Criticism of Jews as a Collective (Not Just as Individuals) is Ethical and Warranted

[Stubble]

The link in the chain between the holocaust and unrelenting illegal immigration to western countries is highlighted by, jews themselves. One need look no further that Debora Lipstadt's Ted Talk (it may be in her book, not her Ted Talk, or in both, I'll look again), although, one certainly can, and should.

This is an 'open secret'. When an immigration czar like Mayorkas for example, is accused of facilitating illegal immigration, they unironically play the holocaust card. This is true not only in America and with Mayorkas, but in Ireland, the EU parliament etc. The song remains the same.

To ask me to ignore this, is to ask me to ignore my lying eyes. So many say the quiet part out loud Mr Check.

Ultimately, your rebuttal to Fangers is a bunch of 'whataboutism' and a series of pivots in an attempt to absolve jewish involvement in subversion and record illegal immigration.





Think about this...

Perhaps Dean will drop in here and give us an effort post, although, I'm not sure it would be worth his time given your denial of the basic facts presented in the wiki put together by Fangers.

[Callafangers]

Hi Nick, thanks for responding.

I think this particular discussion is one which serves as evidence that much understanding of the 'Holocaust' should come from philosophical considerations (e.g. logic) rather than solely historiographical. You have dished out one fallacy after another, to the extent that your response serves as a great opportunity for an in-depth study of the employment of fallacy in these types of debates.

On the connection to the 'Holocaust', you said:

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.

It's quite bizarre to claim this when any literate person can see plainly that the Holocaust narrative is the core thesis woven throughout the entire article (in Overview, Historical Context, Admissions, Impact, and Conclusion), showing how it shields subversion by equating criticism with 'Nazism' and promoting multiculturalism as "reparations" (e.g., quotes from Spectre, Efrati, Gross).

Did you not read the exact quotes provided from these various figures? In what way did the article diverge from this core thesis which is constantly revisited throughout the entire article? Which section isn't centered exactly around this question?

You simply ignore all of this in an effort to dismiss it, both the quotes provided as well as the comparable analyses also referenced by Unz and Wear. Both of these references each go into relevant depths about the Jewish collective connection to the 'Holocaust'.

Thus far, we have cherry-picking and strawmanning rather than valid reasoning.

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).

Here, the evidence provided in the article is circumvented entirely. No discussion of historical Jewish expulsions, Bolshevik overrepresentation, Weimar/Marxist influences in the interwar period, etc. -- just a hand-wave about "liberalism." What?

There is also a lack of any discussion of the ethnocentric motivations also evidenced (Kabbalistic views and Talmud scripture backed by numerous explicit rabbinical admissions, other admissions from important figures like Waton), or of the evidence of Jewish networks' tribal focus (including the explicit missions of organizations like the JFNA, Chabad). Kevin MacDonald is also cited, who provides hundreds of other examples and admissions in his work which 'liberalism' doesn't suffice to explain. Nor does it explain Israel's double-standards on immigration, also mentioned.

Here we have false equivalence (Jewish tribalism is not mere 'liberalism').

SC also claims here that Marxism "became less Jewish" (e.g. via Trotskism or global spread). But what does this have to do with disproportionate Jewish origins and leadership? It's also irrelevant to patterns of subversion in host nations (discussed by Solzhenitsyn, also referenced and ignored by SC). SC/Terry instead refers to exceptions like Popper or Hayek but ignores the article's focus on collective actions/behaviors rather than all individuals (it explicitly critiques collectives, not individuals [see Overview, Comparisons]).

That Marxism didn't "stay Jewish" is overall a non-sequitir -- more fallacy.

Next, SC employs his biggest fallacy yet, another [massive] strawman, claiming most interwar Jews weren't revolutionaries... but the article is a presentation and discussion which focuses on overrepresentation. Hence, we have a strawman reducing "collective" to "all Jews". Does SC not understand the difference?

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.

As I read this, I am reminded that one of my own "worst enemies" in any debate is reading such blatant fallacy like this. My initial, gut response is to express outrage at it, which has usually been my approach to some degree. But perhaps I really need to invest in making situations like this a valuable "learning moment".

In the latest excerpt from SC, he misrepresents the article by shifting to "today's progressives" being "not very Jewish"... but the article focuses on Jewish organizational roles in foundational policies (e.g., 1965 Immigration Act, Refugee Act) and ongoing influence (e.g. media dominance, academia). It never claims all progressivism is Jewish. Thus, we have the same misrepresentation as before. SC ignores wholecloth the evidence provided of Jewish-led frameworks (e.g. Spectre's admission of "leading role" in Western multiculturalism) and points to 'anti-Israel shifts' as though we should assume these negate the evidenced pro-multiculturalism in the West (see the Admissions section).

Overall, this is a huge red herring (more fallacy).

There's another: we note "former soft left Jewish figures" moving right but somehow fail to notice or mention massive, global, cohesive networks prioritizing Jewish tribal interests (e.g. Conference of Presidents and its member organizations). More cherry-picking.

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.

SC begins this latest above excerpt with a comparison of Hirschfeld to Ellis and SPD leaders, but this is another fallacy, false equivalence. The article highlights Jewish overrepresentation in Weimar degeneracy as part of broader patterns in Jewish collective behaviors and organizational efforts, not as isolated cases. Moreover, Hirschfeld's contributions are far greater in scale -- it isn't even close. He was the leading activist and established the institutional infrastructure (including for the world's first sex change operations) which grew to become international in scale. The others SC references offered intellectual and political backing but could hardly be considered main drivers of any of this. Hirschfeld was indisputably at the lead of the "sexual revolution" of the time in Germany, despite Jews being only around 1% of the Jewish population there. This is unexpected, and that is the point SC seems to have somehow missed.

SC talks about "coalitions" but it's not clear why he thinks this counters evidence of disproportionate Jewish influence. He also evades the contrast shown between Jewish groups and others (e.g. Catholic) who lack ethnocentric global networks and political alignment for a foreign nation (e.g. Israel).

This next part is funny: SC mentioned the decriminalization of of homosexuality during the French revolution and the same occurring in Poland in 1918 in order to highlight non-Jewish liberalism... However, as it turns out, the French decriminalization was basically an accident -- the National Constituent Assembly adopted the French Penal Code of 1791, which did not include sodomy as a crime (there were no debates/discussions about decriminalization before this; it was inadvertent). And as for Poland, their decriminalization was directly influenced by -- you guessed it -- Magnus Hirschfeld!:

A lawyer from Warsaw even demanded the creation of an association [for Poland] on the model of Magnus Hirschfeld's Scientific-Humanitarian Committee.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 2D1A7E9B1B

Hirschfeld's ideas also produced the same 'gay sex revolution' in Denmark and Estonia in the 1930s:

When in 1933 a new Danish Penal Code entered into force, it too included regulations that decriminalised consensual homosexual sex and criminalised prostitution. Similarly, the Danish legislators invoked psychiatric experts, who explicitly followed the views of a German expert, Magnus Hirschfeld. This sexologist and activist also influenced an analogous reform in Estonia in 1935.

Next to mention is SC's attribution of the 1965 Act solely to "outdated quotas" and global changes, yet the article cites specific Jewish admissions and lobbying (Cellar, Wineburg) as key drivers, contrasting with business interests (which the article doesn't deny but demonstrates as enabled by Jewish policy-shaping, in Refugee section). This comes off as more evasion from SC, disregarding the Israel vs. West double-standards and organizational scale involved.

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.

Finally, here SC claims Poland's endorsement of the Holocaust narrative contradicts the article's thesis (no mass immigration despite it), but this is a strawman: the article argues the narrative enables subversion where Jewish influence is strong (e.g., U.S./Europe via HIAS/IRC), not universally; Poland's low Jewish population post-WWII limits such networks, aligning with the article's thesis (absence of influence = less subversion).

Discussion about global migration (e.g., imperialism, guest workers) circumvents the article's focus which is on Jewish-led policy innovation/resilience (e.g., lawsuits preserving slots, UN Compact), not on all migration causes. The article shows Jewish groups' "moral leverage" creates expansive systems absent in more restrictive models (e.g. Australia). Hence, another red herring.

Above all, while SC continues his usual ad hominem ("not deeply impressed," "murky as ever," "moaned about," "harping on"), his evasions prove the article's point -- the narrative shuts down criticism, enabling unaddressed subversion. This "immune system shutdown" is exemplified by SC's own reluctance to engage collective evidence.

[HansHill]

At the end of the day, even the most sophisticated "not all" argument is still just a "not all" argument

[Callafangers]

[Image]

Ah but he also just had some mosquito bites last week. And ants will go wherever there's food, it doesn't mean they are eating him specifically. Just think of how many ants are doing something other than eating him at the moment! Yet here you are, rambling on about ant bites... Do you hate ants or something? Shame on you...