Clearly, I am not saying a random Jew on the street just magically "gets what he wants". I am saying the dominant Jewish factions in the American institutions have usually gotten what they want, especially in the post-WWII order. Really though, "getting what they want" is an understatement. They decisively
won the great American culture war of the 20th century, which culminated in the 1960s Jewish led cultural revolution and 1965 immigration act. Yes, they got what they want, and just like everyone else, they will have to deal with the consequences as it turns to shit.
I often bring up the victorious Dodge and vanquished Henry Ford because it so clearly and concisely illustrates this cultural conflict:
ford.jpg
Now who would you say has won in America? Ford's team, or Dodge's team? Even asking the question is purely rhetorical, since everyone knows the answer. Ford's vision of the future clearly lost, and the Jewish vision of the Dodge brothers prevailed. I like this microcosm because it so nicely encapsulates the countless similar battles fought between Jews and ethnic Europeans that took place during the 20th century cultural war.
Liberal Jews are "The Jews" as far as America and any other host nations are concerned. The tendency for "The Jews" to liberalize their host culture is nearly universal. There is nothing mysterious about this. Nomadism is simply not compatible with nationalism and cultural stability. These things are even openly perceived as a threat to the Jews, and they rarely even bother to hide it. In fact, among people who fully accept that such liberalization has been good, there is a stronger tendency for Jews to
brag about their revolutionary influence. Take the Jewish made film,
Hollywoodism, for example (based on the book "An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood"). This movie was made in 1998, when Jews were far more confident in the permanence of their cultural and social victories, and they felt safe to openly take pride in "transforming America". But transforming a mono-cultural nation into a multi-cultural security state can't just be treated like inventing a new ice cream flavor. This is serious shit and has very serious consequences.
I mean, for fucks sake, the revolutionary manual of the 60's was Rules for Radicals, written by Alinsky, another Jewish revolutionary. All this revolutionary energy was clearly coming primarily from this ethnic source. There were gentile cultural converts (e.g. Hillary was Alinsky's disciple), to be sure, but the spirit of all this 20th century "progress" was unmistakably Jewish. Again, when it's seen as a good thing, Jews openly embrace it:
jewish-century.jpg
They say it, not me. And again, this is very serious shit with very serious consequences. It's more or less how I've defined globalism previously in this thread: "making the whole world nomadic to accommodate the nomads". So if anyone has ever wondered why the media screeches about the word "globalism" being antisemitic, you now have your answer. To criticize globalism is to criticize the "great Jewish achievement" of the 20th century.
Of course, it's all fun and games until this vision of "modernity" fails. You can't just take the credit and then reject the blame once this debt-fueled, pan-nomadic, fragile construction of modernity begins to unravel in the most dramatic fashion.
Especially when the "antisemites" who historically opposed it so accurately described how it would unravel.
Yes, and I very aggressively do not care. That the Jewish ethnicity exists is abundantly clear, and nitpicking who and who isn't a Jew amounts to nothing more than an obfuscation tactic.
Honestly man, I almost get a hint of parody in this, but I will assume it is sincere.
So you are saying it is
debate about the Jews that puts the Jews in danger? Really?
Or could it possibly be the behavior patterns of this nomadic tribe that gets them in trouble with their host nations? You know, behavior patterns like demanding that a pet historical heresy be elevated to a
crime you must defend yourself against in a
court of fucking law?
The Gypsies are another good illustration here. Pretty much everyone freely admits that this group of nomads employs tactics of petty theft as part of their group survival strategy. We're allowed to say it because the Gypsies have little to no cultural power. No one cares. So why is it unimaginable to think that another tribe of nomads, from a different culture, would employ their own flavor of survival strategies that are not necessarily beneficial to their host nations? I see no reason whatsoever. In fact, I think it would be a lot more strange if they didn't.
Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by Larry Zaks
