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...

[HansHill]

Here is another example of Jews acting in unison in ways that (in their opinion) works in their ethnic self-interest, and also simultaneously does not need to be "all jews", or the "jew you know" doesn't care or wasn't involved personally in this...

A direct series of snippets from Wikipedia will suffice to make the point:

Common Era (CE) and Before the Common Era (BCE) are year notations for the Gregorian or Julian calendar, and are exactly equivalent to the Anno Domini (AD) and Before Christ (BC) notations. The expressions "2025 CE" and "AD 2025" each equally describe the current year; "400 BCE" and "400 BC" are the same year too.[1][2] BCE/CE are primarily used to avoid religious connotations,[3] by not referring to Jesus as Dominus [Lord].[4][5][a]

History
The expression can be traced back to 1615, when it first appears in a book by Johannes Kepler as the Latin: annus aerae nostrae vulgaris (year of our common era),[7][8] and to 1635 in English as "Vulgar Era" with the term 'vulgar' used in the historical sense of "relating to the common people". The term "Common Era" can be found in English as early as 1708,[9] and became more widely used in the mid-19th century by Jewish religious scholars.

History of the use of the CE/BCE abbreviation
Although Jews have the Hebrew calendar, they often use the Gregorian calendar without the AD prefix, as Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.[43] As early as 1825, the abbreviation VE (for Vulgar Era) was in use among Jews to denote years in the Western calendar.[44] As of 2005, Common Era notation has also been in use for Hebrew lessons for more than a century.[45] Jews have also used the term Current Era.[46]

Rationales
Support
The use of CE in Jewish scholarship was historically motivated by the desire to avoid the implicit "Our Lord" in the abbreviation AD.[a] Although other aspects of dating systems are based in Christian origins, AD is a direct reference to Jesus as Lord.[64][65][66]

Adena K. Berkowitz, in her application to argue before the United States Supreme Court, opted to use BCE and CE because, "Given the multicultural society that we live in, the traditional Jewish designations – B.C.E. and C.E. – cast a wider net of inclusion."[70]

In Germany, Jews in Berlin seem to have already been using words translating to "(before the) common era" in the 18th century, while others like Moses Mendelssohn opposed this usage as it would hinder the integration of Jews into German society.[78] The formulation seems to have persisted among German Jews in the 19th century in forms like vor der gewöhnlichen Zeitrechnung (before the common chronology).[79][80] In 1938 Nazi Germany, the use of this convention was also prescribed by the National Socialist Teachers League.[81] However, it was soon discovered that many German Jews had been using the convention ever since the 18th century, and Time magazine found it ironic to see "Aryans following Jewish example nearly 200 years later".[78]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era

- B-b-but it wasn't all Jews!
- B-b-but other people do it too!
- B-b-but it doesn't mean anything!

[borjastick]

colonizepalestine.jpg (147.7 KiB) Viewed 290 times

014a6d4c220308a2e6304a5dc4420dfd(1).jpg (47.6 KiB) Viewed 290 times

[SanityCheck]

Hi Nick, thanks for responding.

I'm not going to waste much more time on this, or other similar regurgitations of antisemitic dogma, since you appear not to be able to rise above the level of an agitator or propagandist and insist on attributing the acts of individuals, small groups or minorities within a minority to 'the Jews'.

Your "analysis" is unpersuasive and not necessarily very helpful, if one is seeking to understand past or present consensuses, or who belongs to a coalition that have rallied around a particular idea (could be revolutionary communism, tolerance for homosexuality, 'immigrants welcome' liberals, you name it).

I'd also note the irony of the most committed anti-immigrant activist in the current Trump administration, Stephen Miller, being Jewish, while the Vice-President is married to an Indian woman, the FBI director is also Indian, the treasury secretary is a Soros fund alumni and openly gay, and Trump wouldn't have been elected President without a significant swing of votes from Hispanics and African-Americans. That's the current reality you're living in.

There are now well over 5 million Indian Americans, assessed at 1.6% of the population in 2023, many of whom have immigrated under H1-B skilled worker visas to work in tech and Silicon Valley. About four million of this number were added in the past 35 years, a considerable acceleration. There have been several Indian-American candidates for President, a state governor, and there are six current congressmen and -women of Indian descent.

The telling thing is the number of business executives: the list of notable Indian American business executives skews to tech firms and Silicon Valley. While one can point to Big Tech execs and founders of Jewish origin, there are also the likes of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk who have very decidedly right wing views. Ditto for earlier computer and tech pioneers - Apple's founders sure weren't.

Meanwhile, tech support has often been outsourced to call centres in India: without the growth of their tech sector, Indians wouldn't be such good candidates to import as skilled labourers for tech firms in the US.

Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world with 284 million inhabitants, versus 1.4 billion for India (the others are of course China at 1.4 billion and the US at 340 million). But there are only 147,000 Indonesian Americans compared to 5.1 million Indian Americans, and 5.4 million Chinese Americans, which includes many part-Chinese.

There were already 237,000 Chinese Americans in 1960, before the 1965 Immigration Act. The Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed in 1943 - precisely when China was a US ally in WWII, but restricted to the same 1890 national origins quota as other nations were at the time, so a tiny, tiny quota. Chinese Americans are not the largest group in the Chinese diaspora, which numbers over 40 million people, there are larger numbers in Malaysia and Thailand, and big numbers in other Asian countries. The British Chinese diaspora community is half a million in size, 0.8% of the population, and dates back to the 1840s, but has greatly grown in recent years due to opening up pathways to citizenship for residents of Hong Kong, a crown colony from 1842 to 1997. Chinese Canadians make up 5.1% of the population, 1.77 million, alongside 1.8 million Indian Canadians, 5.1% of the population. There are another 1.3 million Chinese Australians, 5.5% of the population, and nearly a million Indian Australians, 3.8% of the population. Britain has nearly 2 million British Indians, 2.9% of the population.

The US has a lengthy history with China, Britain and the Commonwealth also, but even more so with India, whereas those 5 million Indian Americans have appeared seemingly out of nowhere - there were a few thousand Indians in the US at the start of the 20th Century, far fewer than there were Chinese or Japanese immigrants.

Explaining any of this in relation to the Holocaust or Jewish influence runs aground on the prior histories, on in some cases geography, and especially on economics: inviting investors in, sourcing skilled labour, but also selling higher education in English-speaking countries to a global market. I haven't drilled down into whether any of the figures above include or exclude international students, but Chinese and Indian international students are for sure very common in US, British and Commonwealth universities. Chinese and Indian academics hired by universities to support international class research are also not uncommon.

One can repeat the exercise with Korean and Japanese Americans, where US involvement in the Cold War especially is the obvious explanation for the growth of those communities.

And these are all ethnic groups who often practically worship education, who have well developed entrepreneurial skills and involvement in various industries. Which could stand in contrast to the masses of unskilled and often illegal migrant labourers from Central and Latin America (for the US) and Africa (for Europe).

Now, there are perfectly good arguments to restrict immigration for class and economic reasons: no advanced society can simply accept unlimited immigration, and there are good arguments noting that labour had more bargaining power, workers higher standards of living in the US of the 1920s-1960s than in the era of neoliberalism from the 1970s. Europe was importing guest workers in the 1950s and 1960s with often naive expectations that they might return home (especially the case for Turkish Gastarbeiter in West Germany), but they did so to meet labour requirements. Keeping up the flow of migrant labour who are willing to work for less than native-born workers has undoubtedly increased corporate profits. Latterly, falling birth rates and ageing populations of boomers have led to arguments that immigrants are needed to wipe the bottoms of pensioners and also pay taxes to ensure pensions can continue to be paid out at higher levels.

There's already enough mainstream debate over these economic and social equations, about whether migration is needed or whether the social costs and potential lack of integration and assimilation need addressing. The US remains a ferociously effective engine of social and cultural assimilation, and this is visible everywhere in American culture and society. California and other states have become so mixed that it is difficult to see how they could possibly revert back to an idealised era of white preponderance. Quite a few US states would probably secede if someone tried to turn the clock back to before 1965.

So it's rather unclear how KMac-style bullshit will help shift the needle in any direction, much less what you think should be done. The many millions of Asian Americans include many who are second or third generation, even if on a sliding scale, millions who are naturalised, millions who are working in key industries generating real wealth.

I've not even got on to the screamingly obvious reason why there are 2.3 million Vietnamese Americans today: because the US was involved in South Vietnam for the better part of 15 years, and when the Saigon regime collapsed, President Gerald Ford called it a "profound moral obligation" to address the crisis of refugees who had until recently been American allies and were fleeing communism. Public opinion was unfavourable but not crushingly so, the refugees arrived anyway. The reasons why have fuck all to do with the Holocaust or 'Jewish influence'.

The comparisons with Britain and the Commonwealth countries underscore how the trends noted above are quite difficult to correlate with interest in the Holocaust or "Jewish influence". Britain, Canada and Australia have much smaller Jewish communities than in the US, with correspondingly less "influence"; the detailed histories of immigration policy in the UK show almost no meaningful connection. Key decisions were taken well before the Holocaust became of greater public interest from the late 1970s/1980s onwards.

Your argument might find the exact reverse causal relationship: the new era of largescale immigration ushered in over the past fifty years for various reasons, including geopolitical entanglements, economics and other considerations, led to an encouragement of multiculturalism in western societies; the roots of multicultural policies don't go back further than the 1960s, and predate the more extensive promotion of Holocaust memory from the late 1970s onwards. Some arguments for multiculturalism might have invoked the Holocaust or arguments for tolerance, but the practical realities of large-scale immigration of Chinese and Indians meant the connections are tenuous, indirect and really fucking obscure to most people. You could research every reaction to the mass immigration of Asian Americans and I doubt you'd find much to connect this with the Holocaust at all. Or to "Jewish influence".

The exception would be outright neo-Nazi parties and other opponents of immigration invoking Hitler and denying the Holocaust, the way that the National Front/BNP, Le Pen Sr era FN, NPD and the white nationalists in the US used to do, before most wised up and became right wing populists and ditched the Hitler baggage. Or looking at the internet today and finding MAGA morons touting Hitler because he's based and saying 'I like Hitler' is transgressive vice signalling. (Oh dear, the young Republican chats which just got exposed quoted one of them saying 'send them to the gas chambers'. Not very revisionist...)

There has been more than enough debate over immigration and integration this century, with the Overton window shifted well to the right, to include outright racism by post-1945 standards, that it isn't shut down by someone squealing 'Nazi'. In case you forgot, there's a Republican administration in power right now which has been very vocal in saying it will reduce immigration and remove illegal immigrants. But the architect of what passes for a plan is Jewish, the Vice President married to an Indian woman...

But do explain what you think should happen with the 10+ million Chinese and Indian Americans, and how 'solving' whatever problem you think they pose could be carried out without greatly weakening the US - or are these Asian American groups exempted because they're actually a healthy part of the body of the nation, unlike whoever else it is you want to be rid of? And how can you separate those, when there's been such extensive intermixing in recent decades? There just aren't the parish records to trace Aryan ancestry back to 1750 as could be done by the SS in 1930s Germany.

[Callafangers]

Hi Nick, thanks again for responding. It's telling that you've now pivoted to dismissing the entire article as "antisemitic dogma" and "KMac-style bullshit" without engaging the specifics -- classic ad hominem, which ironically reinforces the article's core point about the Holocaust narrative shutting down critique by equating it with Nazism. Let's break this down, as your latest post is another parade of fallacies, evasions, and strawmen that sadly sidestep the evidence provided. I'll address the key claims, tying back to the thesis where relevant.

I'm not going to waste much more time on this, or other similar regurgitations of antisemitic dogma, since you appear not to be able to rise above the level of an agitator or propagandist and insist on attributing the acts of individuals, small groups or minorities within a minority to 'the Jews'.

Your "analysis" is unpersuasive and not necessarily very helpful, if one is seeking to understand past or present consensuses, or who belongs to a coalition that have rallied around a particular idea (could be revolutionary communism, tolerance for homosexuality, 'immigrants welcome' liberals, you name it).

Right off the bat, this is a massive strawman: the article explicitly focuses on collective patterns (e.g., organizational networks like JFNA, Chabad, Conference of Presidents; overrepresentation in Bolshevik leadership, Weimar media/finance; explicit admissions from figures like Spectre, Efrati, Waton), not "attributing the acts of individuals" or claiming all Jews are involved. It distinguishes collective behaviors from individuals (see Overview, Comparisons sections) and uses scholarly sources (MacDonald, Solzhenitsyn, Dalton) to document recurring ethnocentric patterns across history, including expulsions for economic exploitation and disloyalty. You ignore these citations entirely, opting for name-calling instead. If this is "unpersuasive," explain why -- dismissing coalitions doesn't refute the evidence of Jewish-led ones prioritizing tribal interests (e.g., Israel's ethno-nationalism vs. Western multiculturalism, as per the double standards highlighted in Immigration and Admissions).

This evasion exemplifies the "immune system shutdown": labeling critique as "antisemitic" prevents addressing observable patterns, allowing subversion to continue unopposed.

I'd also note the irony of the most committed anti-immigrant activist in the current Trump administration, Stephen Miller, being Jewish, while the Vice-President is married to an Indian woman, the FBI director is also Indian, the treasury secretary is a Soros fund alumni and openly gay, and Trump wouldn't have been elected President without a significant swing of votes from Hispanics and African-Americans. That's the current reality you're living in.

There are now well over 5 million Indian Americans, assessed at 1.6% of the population in 2023, many of whom have immigrated under H1-B skilled worker visas to work in tech and Silicon Valley. About four million of this number were added in the past 35 years, a considerable acceleration. There have been several Indian-American candidates for President, a state governor, and there are six current congressmen and -women of Indian descent.

The telling thing is the number of business executives: the list of notable Indian American business executives skews to tech firms and Silicon Valley. While one can point to Big Tech execs and founders of Jewish origin, there are also the likes of Peter Thiel and Elon Musk who have very decidedly right wing views. Ditto for earlier computer and tech pioneers - Apple's founders sure weren't.

Here we have cherry-picking and a red herring. Pointing to individual exceptions like Miller (or Thiel/Musk) doesn't counter the article's evidence of collective organizational influence (e.g., HIAS drafting the 1980 Refugee Act, IRC's foundational role in global resettlement, lawsuits preserving slots during Trump-era cuts -- see Refugee section). The article never denies non-Jewish figures or broader coalitions; it highlights disproportionate Jewish roles in shaping expansive policies, often under Holocaust-derived "moral leverage" (e.g., Cellar comparing U.S. laws to "Hitler theory," Wineburg tying 1965 Act to "murdered Jews").

Shifting to Indian/Chinese Americans (under Donald Trump who has multiple Jewish grandkids) and tech visas is a blatant diversion -- the article focuses on Jewish networks' role in policy frameworks enabling mass immigration (e.g., UN Global Compact, EU directives), not all migration sources. Economics and geopolitics are factors, sure, but you ignore how Jewish advocacy creates "resilient systems" (e.g., litigating against restrictions, pioneering sponsorship models) that amplify intakes beyond what business alone would achieve. Contrast this with Israel's restrictive policies despite similar "guest worker" needs -- no comparable Jewish push for multiculturalism there, as the article notes (double standard per HIAS's mission vs. Israeli practices). This isn't about "irony"; it's about patterns of tribal prioritization.

Explaining any of this in relation to the Holocaust or Jewish influence runs aground on the prior histories, on in some cases geography, and especially on economics: inviting investors in, sourcing skilled labour, but also selling higher education in English-speaking countries to a global market. I haven't drilled down into whether any of the figures above include or exclude international students, but Chinese and Indian international students are for sure very common in US, British and Commonwealth universities. Chinese and Indian academics hired by universities to support international class research are also not uncommon.

One can repeat the exercise with Korean and Japanese Americans, where US involvement in the Cold War especially is the obvious explanation for the growth of those communities.

And these are all ethnic groups who often practically worship education, who have well developed entrepreneurial skills and involvement in various industries. Which could stand in contrast to the masses of unskilled and often illegal migrant labourers from Central and Latin America (for the US) and Africa (for Europe).

Now, there are perfectly good arguments to restrict immigration for class and economic reasons: no advanced society can simply accept unlimited immigration, and there are good arguments noting that labour had more bargaining power, workers higher standards of living in the US of the 1920s-1960s than in the era of neoliberalism from the 1970s. Europe was importing guest workers in the 1950s and 1960s with often naive expectations that they might return home (especially the case for Turkish Gastarbeiter in West Germany), but they did so to meet labour requirements. Keeping up the flow of migrant labour who are willing to work for less than native-born workers has undoubtedly increased corporate profits. Latterly, falling birth rates and ageing populations of boomers have led to arguments that immigrants are needed to wipe the bottoms of pensioners and also pay taxes to ensure pensions can continue to be paid out at higher levels.

More red herrings and false equivalence. You're attributing migration solely to economics/geopolitics (e.g., Cold War, tech visas), but the article demonstrates how Jewish organizations provide the legal/moral infrastructure (e.g., HIAS/IRAP lawsuits blocking bans, influencing UN compacts) that sustains and expands it, often invoking Holocaust guilt (see quotes from Gross, Probst linking narrative to "global citizenship" and anti-"xenophobia"). Prior histories exist, yes, but they don't negate the post-1965 accelerations enabled by Jewish-led reforms (e.g., 3 million+ U.S. resettlements since 1980). We also cannot discount Jewish executive monopolization of media conglomerates, decade after decade, shifting national values to be more "inclusive".

Your economic arguments concede the point indirectly: business interests exploit these frameworks, but without Jewish innovation (e.g., drafting acts, litigating restrictions), systems might mirror Australia's restrictive model, as noted. The article isn't anti-immigration per se; it critiques how the narrative shields subversive patterns, like promoting dilution in the West while preserving ethnicity in Israel (per Efrati's "punishment" for Europe).

There's already enough mainstream debate over these economic and social equations, about whether migration is needed or whether the social costs and potential lack of integration and assimilation need addressing. The US remains a ferociously effective engine of social and cultural assimilation, and this is visible everywhere in American culture and society. California and other states have become so mixed that it is difficult to see how they could possibly revert back to an idealised era of white preponderance. Quite a few US states would probably secede if someone tried to turn the clock back to before 1965.

So it's rather unclear how KMac-style bullshit will help shift the needle in any direction, much less what you think should be done. The many millions of Asian Americans include many who are second or third generation, even if on a sliding scale, millions who are naturalised, millions who are working in key industries generating real wealth.

I've not even got on to the screamingly obvious reason why there are 2.3 million Vietnamese Americans today: because the US was involved in South Vietnam for the better part of 15 years, and when the Saigon regime collapsed, President Gerald Ford called it a "profound moral obligation" to address the crisis of refugees who had until recently been American allies and were fleeing communism. Public opinion was unfavourable but not crushingly so, the refugees arrived anyway. The reasons why have fuck all to do with the Holocaust or 'Jewish influence'.

The comparisons with Britain and the Commonwealth countries underscore how the trends noted above are quite difficult to correlate with interest in the Holocaust or "Jewish influence". Britain, Canada and Australia have much smaller Jewish communities than in the US, with correspondingly less "influence"; the detailed histories of immigration policy in the UK show almost no meaningful connection. Key decisions were taken well before the Holocaust became of greater public interest from the late 1970s/1980s onwards.

Your argument might find the exact reverse causal relationship: the new era of largescale immigration ushered in over the past fifty years for various reasons, including geopolitical entanglements, economics and other considerations, led to an encouragement of multiculturalism in western societies; the roots of multicultural policies don't go back further than the 1960s, and predate the more extensive promotion of Holocaust memory from the late 1970s onwards. Some arguments for multiculturalism might have invoked the Holocaust or arguments for tolerance, but the practical realities of large-scale immigration of Chinese and Indians meant the connections are tenuous, indirect and really fucking obscure to most people. You could research every reaction to the mass immigration of Asian Americans and I doubt you'd find much to connect this with the Holocaust at all. Or to "Jewish influence".

This is where your response devolves into non-sequiturs and strawmen. The article doesn't advocate "turning back the clock" or expelling groups -- it's about ethical criticism of collective subversion (e.g., media dominance biasing Israel coverage, lobbying for foreign interests via AIPAC/Conference of Presidents). You invent a position I never took, then attack it. Vietnamese refugees? Geopolitical, sure, but IRC (Jewish-founded) handled much of the Southeast Asian resettlement post-1975, building on frameworks like the 1980 Act (HIAS-drafted). The article links this to broader patterns, not claiming all migration is Holocaust-tied, but showing how the narrative provides "symbolic legitimacy" (Probst) for open borders.

On reverse causality: the article cites pre-1960s patterns (e.g., 1930s boycotts, Bolshevik overrepresentation) and admissions (Sokolow 1922, Waton 1939) tying Jewish ideology to globalism long before widespread Holocaust promotion. Smaller Jewish communities in UK/Canada? Yet JIAS influenced Canada's programs, WJR lobbies UK schemes (Syrian, Afghan migrant programs) -- scale adjusts to presence, but influence persists via networks. You evade admissions like Spectre's explicit "leading role" in Europe's transformation.

The exception would be outright neo-Nazi parties and other opponents of immigration invoking Hitler and denying the Holocaust, the way that the National Front/BNP, Le Pen Sr era FN, NPD and the white nationalists in the US used to do, before most wised up and became right wing populists and ditched the Hitler baggage. Or looking at the internet today and finding MAGA morons touting Hitler because he's based and saying 'I like Hitler' is transgressive vice signalling. (Oh dear, the young Republican chats which just got exposed quoted one of them saying 'send them to the gas chambers'. Not very revisionist...)

There has been more than enough debate over immigration and integration this century, with the Overton window shifted well to the right, to include outright racism by post-1945 standards, that it isn't shut down by someone squealing 'Nazi'. In case you forgot, there's a Republican administration in power right now which has been very vocal in saying it will reduce immigration and remove illegal immigrants. But the architect of what passes for a plan is Jewish, the Vice President married to an Indian woman...

But do explain what you think should happen with the 10+ million Chinese and Indian Americans, and how 'solving' whatever problem you think they pose could be carried out without greatly weakening the US - or are these Asian American groups exempted because they're actually a healthy part of the body of the nation, unlike whoever else it is you want to be rid of? And how can you separate those, when there's been such extensive intermixing in recent decades? There just aren't the parish records to trace Aryan ancestry back to 1750 as could be done by the SS in 1930s Germany.

Final strawman avalanche: the article isn't about neo-Nazis or "gas chambers" -- it's revisionist scholarship (Unz, Wear, Rudolf) challenging narrative distortions to enable free inquiry and national sovereignty. You conflate critique with extremism to discredit it, but the thesis is that the narrative equates group criticism with Nazism, stifling debate (e.g., taboo on generalizations like "Black crime rates" paralleling "Hitler blamed all Jews!"). Overton shifts? Partial, but Holocaust guilt still enforces favoritism (e.g., suppressing counter-narratives, per Unz).

As for "what should happen": again, fabricating positions -- the article calls for accountability, not expulsion (e.g., scrutinizing dual loyalties, media bias). It compares Jewish networks to others (e.g., Catholics lack ethnocentric globalism) to justify collective critique when harm occurs. Your fixation on Asians evades this, but if patterns emerged (e.g., disproportionate subversion), they'd warrant scrutiny too -- no exemptions. The point is restoring nations' "immune systems" against any exploitative collectives, which your relentless deflections only highlight.

Overall, your response dodges the evidence (quotes, references, patterns) with diversions and smears, proving the thesis: the narrative blinds societies to subversion by making critique taboo.

[HansHill]

KMac-style bullshit

We are probably well overdue an actual Dr MacDonald thread, because his theory is far more robust to be swept aside like this quip suggests.

[Nessie]

...Whistleblowers are at most anecdotal (which means you would dismiss them) and typically have to do with criminal activity...

You just made that up.

Altogether, it still isn't clear what you are talking about in your request for "evidence" and whistleblowers. All of the evidence that should be expected for any sort of "secret plot" is already abundant, compelling, airtight.

It really seems like you're just refusing to get off the soapbox per some unshakable motives that you hold.

Very weird, slightly sad.

You have failed to explain the motive for Jewish promotion of mass migration and an end to the West, when the West is where many Jews live and derive most of their wealth from. Israel, with no West, would be destroyed.

[Nessie]

This clip represents that perfectly. She is passionately advocating for American Jews to aggressively defend a foreign nation via an "army of words". In other words, she wants Jews to spread hasbara onto the goyim, particularly on college campuses where most people shape and settle their political beliefs.

This is exactly the kind of thing that Nessie just glosses over, basically pretends he doesn't see it. It's the very "evidence" he demands so he has to argue around it entirely.

Cherry-picking and confirmation bias are a logical fallacies. Finding one person, is not evidence that all support the policy that person advocates. Finding individual pieces of evidence that supports your belief, does not mean your belief is correct.

I feel this is part of the same tactic explaining why he will not attempt this request:

Let's give Nessie another shot.

Nessie, kindly do me a favor:

Please list honestly and comprehensively all of the differences in scale (per capita) and intent between the Catholic/Christian organizations you have been speaking to, and the Jewish organizations myself and others have been speaking about.

Let's hear your own comprehensive outline of what you will admit as differences between them. I think that is a good starting point, no? Please be thorough so that we don't have to reply with a lot of "what about...?". Do your best to include all objective differences between them, especially the ones that revisionists here have spoken to (feel free to put your own 'spin' on each item, just so long as its included).

Fair enough?

No.

"If I don't acknowledge it, it doesn't exist." -Nessie probably, 2025

No, I am refusing to do your work for you, by pointing out what you have missed out, as you seek only to find evidence that supports your beliefs.

[Callafangers]

This clip represents that perfectly. She is passionately advocating for American Jews to aggressively defend a foreign nation via an "army of words". In other words, she wants Jews to spread hasbara onto the goyim, particularly on college campuses where most people shape and settle their political beliefs.

This is exactly the kind of thing that Nessie just glosses over, basically pretends he doesn't see it. It's the very "evidence" he demands so he has to argue around it entirely.

Cherry-picking and confirmation bias are a logical fallacies. Finding one person, is not evidence that all support the policy that person advocates. Finding individual pieces of evidence that supports your belief, does not mean your belief is correct.

Barbara Spectre is not "one person". She is one example of a Jew who represents a major immigration-focused organization/initiative and speaks overtly on behalf of Jews generally (see her actual words) in describing how Jewish organizations will be resented for their "leading role" in imposing mass immigration into the West. More importantly, her words align with those of other important Jewish figures and with the collective, consensus pattern of actions of major Jewish organizations which have any stance at all on immigration.

Where is Dr. Terry (SanityCheck)? Is he on vacation?

[Nessie]

This is exactly the kind of thing that Nessie just glosses over, basically pretends he doesn't see it. It's the very "evidence" he demands so he has to argue around it entirely.

Cherry-picking and confirmation bias are a logical fallacies. Finding one person, is not evidence that all support the policy that person advocates. Finding individual pieces of evidence that supports your belief, does not mean your belief is correct.

Barbara Spectre is not "one person". She is one example of a Jew who represents a major immigration-focused organization/initiative and speaks overtly on behalf of Jews generally (see her actual words) in describing how Jewish organizations will be resented for their "leading role" in imposing mass immigration into the West. More importantly, her words align with those of other important Jewish figures and with the collective, consensus pattern of actions of major Jewish organizations which have any stance at all on immigration.

Where is Dr. Terry (SanityCheck)? Is he on vacation?

She is one person, who you use as an example of what you want to evidence, as you only look for evidence to suit what you want as a conclusion. Your methodology, is, yet again, deeply flawed.

You have still not explained why Jews want to bring down the West, when much of their wealth and support is in the West. Jews in Israel would not survive, if it was not for the West.

[Callafangers]

She is one person, who you use as an example of what you want to evidence, as you only look for evidence to suit what you want as a conclusion. Your methodology, is, yet again, deeply flawed.

Is the President of the USA "just one person" when it comes to statements made on behalf of the USA? Or does having a position of authority within a representative organization not credit additional weight to statements this person makes?

You have still not explained why Jews want to bring down the West, when much of their wealth and support is in the West. Jews in Israel would not survive, if it was not for the West.

It's good that you're at least implicitly acknowledging that collective considerations matter, even though your interpretation is that Jews and their organizations don't actually want to destroy the West, against all evidence to the contrary.

The overall weight of the Jewish collective leans itself into continually deconstructing the West, making it less cohesive. Motive, means, opportunity, patterns of organized behavior -- it's all there. This ensures their continuing dominance over the West. The less culturally/ethnically cohesive the West is at large, the more that Jewish power in effect (via social and political hegemony) becomes the most prominent power structure, internally and globally, given its unrelenting cohesion. If the West becomes more "diverse", this means that the population will seldom if ever shake hands and take up arms together against a corrupted (subverted) system -- they simply do not trust their neighbors enough to ever do this, given the scale of perceived and actual differences.

Mexicans are not likely to fight and die for Blacks.
Whites are not likely to fight and die for Mexicans.
Asians are not likely to fight and die for Whites.
Blacks are not likely to fight and die for Asians.
Etc...

And patriotism (civic nationalism) is seldom enough to inspire this, either. Religion is hit-and-miss.

Jews and their organizations have for very long recognized all of this, mainly due to the fact that they can plainly observe how much more effective their collective has been at acquiring and maintaining power than others have, making it naturally/logically follow that to deconstruct this same beneficial cohesion in world nations will weaken them further, making them even easier to subvert via a widening lack of structure/integrity relative to Jews and their networks.

All of this is 100% compatible with the thesis put forth here. You have failed in your effort to refute it.

You may try again, if you like.

[Stubble]

Some food for thought;



/shrug