PDA

View Full Version : Coming to America


madrussian
10-23-2004, 04:56 AM
Zhids' nightmare is whites' well-being and vice versa.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=926&e=2&u=/usnews/20041021/ts_usnews/comingtoamerica

By Jay Tolson

It is a nightmare vision of the Jewish American experience gone hellish. In 1940, the aviator and Nazi sympathizer Charles A. Lindbergh defeats FDR at the polls. Signing a pact with Hitler and tacitly acceding to his sinister agendas, President Lindbergh launches some pretty scary programs of his own. One, "Homestead 42," aims to relocate Jewish families in "an inspiring region of America previously inaccessible to them," where, it is ominously said, they can "enrich their Americanness over generations."

A dark fable, Philip Roth's widely acclaimed new novel, The Plot Against America, is also perfectly timed, as scholars and others observe the 350th anniversary of the first Jewish settlement in North America. Using a lightly fictionalized version of his own Newark, N.J., family--a horrified mother "Bess," a fiercely undefeatist father "Herman" --Roth explores the sometimes vulnerable sense of Jewish difference that has existed throughout American history. But he also captures the attendant conviction that the core values of Americanism--mostly liberal, tolerant, and progressive--are largely compatible with the ideals and accomplishments of the Jewish people.

Hope and fear. This idea builds on a covenant affirmed by George Washington in his 1790 letter to the Newport Hebrew Congregation, pledging that the United States "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." The Plot Against America is the story of what didn't happen here, of course. But it still credibly evokes the real drama of Jews whose faith in America has been hedged as often by fears and reservations as by confidence and hope.

During the past 50 years in particular, that drama has come under the scrutiny of a growing scholarly industry. Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, says that "the field has come of age." Once largely an apologetic exercise in documenting Jewish contributions to American life, the scholarship now focuses on the diversity of Jewish experiences. It also looks closely at the post-World War II period, when, as a result of the Holocaust in Europe, American Jews became (and until recently remained) the world's largest Jewish community. As American Jews--numbering around 6 million in 2000, or roughly 2 percent of the total U.S. population (down from a peak of about 3.6 percent in 1940)--became more confident of their place in the larger American society, the American Jewish experience, including its religious innovations, greatly influenced Jews and Judaism worldwide.

In fact, such reciprocal influences have been at work ever since 1654, when 23 Jews arrived in New Amsterdam. They came from Recife, Brazil, where the Portuguese had expelled all Jews who had not at least outwardly converted to Christianity. The director-general of the North American Dutch colony, Peter Stuyvesant, would himself have forced the 23 to move on had not his superiors in the Dutch West Indies Company heeded the petitions of Portuguese Jewish merchants residing in Amsterdam. The success of those appeals was proof of the power of a network through which the Sephardim--as Jews from the Iberian peninsula are known--used family and religious ties to forge reliable commercial relationships linking the old and new worlds. Permitted to live and trade in New Amsterdam, the original American Jews were also allowed to worship "quietly" in their homes and to purchase their own cemetery. But a strict prohibition against public worship remained in place for a time even after the British took the city and renamed it New York in 1664. By the end of the century, however, long after most of the original community had disappeared and had been replaced by a new wave of Jewish families, the British acceded to the creation of a synagogue, Shearith Israel. For the next 125 years, writes Sarna in American Judaism, in New York and other American port towns, "the synagogue and organized Jewish community became one and the same."

Run by lay members on a rotating basis--there would be no rabbis in American congregations until 1840--the synagogues stressed tradition, deference to authority, and solidarity. Although by 1720 Ashkenazic Jews (those with roots in Central and Eastern Europe) outnumbered Sephardic Jews in New York and other Colonies, the custom of precedence meant that Sephardic rites and interior architectural styles prevailed. While there was little such communal coexistence among Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews in Amsterdam and London, American Jews largely set aside their differences. "Overall," says Eli Faber, author of A Time for Planting: The First Migration, 1654-1820 and professor of history at the City University of New York, "the communities held together."

Ferment. They would do so well into the early years of the American republic. But after the revolution, things began to change. "Among Jews, as among many Protestants of the day, the immediate post-Revolutionary decades were characterized by burgeoning religious ferment," writes Sarna in his contribution to Michael Grunberger's From Haven to Home: 350 Years of Jewish Life in America, a book that accompanies the current Library of Congress (news - web sites) exhibition by the same name. In 1825, for example, young Ashkenazic Jews who had been rebuffed in their efforts to modify the worship services at New York's Shearith Israel founded their own congregation, B'nai Jeshurun. In Charleston, S.C., a group of young Jews, this one strongly influenced by Unitarian teachings, broke with the local synagogue and established the "Reformed Society of Israelites." Thus was established a new template in Jewish American life, one in which religious innovators and reformers, claiming either to return to orthodoxy or to align with modernity, established alternative congregations and movements (Reform, Orthodox, Conservative), competing among themselves for young spiritual consumers.

As the connection between synagogue and community loosened, Jews had to find new ways to shore up a sense of collective identity. One solution was the creation of communitywide charitable and fraternal organizations such as the Hebrew Benevolent Society and B'nai B'rith. But the challenge of forging bonds among all Jews only grew between 1820 and 1924, when a huge influx of German, Eastern European, and Russian immigrants sent the Jewish American population rocketing upward from about 3,000 to 3.5 million. Some Jewish leaders vainly promoted the idea of a central religious council or a chief rabbinate (such as existed in Europe) to foster a kind of Jewish "union." Other efforts to unify the community sometimes had almost comical results. In 1883, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise invited both traditionalists and reformers to the first graduation ceremony at Cincinnati's Hebrew Union College. But fare that included shellfish drove away many guests, and what came to be known as the "Trefa Banquet" ("Unkosher Banquet") epitomized the futility of trying to unite America's Jews.

While the long period of massive migration was previously seen as the formative period of American Jewish life, new scholarship locates that crucible in the years between World War II and the late Sixties. In his contribution to Grunberger's volume, historian Jack Wertheimer, provost of the Jewish Theological Center of America, tells how some of the major rifts within the American Jewish community closed during the first postwar decades. "The demonstrable vulnerability of European Jewry during the Holocaust, coupled with Israel's establishment in 1948, resolved the enervating battles between Zionists and anti-Zionists," he writes. But as Wertheimer and other scholars have shown, more recent decades have seen a number of paradoxical developments. As anti-Semitism generally declined in American society and Jews themselves in growing numbers moved away from the Northeast and into the vast American Sun Belt, Jewish identity lost a powerful, if negative, reinforcement. While many contemporary American Jews are returning to religious practice with renewed intensity, high rates of intermarriage threaten to further erode Jewish identity. And against all this, says American University historian Pamela Nadell, the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and other parts of the world makes some American Jews again wonder if "it can't happen here."

But it is too easy to note such worrisome developments and downplay the covenant set forth in Washington's letter--and the way generations of Jewish Americans have renewed it from their side. In a memoir titled Patrimony: A True Story, Roth describes how his real father, the son of a Polish-Galician immigrant, made good on the deal: "I drive him around . . . and all the time I'm thinking that the real work, the invisible, huge job that he did all his life, that that whole generation of Jews did, was making themselves American. The best citizens."

otto_von_bismarck
10-23-2004, 06:59 AM
It is a nightmare vision of the Jewish American experience gone hellish. In 1940, the aviator and Nazi sympathizer Charles A. Lindbergh defeats FDR at the polls. Signing a pact with Hitler and tacitly acceding to his sinister agendas

Wouldn't be good for you MR, your a subhuman slav. While American military force certainly was not decisive to the defeat of the Reich lend lease to the Soviet Union certainly was. Those Russians who were not starved off or executed would be enslaved. Hitler openly stated this a number of times.

madrussian
10-23-2004, 07:35 AM
Keikel, just look at your screen name...and then at your posts.

Patrick
10-23-2004, 12:35 PM
It is a nightmare vision of the Jewish American experience gone hellish. In 1940, the aviator and Nazi sympathizer Charles A. Lindbergh defeats FDR at the polls. Signing a pact with Hitler and tacitly acceding to his sinister agendas, President Lindbergh launches some pretty scary programs of his own. One, "Homestead 42," aims to relocate Jewish families in "an inspiring region of America previously inaccessible to them," where, it is ominously said, they can "enrich their Americanness over generations."

A dark fable, Philip Roth's widely acclaimed new novel, The Plot Against America, is also perfectly timed, as scholars and others observe the 350th anniversary of the first Jewish settlement in North America.


I don't think you can say Lindbergh was a Nazi "sympathizer." In fact, not even Philip Roth ultimately does, through the extremely improbable plot twists in his tedious novel. (I finished it a few days ago. It is at turns ridiculous and a cure for insomnia. Too bad, as I usually like this sort of thing.)

As to Linbergh being some sort of anti-semite, that's also unlikely. Lindbergh wrote his first book while staying a Harry Guggenheim's house, and carried on a life-long correspondence with him. I would even go so far as to suggest the two men were friends. (Curiously, Roth doesn't once mention Guggenheim in his novel, one way or the other.) Roth does state the following in the afterword to the novel:


Earlier in year he notes, of a private conversation with a high-ranking member of the Republican National Committee and the conservative newsman Fulton Lewis, Jr., "We are disturbed about the effect of the Jewish influence in our press, radio and motion pictures...It is too bad because a few Jews of the right type are, I believe, an asset to any country." In an April 1939 diary entry (omitted in 1970 from his published Wartime Journals) he writes, "There are too many Jews in places like New York already. A few Jews add strength and character to a country , but too many create chaos. And we are getting too many."

The Plot Against America, Postscript, p. 370


This appears to be the best Roth can do to portrary Lindbergh as some sort of Jew-baiter. :rolleyes: But, I'm currently doing some reading on this, so perhaps I'm the mistaken one. If I conclude I'm substantially wrong, I'll certainly post something to that effect. The strange thing about April 1939 is that Lindbergh spent the first half travelling back from Europe, and the second half going on active duty in the US Army. I'm honestly not sure where he would have made such an entry. It would have made far more sense in 1940, during his involvment with America First. At that time his speeches were rather mysteriously not run on the radio in New York, though they were heard throughout much of the rest of the country. And he does express his frustration over this, and cite a Jewish influence. But to my eyes it reads more like frustration that anti-Semitism.

As an aside, Given what Lindbergh writes in his Wartime Journals, I think you could make a far stronger case that he was some sort of "Anglophobe" as opposed to some sort of anti-Semite. Here's an example:



The impression which has been given in the English press about the strength of the country in case of war is not in keeping with the facts. There is a combination of bluff and vanity in the English that leaves them extremely vulnerable to an enemy who knows these characteristics. Personally, I believe the assets in English character lie in confidence rather than ability; tenacity rather than strength; and determination rather than intelligence. However, any conclusion one reaches in regard to the English is constantly shaken by the exceptions which arise. It is necessary to realize that England is a country composed of a great mass of slow, somewhat stupid and indifferent people, and a small group of geniuses. It is the latter to whom the empire and its reputation are due. They lead and conquer while the mass holds in a deliberate, semiappreicative manner what their leaders have gained.

The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh, 1970. Entry of Wednesday April 27, 1938, p. 23.


Perhaps I'll start a thread on Lindbergh in the History forum if I get my ducks a bit more lined up. He was certainly a fascinating man.

Sinclair
10-23-2004, 02:29 PM
I read the book.

It is important to point out that the improbable plot twist is never actually defined as being the truth as to what happened, it is merely the account of one character who is trying really effing hard to cover his own ass.

I'd say the way that in the end America goes back to normal and WWII is won just the same is the weakest link. So the US never supplied Britain or Russia with lend-lease, and then a few years into the war can just decide to join up with the allies, and everything's the same?

It's a pretty good book from my perspective, but it's not perfect. However, I'd have to say that Roth spoils the narrator's being a kid and thus acting in ways which are far different from the adult norm or thus not understanding something the reader would, by then sort of doing a retrospect-narrative, along the lines of "At the time, I had no way of knowing...... etc" and then explaining to the reader what his character cannot understand or whatever, which ruins the way that the protagonist is an unreliable narrator and is not altruistic.

Thomas777
10-27-2004, 01:33 AM
It is so typical of the Jews to portray all of their enemies as "Nazis"...they revel in reducing their opposition to boogeyman-esque charicatures...rather than considering the individual nuances of various White ideologies.

Lindbergh was, as far as I know, an Anglophile type racialist who found much common ground with the likes of Lothrop Stoddard.

Many White American patriots initially admired the Reich for its raising of the proverbial ramparts "in defense of the White world"...however, this did not make them National Socialists...or even "sympathizers" for that matter.

otto_von_bismarck
10-27-2004, 02:35 AM
Lindbergh though not some gutter nazi was not an Anglophile.

IronWorker
10-27-2004, 05:40 AM
This appears to be the best Roth can do to portrary Lindbergh as some sort of Jew-baiter. :rolleyes: But, I'm currently doing some reading on this, so perhaps I'm the mistaken one.

The Guggenheim stuff does not matter, to the ADL types if you dislike just one jew, then you are... wait... here it comes... an antisemite.

You may want to take a look at the speech that Lindbergh gave in Des Moines, Iowa,

Charles Lindbergh's September 11, 1941 Coincidence

By Mark Weber

Institute for Historical Review
IHR.org
9-11-2

It's a remarkable historical coincidence:

On September 11, 1941, precisely 60 years before the terrible attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Charles Lindbergh spoke out -- for the first and only time in public -- about the danger of Jewish power in the media and government.

The shy 39-year-old -- known around the world for his epic 1927 New York to Paris flight, the first solo trans-Atlantic crossing -- was addressing 7,000 people in Des Moines, Iowa, about the dangers of U.S. involvement in the war then raging in Europe. The three most important groups pressing America into war, he explained, were the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt administration.

Of the Jews, he said:

"Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government."

Lindbergh went on:

...For reasons which are understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, [they] wish to involve us in the war. We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we must also look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

While many Americans welcomed Lindbergh's frank words, the media and prominent public figures responded mostly with harsh censure. The storm of criticism, including charges that he was anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi, turned the famed "Lone Eagle" overnight into a virtual pariah.

But Lindbergh's words were not only accurate, they were prophetic. As valid as they were in 1941, they are even truer today.

In 1973 U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman William J. Fulbright exclaimed during a television interview: "THE ISRAELIS CONTROL THE POLICY IN THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE... somewhere around 80 percent of the Senate of the United States is completely in support of Israel -- anything Israel wants..."

Ten years later, Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said:

I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on.

In a 1993 book, The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Jewish author and political science professor Benjamin Ginsberg wrote:

Since the 1960s, Jews have come to wield considerable influence in American economic, cultural, intellectual and political life... The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and the most influential single newspaper, the New York Times ... The role and influence of Jews in American politics is equally marked ...

Jews are only three percent of the nation's population and comprise eleven percent of what this study defines as the nation's elite. However, Jews constitute more than 25 percent of the elite journalists and publishers, more than 17 percent of the leaders of important voluntary and public interest organizations, and more than 15 percent of the top ranking civil servants.

In 1996, Israeli journalist Ari Shavit wrote (in the New York Times, May 27) that Jews felt free to act brutally against Arabs "believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our own."

And just a few months ago, Stephen Steinlight, former Director of National Affairs of the American Jewish Committee, wrote of the "disproportionate political power" of Jews, "pound for pound the greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America," noting that "Jewish economic influence and power are disproportionately concentrated in Hollywood, television, and in the news industry."

The most direct and obvious victims of Jewish-Zionist power are, of course, the Palestinians who live under Israel's harsh rule. But as the IHR has made clear for years, in truth we Americans are also victims -- through the Jewish-Zionist grip on the media, and the organized Jewish-Zionist corruption of our political system. We are pressured, cajoled, flattered, and deceived into propping up the Jewish state, providing it with billions of dollars yearly and state-of-the-art weaponry, and even sacrificing American lives (as in Israel's 1967 attack on the "USS Liberty"), thereby making us accomplices of its crimes.

The truth is that if we held Israel to the same standards that we apply to Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq, US bombers and missiles would be blasting Tel Aviv, and we'd be putting Israeli prime minister Sharon behind bars for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Today the danger is greater than it's been in many years. Just the other week the French ambassador in London, Daniel Bernard, privately acknowledged that Israel -- which he called "that shitty little country" -- is threatening world peace. "Why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?," he bluntly said.

- Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review, <http://www.ihr.org>www.ihr.org

Link: www.rense.com/general29/iis.htm