as a cudgel in the fight against fellow Americans they accused of being “Godless communists.” And since the 1970s the call for a return to so-called “Judeo-Christian values” has been used by the Christian right as code language to their base for a particular brand of conservative policies that are anything but inclusive.
Perhaps those Christians who are not even remotely concerned about endorsing an anti-Christian term will think twice about it now that they understand it is also antisemitic and deplored by Jews.
Let’s be clear: Far from “sharing” one tradition, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from marrying Christians, setting foot inside a Christian church—and we can’t even drink from an open bottle of kosher wine that has been used by a Christian. We reject the Christian idea of salvation, we abhor Christian divine teachings on every subject, and we are repulsed and outraged by incessant attempts by Christian missionaries to bring us into their fold.
It is particularly disturbing when Klinghoffer makes statements which reveal his complete assumption of elements of New Testament Pauline ideology, for instance, the requirement that wives submit to their husband’s authority. There is no mandate on precisely how a woman should behave with her husband—Jews expect the happy couple to work it out for themselves. Also, while divorce may be a tragedy, and God cries, it is in no way banned—in Judaism, that is. The story in Christianity, and Klinghoffer’s “Judeo-Christian Biblical America,” is different.
Incidentally, we have more in common with Muslims than we do with Christians; Jewish law permits Jews to enter a mosque… but not a church….
Jews and Christians differ on every single fundamental principle—even on the meaning of core Scriptural texts. More crucially, Christians rely on the Old Testament for legal delineation; whereas Jews rely solely upon our rabbinic tradition. We never, ever turn to our Bible for legal guidance, only to our rabbinic literature. To suggest that our Sages had anything at all in common with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Carter or Pat Robertson is a slap in the face of 2500 years of scholarship.
“Judeo-Christian” is as valid a concept as happy-joylessness, or tall dwarves. Klinghoffer’s yearnings for this repugnant “ideal” is a deviant phenomenon without a trace of commonality in traditional Jewish thought, ancient or modern.
Considering that it is almost solely Christian Zionists in the US who proudly utilize the term, I tend to doubt there are many rhetorical ploys more powerful than accusing anyone who uses the term “Judeo-Christian values” of antisemitism.
I also think the term “Judeo-Christian values” is obviously racist, as if we are to apply the idiotic logic used to defend it, the more accurate term to describe the values upon which the United States was founded is “African-Christian values”, since everyone who is a United States citizen was, until very recently, believed to have been descended from an African ancestor and it is terribly racist to suggest otherwise, regardless of what the latest science might say.
Tom Teicholz rebukes Dennis Prager’s appeal to conservatism and explains why Jews will always be self-appointed enemies to the Alt-Right, to conservatives, and to and the interests of America and the European nations in the Jewish Journal:
Jews will always believe Black Lives matter because Jews do not think of themselves as “White People.” You have but to walk down a street in Tel Aviv to see the multiplicity of Jewish skin colors. You have but to live as a Jew in any time in history, in any country including the United States, to recognize we are not the White People – we were not the White People allowed into certain clubs, schools, neighborhoods for most of American history. We are not the people rallying for “white people’s rights.” As Ta-Nehisi Coates has written more eloquently that I ever will, “Our notion of what constitutes “white” and what constitutes “black” is a product of social context.”
Dennis Prager makes much of how the Left has often betrayed Jews. He is not wrong about that. But he is wrong in thinking that means Jews should stop supporting the causes of the Left. Consider the alternative: How have Jews fared under the right? Far worse. In Egypt, or under the Greeks and Romans, in Spain and Portugal under the Inquisition, in Europe during the Reformation, in France at the time of Dreyfus, or in Hitler’s Germany or his Reichlands. Consider the fate of Jewish lives under right wing governments in Hungary or Poland – are they better off than they were under Leftist regimes? One can even ask, as members of the Israeli Knesset have, whether more Israelis have died as a result of the policies of the current right-wing Likud government than in those years when Labor was in power (they have).
Leonard Bernstein was ridiculed for hosting a party for the Black Panthers. But Bernstein’s compassion and sense of Justice led him to lead the Palestine Symphony Orchestra in 1947 and as it became the Israel Philharmonic in Beersheba in November 1948 and almost every year of his life. His heart was large, his passion great and he was not wrong to support the cause of Black Pride and African American self-empowerment, even if its leaders had not so great a heart as his.
Jews will always agitate for and support causes of the Left, because we are commanded to be a beacon unto others and to see social activism and seeking Justice, Tikkun Olam and Tzedaka, as part of the Jewish DNA.
The next time someone claims that the Right, whether Alt-Right or some other variety, is antisemitic and Holocaust, it should prove useful to observe that, in their own words:
“All the non-Jews that you see all around the world, the billions, they exist just for the Jew’s benefit.”
“Jews will always agitate for and support causes of the Left.”
Now, which of those statements do you not oppose? Are you down with both of them?
Before anyone produces the expected NAJALT argument, I should first be very interested to learn why you are intent on playing defense attorney HERE on behalf of those with whom you supposedly disagree rather than actively opposing those making such statements THERE.
And furthermore, as I pointed out to one Jewish gentleman on Twitter, one can expect the Alt-Right to stop quoting living Jews concerning their beliefs and objectives at about the same time that the opponents of the Alt-Right stop calling us Nazis, racists, and anti-semites. We are not conservatives. We do not hesitate to use the other side’s tactics. See: Point 12.
Some say that makes us SJWs. Does it make us Jews as well?
As he responded, “I can’t fault the alt-right for lumping all Jews in with our worst crazies when so many Jews do the same to Whites.”
Roughly four years ago, a new type of White nationalist movement began to form on the internet. This was mostly made-up of young people who were formulating ideas with minimal influence from prior White nationalist movements.
It was a situation of different online subcultures (some of which were influenced by older offline movements) coming together. These groups collided, based on their having reached common conclusions, and the result is what is now called the Alt-Right.
I am going to layout here these various factions, and what ultimately led them toward this center-point where we have all met. The campaign of Donald Trump is effectively the nexus of that centerpoint.
Note that there is quite a bit of overlap between these various communities, with many people – myself included – having traveled through more than one. Breaking them down into specific categories just makes it easier to grasp the overall development of the different threads of thought.
While there will no doubt be those who are uncomfortable with the more extreme elements of the Alt-Right, particularly on the part of conservatives and libertarians who would totally join it if only it didn’t involve making common cause with those people, it is absolutely necessary to adopt a variant of the principle of Ronald Reagan, which is no enemies on the Right. A tendency to delicately recoil from anyone willing to articulate, let alone actually fight for, their own people’s interests is one of the fatal flaws of conservatism, which at its core is little more than an aesthetic philosophy of noble defeat.
We are Aristotelians here, after all. A is A, and A cannot be Not-A. So, either guilt-by-association is legitimate and applicable to everyone or it is illegitimate and cannot be applied to anyone. This means that if being Alt-Right makes you a member of the German National Socialist Workers Party and an anti-Semite responsible for the Holocaust by association, then keep in mind that being a Jew, a Christian Zionist, an anti-racist, or a philosemite makes you one of these fine gentlemen by association.
Old Jew: They are animals. The non-Jews are animals. Beasts. It is written.
Reporter: It is not written here.
Old Jew:It is written… ah, you are right. It isn’t written. There is an explanation why they are.
Reporter: Hold on, that is what I want to understand.
Old Jew:It says “you are called human and the non-Jews are not called human”, that is what is written.
Reporter: Not called human?
Old Jew:We don’t call them human.
Reporter: So what do we call them?
Old Jew:Human is in the image of God. Human is something that is different from animals. If a person acts like an animal, so he is like an animal. Each person needs to control himself. The Jews control themselves. If the evil inclination tells them to do something and they don’t do it, so then he is a person, because he has intellect.
Reporter: So someone who is not Jewish, who does what is good, is he a person or is he not a person?
Old Jew:Also, he needs to do normal things.
Reporter: What I don’t understand is, all the non-Jews are, how did you call them?
Old Jew: Beasts. If they have no direction.
Young Jew: The word human refers to the image of God. He is the image of God. That is the meaning of “human”. We changed it, meaning the Jewish people changed it, to acting more humane. You need to act like a human being, but in principle it is based on God, and people are based on God because we are in His image so He called us human. The non-Jews are… God made them so they will….
Old Jew: So they will serve the Jews. All the non-Jews that you see all around the world, the billions, they exist just for the Jew’s benefit. We don’t see it so we don’t know exactly.
Young Jew: Hold on. Today we are still in exile, so automatically they don’t yet serve us completely. Only partially.
Old Jew: When the Messiah will come each one of us will have… how many?
Young Jew: Thousands. Hundreds.
Old Jew: 2,800 slaves.
Reporter: In the meantime, the Messiah is not here, so how do they serve us now?
Young Jew: They build us cars. We don’t know. Apartments, buildings. They do everything.
Reporter: Who do they build for?
Young Jew: Us. They serve the Jews.
Reporter: There are also Jews who do that work.
Young Jew: Hardly any.
Now, consider the following questions:
Are you a subhuman beast?
Do you accept the assertion that you, your children, or your grandchildren are destined to be one of a Jew’s 2,800 slaves?
Do you exist solely “for the Jew’s benefit”?
Now, if you answered “no” to any of those questions, does that make you a Nazi and an anti-Semite?
What I found particularly interesting is that some sites explicitly claim that the anti-Gentile quotes from the Talmud, including the one about 2,800 slaves, are fake, so either the video is an elaborate hoax or the debunking sites are knowingly attempting to deceive those looking for the truth. The fact that Judaism is a religion of ethnic supremacy should also make it clear that there is nothing “Judeo-Christian” about the America that was founded to recognize “No King but Jesus”. Christians are advised to bless Israel and refrain from cursing it, they are nowhere commanded to serve the Jews as slaves.
Don’t try to play the NAJALT game, especially not if you’ve already claimed that the Alt-Right are all Nazis because Stormfront and Pepe. I do not accept the evil and dishonest principle of “rules for thee but not for me” because A can never be Not-A. As I have repeatedly observed with regards to the Rabid Puppies campaign against the SF-SJWs, the use of a tactic against us automatically legitimates our use of it. The Alt-Right does not believe in noble defeat. The Alt-Right believes in winning. Throw a swastika at us, we’ll throw Le Happy Merchant right back at you without a moment’s hesitation. Or a swastika, for that matter.
Now, where I part company with the Stormfronters is that I don’t believe the Jews are the root of all evil on this planet. I believe that Man’s fallen nature and the Prince of this World are, and that the obnoxious pride of the people represented in that video is merely one of many manifestations of Man’s sinful folly. But regardless, only a suicidal madman or a dedicated virtue-signaler would oppose or restrain any opponent of the dehumanization and literal enslavement of more than 7 billion people on the planet.
If you can’t bring yourself to stand up against your own dehumanization for fear that someone, somewhere, might retroactively blame the Holocaust on you, then perhaps they are right and you are a slave. You certainly wear their chains upon your mind.
Whatever your particular strain of Alt-Right may be, you should have no trouble agreeing with the conclusion of Anglin’s article.
As long as everyone involved keeps doing exactly what they’re doing right now, we can only continue to expand. There is no other option. Our ideas are winning. The only threat of failure is if in trying to go mainstream we decide to compromise. However, because of the nature of this internet-based movement, where the mob has a very real voice and can say it loudly when they disagree with the direction something is going in, there is not any real chance anyone pushing a compromise could be successful.
No matter who you are, no matter what you are, if you are a thinking man or woman, sooner or later you are going to have to make a fundamental decision. Am I going to serve the truth and follow it wherever it leads me, or am I going to give up and accept the lies with which I am bombarded on a daily basis? Never forget, it is the broad and easy way that leads to destruction, not the hard and narrow one.
