Nazgul wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 1:57 am
Callafangers wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 1:25 am
Nazgul wrote: ↑Sat Oct 11, 2025 1:13 am
Can I put this on RODOH. I will acknowlede you as the author.
Yes, but no need for attribution. I contributed it as a general public resource, not seeking credit. It's also a Wiki, which makes it open for others to revise/update.
Thank you Fangers. I have attributed this masterpiece to you, which is now on our forum.
https://rodoh.info/post/19746/thread
Thank you brother. Keep up the excellent work. Hope the truth prevails. Even Dr Terry could be deeply impressed by this. By default he has to criticize, which is good. We cannot go forward without traction. Dr Terry was the global moderator on our first forum years ago before the great rift and still deeply respected despite different opinion.
Well, I'm not deeply impressed by this.
Firstly, the connection with 'the Holocaust narrative' isn't demonstrated at all, but is instead asserted in the introduction, then largely forgotten in the sub-sections below.
Secondly, the claim of 'Jewish collective behaviour' is as murky as ever. Much of what is moaned about both for the 1920s-1930s and the postwar era is properly attributed to liberalism, especially when one compares internationally.
Harping on about certain moments or selective examples underestimates how political movements and ideas have risen and fallen, and also who has criticised them. Revolutionary communism or Marxism was a
global force in the 20th Century, indeed already from the 1920s in India and China, and with decolonisation as well as the 1960s moment in the US appealed very widely; it became much less 'Jewish' quite rapidly (thinking of Comintern-affiliated parties of the interwar period) as did other currents like Trotskyism, despite revering a 'non-Jewish Jew'. Most Trotskyite parties were vehemently anti-Zionist after 1967, causing some of the remaining American Jewish Trotskyites to flip and become neoconservatives.
Most Jews in the interwar period were not revolutionaries or Bolsheviks, so seeing this as somehow indicative of collective behaviour is just the usual cherrypicking. Intellectually, there were various fierce critics of Marxism among Jewish intellectuals, e.g. Karl Popper, and the Austrian school of economics which became libertarianism (Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman).
Today's progressives are really not very 'Jewish' at all, with chief inspirations including French theory, notably Michel Foucault, postcolonialism, notably Edward Said, and intersectionalism, promoted by an African-American law professor, Kimberlé Crenshaw. The progressive 'omnicause' is now deeply hostile to Israel, and many former soft left Jewish public figures have moved to the right.
It stands to reason that 2-3 generations after decolonisation and Civil Rights in 1960-1965, that there would be many academics, artists/writers and politicians from immigrant backgrounds; this was already the case in the British 1960s, with the Pakistani activist Tariq Ali a prominent figure in those years.
Thirdly, proper analysis requires noting comparisons and also identifying coalitions. Comparisons are important to note transnational, international trends. Thus Magnus Hirschfeld does not look very exceptional compared to the non-Jewish Havelock Ellis in Britain. Hirschfeld was also part of a much broader coalition of liberal and left wing artists and politicians who were advocating for the decriminalisation of homosexuality already in Wilhelmine Germany before 1914, and again in Weimar. The SPD with decidedly non-Jewish leaders like August Bebel and Friedrich Ebert was advocating for this. Comparisons would also remind people that France had decriminalised homosexuality during the French revolution (while retaining public indecency laws), and Poland decriminalised homosexuality after 1918 during the Second Republic.
Coalitions are also visible in the Northern Democrats of the late 19th and 20th Centuries in the US. Nativist backlash in the 1850s to the arrival of Catholics, especially the Irish, was represented by the Know-Nothings, who soon enough merged into Lincoln's Republican Party. The Democrats in New England and the north rapidly became the party of Catholic and Jewish immigrants. The nativist backlash of the early 20th Century culminating in the 1924 Immigration Act using the 1890 census to try and 'freeze' a particular ethnic profile was always going to piss off Italian-Americans, East Europeans, Mediterraneans and Jews.
By the 1960s, the national quotas system was outdated and enough votes could be found to introduce the 1965 Immigration Act abolishing them. More importantly, America's global position had utterly changed from 1924. The US was now a global power actively involved in many Asian countries and also looking on in Africa, the Middle East and Central/Latin America. The US was already an empire in the 1920s after the Spanish-American War, which is when America acquired control of the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and a protectorate over Cuba. There are three times as many Samoan Americans as there are inhabitants of American Samoa. Despite restrictions and exclusion acts, Chinese and Japanese Americans predate the 1924 act. Meanwhile, none other than Henry Ford imported Arab workers to Dearborn, Michigan, in the interwar period. Cuban Americans arrived en masse after Castro's takeover, and remain an important voting bloc in the GOP coalition, with the current secretary of state and another Republican senator.
There are strong business interests to tolerate immigration including illegal immigration. Money does not care about ethnicity or skin colour, so if one needs to hire agricultural workers to pick fruit etc, then that is what will happen. And has clearly happened worldwide, not just in the past 50-60 years but during the era of imperialism, otherwise the British would not have imported Indians to Africa, South Africa and the Caribbean, or US employers Chinese coolies in the 19th Century. One can still regulate guest workers, which is what one can see in Japan, South Korea, Israel, and the Gulf states, all with growing guest worker populations but no path to citizenship. Or one can emphasise high-skill immigration, as various states around the world do.
The waves of migration from the global south to the global north, to 'western' countries, have been visible everywhere. But with exceptions: Eastern Europe, especially Poland and Hungary, have not been affected in the same way Sweden has.
And yet, Poland clearly endorses a 'Holocaust narrative' largely in the absence of Jews (but benefiting from roots tourism), without having thrown itself open to immigration from the global south, thereby immediately contradicting Callafangers' thesis.
