Can someone help me figure this out?

Israel.

From the Jewish libertarians at ARI to the Jewish social democrats at the ADL, the security of Israel against her Arab neighbors is their prime consideration. Blood and soil.

Of course, when American and European whites make such noises, the Jews scream anti-Semitism.

Therefore, smash the zhid.

I sometimes read a Russian Usenet newsgroup, where about 30% of the posters are Russian zhids now residing mostly in the US. They show the same totalitarian bloodthirsty collective-responsibility mindset other zhids do.

Do the Jews constitute a nation without borders?

Worship of their tribal identity, fed by paranoia, narcissism and mysticism.

Do the Jews constitute a nation without borders?

Yes.

Who dat?

Israel.

From the Jewish libertarians at ARI to the Jewish social democrats at the ADL, the security of Israel against her Arab neighbors is their prime consideration. Blood and soil.

Of course, when American and European whites make such noises, the Jews scream anti-Semitism.

While Israel is the uniting loyalty for most Jews, if it were to cease to exist the Tribe would remain as united as it is now, if not more so.

What brings them together first and foremost is hatred of Gentiles, especially those who constitute the "host nation" among whom they reside (whites and Christians in Europe and America, Muslims in the Middle East).

Only hatred of "tthe goyim" could possibly unite atheist and Orthodox, leftist and "traditional" so effectively. As such, "Judaism" is defined as a negative entity rather than as anything positive. Jews do not stand for any belief system, they simply stand against the beliefs and values of their hosts.

What seems to be missing here is the fact that Jews were, for so long a time, persecuted by so many groups. That drove them together. If a group is small, and threatened, or percieves itself as being small and threatened, it will work together. If not, it won't.

For ages, the Jews have been treated like shit. And now they're being blamed for the survival strategies they developed during centuries of abuse? It's ridiculous! How dare they adapt! How dare they try to survive! Everybody knows only whites have that right! :rolleyes:

If whites acting in their own interests is so damn good, why is it so bad when Jews do that? They've faced more bad treatment historically. Let's be objective here. The Jewish religio-ethnic group has become very effective at keeping itself around, because of said bad treatment.

It seems to me that the hatred of Jews consists a lot of a sort of repressed jealousy, that they are able to work for their own interests, sometimes at the expense of others. Never mind that for ages, whites worked for their interests, at the expense of others.

Maybe the Jews would assimiliate better if for ages they hadn't been forced into shtetls and ghettoes and occasionally pogromed?The Jews have become strong through adversity. Perhaps they wouldn't be so strong if adversity hadn't been there in the first place? Just a thought.

What seems to be missing here is the fact that Jews were, for so long a time, persecuted by so many groups. That drove them together. If a group is small, and threatened, or percieves itself as being small and threatened, it will work together. If not, it won't.

For ages, the Jews have been treated like shit. And now they're being blamed for the survival strategies they developed during centuries of abuse? It's ridiculous! How dare they adapt! How dare they try to survive! Everybody knows only whites have that right! :rolleyes:

If whites acting in their own interests is so damn good, why is it so bad when Jews do that? They've faced more bad treatment historically. Let's be objective here. The Jewish religio-ethnic group has become very effective at keeping itself around, because of said bad treatment.

It seems to me that the hatred of Jews consists a lot of a sort of repressed jealousy, that they are able to work for their own interests, sometimes at the expense of others. Never mind that for ages, whites worked for their interests, at the expense of others.

Maybe the Jews would assimiliate better if for ages they hadn't been forced into shtetls and ghettoes and occasionally pogromed?The Jews have become strong through adversity. Perhaps they wouldn't be so strong if adversity hadn't been there in the first place? Just a thought.


Methinks you are confusing cause and effect. Jews were singled out for "persecution" because of their tribalism and aggressive clannish chauvinism. They did not develop these traits in response to "persecution," though a case can be made for a positive feedback loop arising whereby they provoked "bigotry" on account of their tribalism and unassimilability, and the "bigotry" then reinforced and strengthened their tribalism.

Imagine the following scenario: a man has been thrown out of every bar and restaurant in town. There are two explanations. The first is that his behavior is so obnoxious and inappropriate that no establishment wants his business. The second is that every restaurant owner in town is an evil bigot and part of a grand conspiracy against the man. Now, which is the more parsimonious explanation?

The fact that Jews have been "persecuted" by nations and peoples that otherwise have nothing in common with one another (what do an Arab and a German have in common...nothing really, but at one point both peoples felt the same way about the Jews) suggests that the "persecution" has more to do with Jewish behavior than with the innate evil of every other nation. Have you ever heard the saying, "If one person says you're an asshole, it's his problem. If everyone tells you you're an asshole, it's YOUR problem." If it were just Germans or just Arabs who expelled or killed Jews, it would probably be the case that there's something innately evil and bigoted about Arabs and Germans. The fact that Arabs, Persians, Spaniards, Germans, Russians (I could go on) at various points killed, persecuted, or expelled Jews tells you more about Jews than it does about those nations.

I will also add that Jews seem to prefer a low level of "anti-Semitism" in society. Not enough for them to suffer physically or economically, but just enough so that the sector of the Jewish population that might be inclined to culturally assimilate, intermarry, or convert would be discouraged from doing so. Groups like the ADL specifically overplay their cards just to encourage a certain amount of "anti-Semitism" for precisely this reason.

Well, the Jews have indeed been victimised in the past, but much of it is because their religion is pillared on the 'chosen people' concept, a belligerent, egocentric in-group ideology, moreso than the rest.

Not to say that other ideologies/peoples haven't been as equally belligerent, but they haven't endured as long as Jews have.

The situation with the Jews' subversion of traditional values and adoption of multiculturalism, is indeed an evolutionary group strategy. Views which claim the Jews to be 'inherently evil', children of Satan, or other such hogwash, only retards our understanding of the Jewish phenomenon.

As to the topic, what has united the Jews?
1- a very strong in-group ideology
2- 'chosen people' myth
3- persecution from the outside, real or imagined(paranoia)
4- and today, Israel

Jews were at times persecuted, but the 4000 years of suffering Jews sometimes try to bring out is simply a myth. I wager that in 500 years, Jews will be complaining about how much they suffered in North America and Europe in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Jews were given special privileges at various points in history. A great irony is that Jews are percieved as having been poisecuted relentlessly during the middle ages, the real persecution did not begin until the extreme later part of that period and the early renaissance. Originally they VOLUNTAIRILY segregated themselves into ghettos and shetls. There are cases when Jews were burnt, butchered, or otherwise suffering, but in those days who wasn't? Persecution of Jews was not a common or official policy. Jews have a long history of working with the elite (see Shahak for more on this) and sometimes, they even get special treatment, popes actually PROTECTED the Jews in the medieval era, Jews also had a monopoly on interest. In the Lithuanian-Polish empire, Jews got to run the tax collection racket for the land lords, to this day they are still hated in the Ukraine for this activity. Even more than the holocaust in especial, the biggest Jewish line people fall for is this idea that their history has been uninterrupted or nearly uninterrupted sadness and victimhood. Maybe it is more likely Jews are hated because they stick together rather than the other way around.

But why would one group stick together more than others?

I mean, are they hated then for being *successful*?

Consciousness of group identity, varying levels of paranoia, messianism.

For ages, the Jews have been treated like shit. And now they're being blamed for the survival strategies they developed during centuries of abuse? It's ridiculous! How dare they adapt! How dare they try to survive! Everybody knows only whites have that right!

If whites acting in their own interests is so damn good, why is it so bad when Jews do that? They've faced more bad treatment historically. Let's be objective here. The Jewish religio-ethnic group has become very effective at keeping itself around, because of said bad treatment.
Do you have something against double-standards Sinclair?

I have something against the meta-double-standard which is being propagated, that only one group has a right to double-standards, that whites are allowed to treat themselves specially, but other races aren't.

I dislike double-standards in general, but I understand that they will always exist: The more things one has in common with a person, the better one will likely get along with them. But need they always be drawn along racial lines? There are other common factors that people share, it is well possible to have more in common with a member of another race than with a member of one's own.

And the whole blaming of generalized human troubles (greed, treachery, etc) on one ethnicity is foolish. I have seen before advanced the concept that were it not for Jews, there would be *no* money lending at all, in any form, which is outright ridiculous. It gets to the point where the people involved often develop tendancies to blame just about any problem they encounter on the Jews, those lucky Jews, who got through law school or business school by way of their devious tactic of not spending half the day on the internet screaming about the Jews.

Yes, yes I do. If one is going to say "I'm putting my own group first", one must also recognize that other people are going to do just the same thing.

Great. Then by all means hold your breath and wait for Alan Dershowitz to endorse a book that laments whites miscegenating with negroes as Dershowitz's Vanishing American Jew laments the evils of Jews assimilating, converting, and intermarrying.

And while you're at it, hold your breath and wait for the day that America and the nations of Europe get the right to treat Jews the way Jews in Israel treat gentiles (as subhuman second class citizens).

Great. Then by all means hold your breath and wait for Alan Dershowitz to endorse a book that laments whites miscegenating with negroes as Dershowitz's Vanishing American Jew laments the evils of Jews assimilating, converting, and intermarrying.

Dershowitz's daughter is married to a gentile, or so he also said in the same book. I didn't get the feeling he viewed his son-in-law as inferior, or that he thought his daughter was practicing miscegnation. I can't remember if he said if the kids (if they even had any) were going to be raised as Jews or not, but I can't fathom where you're getting the idea that he holds to some sort of Jewish analog to White Nationalism. I took the book more as a lament over the passing of a particular version of secular Jewish culture than anything else. Like an old man looking back fondly on his youth, not a call to arms for Jewish Supremacy.


And while you're at it, hold your breath and wait for the day that America and the nations of Europe get the right to treat Jews the way Jews in Israel treat gentiles (as subhuman second class citizens).

I agree that gentiles are second class citizens in Israel, but I don't think they're treated as subhumans, if by that you mean the average gentile must fear for their life constantly.

As an example of what I mean, I'd rather be a practicing Christian in Israel than in any other country I can think of in the Middle East. Not that that I'd want to be in that region in the first place, of course, but Orthodox Christians get spit on in Jerusalem while in Egypt Copts get murdered. Ditto Algeria, though maybe things are a bit better in Syria and Jordan. I guess you could argue that the rise of militant Islam is due to the existence of Israel, and that (hence) Religious minorities in the M.E. are on the receiving end of a Moslem anger that can't (at least not yet) be directed where they really want it...but I honestly don't buy that. I think religious minorities would have been in for a tough ride even if Israel had never come into being.

But why would one group stick together more than others?
Why wouldn't one group do so? Does it appear to you that every human or group of humans behaves identically? Moving beyond homo sapiens, have you noticed the different strategies employed by various species?

The Jewish strategy is an evolutionary strategy. For 5,000 years the principal Jewish strategy has been to live as a cohesive group within a less cohesive host population. The strategy continues because -- despite the boom/bust cycle acknowledged even by Ginsberg in "The Fatal Embrace" -- the strategy has worked.

I have something against the meta-double-standard which is being propagated, that only one group has a right to double-standards, that whites are allowed to treat themselves specially, but other races aren't.
I have never seen this standard advanced by anyone. No one is setting a double standard that favors whites; it is fully conceded that other groups have a "right" to pursue their own interests. And indeed they do so. The point, however, is that the fact that other groups have a "right" to pursue their own interests is irrelevant. In a competition of any sort, the fact that the other competitors have a right to try to win hardly implies that you must let them win.

No, I've seen time and again basically outrage at the fact that the people one's own group is competing with dare compete themselves. Whites are allowed to work for their own interests at the expense of others, but nobody else is, that sort of thing.

Some groups are condemned by white-racists for their failings, but if a group doesn't have any major failings, they're condemned for their successes.

I think you're seeing what you want to see because you are applying your own double standard that essentially delegitimizes white participation in the ongoing ethnic competition. But let's accept that you have correctly interpreted what you have observed as a "double standard". So what? Unless other groups adopt the double standard (as large segments of the white population have done with the pro-Jewish "Chosen People" double standard), the posited double standard has absolutely no consequences -- good or bad. Do you see any evidence of non-whites being tricked into accepting a double standard that works to their disadvantage?

Where do you get that idea from? I think whites (note that I am here using the have as much right to compete as any other group. And that's where I differ from a huge proportion of the internet racists (a group I do not consider myself a member of): I believe that other groups have that right, are not simply there to bow down to the Great White Conqueror.

If the Jews have had a role in putting the negative double-standard upon whites that whites are the only group that CAN'T compete (and I agree that this exists):
1. They probably didn't have that big a role. Outside influence isn't needed for a group to introspect on what it is doing, and perhaps go too far. It is possible for white people to think that mistreating others is wrong without having someone whisper in their ear, and after that it isn't that hard for them to take their conclusions to extremes.
2. Even if Jews were 100% responsible, does a group that can be so easily tricked by a much smaller group really DESERVE to survive? It's natural selection!
3. If whites do deserve to survive, but the concept that whites have gone rather too far in guilt and so forth is accepted (as I have said before I do), as is the concept that any group that can be "beaten" by another does not deserve to survive, this would logically lead to the conclusion that Jews did not have that big a role. Anything else goes against at least one of the concepts I have listed.

The Jewish role in the formation of the anti-white double standard is significant; not complete, and not miniscule; but significant.

Natural selection: IQ was positively selected during the Ashkenazi Jew's stay in Europe, due to 1) ethnic conflict and 2) papal edict which allowed the Jews, and only the Jews, to practise usury.

(Heritable) IQ is linked to socioeconomic success; thus the high IQ Ashkenazim naturally climbed the socioeconomic ladder; heritable IQ is also one reason that whites 'control white nations', while lower IQ groups, like blacks, are stalled at the bottom.

Thus, whites who are always complaining about how 'Jews control the wealth' have something in common with ghetto negroes- that is, an intellectual elite are 'keeping them down'(they're victims).

While I don't think that the Jews are an inherently 'bad' group (e.g., "they're the spawn of SATAN!!!"), given the known recent history of Jews' recrimination of whites, pro-3rdworld immigration, pro-Israeli policies, and birthing of leftist, decontructionist ideology, it is naive to totally ignore organised Jewry as a pressure group which gives constant aid to these things.

No, I've seen time and again basically outrage at the fact that the people one's own group is competing with dare compete themselves. Whites are allowed to work for their own interests at the expense of others, but nobody else is, that sort of thing. Actually, the outrage on the part of pro-Whites is due to the fact that only Whites are not "allowed" to organize politically along racial/ethnic lines. Every other ethnic group is allowed to do so. For example, how many "White Students' Associations" exist on college campuses? There's probably not a single one in the US. Yet Black/Jewish/Hispanic/Asian Students' Associations are ubiquitous. The same goes for political organizations at the national scale.


Some groups are condemned by white-racists for their failings, but if a group doesn't have any major failings, they're condemned for their successes.It depends on what you mean by "failings." Personally, I don't care how successful or unsuccessful some alien ethnic group is; I only care if my ethnic group is being exploited. If the Jews make a lot of money through hard work or other honest means -- hey, more power to 'em. What I object to is (to give one important example) their infiltration of the US government and media and their concomitant manipulation of foreign policy and public opinion. I particularly object to the injustices perpetrated on the Palestinians by the Israelis, even though the Palestinians are not White. Being racially aware does not preclude the possession of a conscience. Having said that, I would probably be less concerned about the Middle East conflict if it were not being fueled by American tax dollars and political leverage.