Benjamin Ginsberg on Jewish hypocrisy and double standards

Tablet interview: “Q&A: Benjamin Ginsberg, the Author of ‘How the Jews Defeated Hitler’”

[Tablet] One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”

[Ginsberg] That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

Say what? Displaced anti-Semitism would be if these Whites used Jewish hypocrisy as an excuse from some deep irrational hatred of Jews. But isn’t hypocrisy always seen as a negative? The White Protestants who are on trial here assume a principled morality. They assume that if inclusiveness is a moral imperative in the U.S. as our intellectual elites constantly tell us, it must be a moral imperative everywhere. But many of the same people who advocate inclusiveness in the U.S. advocate oppression in Israel. And there’s resentment by many Whites because as a result of the moral imperative of inclusiveness in the U.S., they are losing the country. So, yes, there is probably a “secret corner” of their brains where they would like to reassert themselves and boot out or oppress the interlopers. But that has to remain secret on pain of job loss and social opprobrium.  Because they no longer command the moral and political high ground, they don’t dare  say that.

[Tablet] Is that what I’m saying? I actually think that American Jews are in this sense way too quick to label such feelings as anti-Semitism, even when the effects may be anti-Semitic.

[Ginsberg] I think you’ve characterized it very well. It’s not 1930s anti-Semitism, but it’s a resentment. It’s a resentment of a particular evil that the Jews have done, which is the Jews have undermined WASP America but refuse to do the same thing in their own country.
You know, there’s an old joke: Three elderly Jewish Communists in the Bronx are talking. They’re in their eighties. One is in a wheelchair. So they say, “Abie Cohen, have you heard from him lately?” “Abie, he’s had some health problems but he’s living in Los Angeles in a nursing home, still working for socialism.” “All right, what about Mike Abramowitz, have you heard from him?” “Well, you know Mike is in rehab, he fell, he broke his hip, a lot of problems. But even in the nursing home he’s fighting for socialism!” So someone says, “What about Moe Goldberg?” “Oh, Moe, he moved to Israel, didn’t you know that?” “Well, is he fighting for socialism?” The guy answers, “In his own country? What kind of man do you think he is?!”

The joke would be mildly humorous except that the Jewish left has been spectacularly successful. So I am not laughing because the not so hidden agenda of the left has been the displacement of the people and culture of European societies throughout the West. Again we see the double standards and hypocrisy inherent in a movement led by strongly ethnocentric activists intent on displacing the previously dominant Protestant elite and in the process becoming an elite themselves. Policies that are advocated in the Diaspora are rejected for Israel. The Protestant elite that was endlessly criticized for being non-inclusive turns out to be way more inclusive than their critics.

So I think as Jewish humor often does, that captures the point that you made. I’ve actually had students say exactly this. They say, “How come in my high school we couldn’t sing Christmas carols; however, in Israel they can establish a religion?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

Or to rephrase his comments, I imagine students saying

“How come in my high school Whites are a minority in the same school that was all-White when my parents attended. However, in Israel they can enact immigration laws that keep out non-Jews?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

Indeed, they are not wrong about immgration policy or about Christmas carols.

Ginsberg’s comments are another example of a phenomenon noticed by Andrew Joyce: “It appears that Jews are becoming more and more flamboyant and confident (or aggressive) in asserting their dominance. While the ADL would like us not to think of Jewish power and influence at all, there are recurrent examples where Jews unabashedly assert their influence.”

Source: http://bit.ly/104lO1O

Read More

The Jewish origins of multiculturalism in Sweden

by Dr Kevin MacDonald. 

In The Culture of Critique and other writings I have developed the view that Jews and the organized Jewish community were a critical necessary condition for the rise of multiculturalism in the West. In Chapter 7, on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I focused mainly on the U.S., but also had brief sections on England, Canada, Australia (greatly elaborated recently in TOO by Brenton Sanderson), and France.

One question I often get is about the role of Jews in Sweden and other European countries with relatively few Jews. Now there has been a translation from Swedish of an article, “How and why Sweden became multicultural,” that summarizes academic writing on the Jewish role in making Sweden into a multicultural society. This article should be read in its entirety, but some salient points:

The ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books.

Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. …

It was the conservative Rightist Party who first embraced the idea of cultural pluralism and greatly contributed to shape the new radical direction. It is worth mentioning that the chairman of the Rightist Party 1961-1965, Gunnar Heckscher, was the party’s first leader of Jewish descent.

As in the U.S. and elsewhere, Jewish activists were aided by Jewish media ownership. Activists stressed the need to reshape immigration policy to atone for persecution of Jews—in the case of Sweden, the role of the Swedish government vis-à-vis Jews during World War II. (In the U.S., Jewish activists emphasized that the 1924 immigration law was motivated by anti-Semitism, and many activists, including academic activists like Stephen J. Gould (in his notorious The Mismeasure of Man; see here, p. 30ff, claimed that U.S. immigration restriction resulted in Jews dying in the Holocaust. Even Stephen Steinlight, who advocates restriction of Muslim immigration (and only Muslim immigration), termed the 1924 law “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,”a “monstrous policy”; see here, p. 5) 

Assimilation to Swedish culture was viewed as an unacceptable goal:

The starting point was thus a cultural pluralist perspective, which meant that immigrants with massive government intervention and financial support would be encouraged to preserve their culture (and thus send out signals to the world that Sweden is a tolerant country where everyone is welcome). The meeting between the Swedish culture and minority cultures would be enriching to the whole community and the majority population would begin to adapt to the minorities. …

It is not a coincidence that Europe’s organized Jews consistently dissociate themselves from politically organized critics of Islam, because every negative generalization towards a minority group ultimately can hit the Jews.

The article notes, and I agree, that Jews are motivated by the desire to break down ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies because of fear that such societies may turn on Jews, as occurred in Germany, 1933-1945, but also because of traditional Jewish hatred toward the Christian civilization of the West. It concludes by noting that, besides Jewish media ownership, Jewish influence was facilitated by the dominance of academic anthropology by the Boasian school — a Jewish intellectual movement — and its views on cultural relativism and denigration of Western culture.

I agree entirely that Jewish influence stems from their being an academic and media elite, as well as their ability to develop highly effective, well-funded activist organizations. Here, the role of Bruno Kaplan of the World Jewish Congress is emphasized.

This is an important contribution to the understanding of the impending death of the West. Needless to say, such an analysis does not obviate the need for an understanding of why Western cultures have been uniquely susceptible to ideologies that view the destruction of the West as a moral imperative. 

****

And look at Sweden now, look at America now, look at the West now. Mass non-European immigration into the West was no accident, it was not a natural phenomena as the leftist deceptively claim. It was a purposeful plan to weaken our culture, our homogeneity and our will. Ignorance of the facts will ultimately lead to a future in which conflict, totalitarianism, and suffering will become the norm, and all because people were stupid enough to fall for the joint globalist/leftist mythical utopian ideals that are nothing more than fairytales. 

Source

Read More