PDA

View Full Version : Brilliant analysis of illegal immigration and it's impacts




susano
06-26-2010, 03:53 PM
I believe the man who wrote this is a socialist, but that's neither here nor there, as this is not about government or political philosophy. This is about why most people oppose mass immigration and the myth of racism being the cause. It is excelllent smack down of the race baiters.





Winnie the Pooh on Immigration and Race

By Israel Shamir



A couple of Ukrainians are examining some graffiti: Kick a kike and save Russia!

One Ukrainian says to the other “Great idea! But who wants to save Russia?”

This joke popped into my mind while reading the white nationalist calls: Stop immigration and save the White Race. The means are laudable, but the stated end is irrelevant, at best.

You do not have to belong to the White Race to understand the problems caused by movements of populations. You do not even have to believe in the existence of racial classifications to appreciate that mass migrations cause real problems. The racialist reasoning behind opposition to this phenomenon is superfluous and unproductive at best. Mass immigration is a modern phenomenon, while 140-year old racialism is so dated that it hurts.

Opposition to immigration does not require feelings of racial superiority or even racial identity. Readers of Milne probably remember that Winnie the Pooh, Piglet and Rabbit’s reaction to the newest animal – Kanga – in their forest was anything but welcoming: they kidnapped the immigrant baby. The story of course ended with everyone becoming fast friends, but even Milne could not pull off a happy ending if Kangas were to flood the forest by their thousands.

Humans and other animals have defensive mechanisms used to protect their territory and their access to resources. These mechanisms are now deliberately misrepresented as ‘racism’, or as the unleashing of brutal natural tendencies, but the protection of one’s territory is morally defensible.

In the Soviet Russia of my youth, a young man courting a girl from a different neighbourhood had a better than even chance of being beaten up by the local boys. There was no ethnic, racial, religious or even social difference between the two neighbourhoods; the boys from block A did not think they are inherently better than boys from block B; they were simply defending their access to “their own” girls. This protectionism was not extreme: a serious relationship or marriage across an arbitrary territorial border was possible, but the light flirt and easy sex (and sex was quite easy under the socialist regime) was limited to one’s own neighbourhood. Foreigners, that is boys of different ethnicity and origin, were no exception to the locals-only rule. A long-term settler of any stripe would be eventually accepted as a homeboy, but short-term visitors were always ‘foes’ and were treated accordingly. It is reasonable that today’s youngsters act protectively towards ‘their own’ females, or ‘their own’ jobs. They also have to make a living, and the idealistic groups who hand control over to transients die out quickly.

Mass immigration is neatly sandwiched between invasion and slave trade. If the immigrants prosper, it is invasion; if they are kept down, it is slavery. Either way a small slice of the local population will profit: they will be called “compradors” or “slave traders” as the situation develops. In general, wealthy people enjoy the fruits of immigration while poor ones bear the brunt of it. However, not all wealthy people take advantage of the situation to the same degree. Wealthy people, like the rest of us, have different attitudes toward the society that nurtured them: they might be divided into shepherds and predators. The shepherds fleece their sheep while predators will slaughter every last one if the price is right.

The shepherds might be represented by the great Swedish industrialist family of Wallenberg, unobtrusive owners of 30 major Swedish firms, including nine of the country's 15 largest. Altogether, the Wallenberg family owns or controls well over half the Swedish economy. The great and unique achievements of Swedish society were obtained with this powerful bloc working in harmony with the trade unions and the government. The list of predators would start with Carl Icahn, the feared Jewish corporate raider and financier who ruined more companies and people than Wallenberg ever owned. The presence of unfettered predators makes it impossible for shepherds to do what they do best. Furthermore, predators do not shrink from driving their victims toward the slaughterhouse.

Predators use mass migration like a powerful tool. The immigrants have to live somewhere, so real estate and rents rise – benefiting the wealthy. In Israel, landlords divide their old flats into small units and sublet them to immigrants. In such a way, they double and triple their income, while ordinary local people can’t find a decent-sized flat for a reasonable price. The immigrants need credit, so moneylenders have a feast day on them, charging 20% per month. Immigration undermines workers’ security, creates surplus of labour.

Mobile labour is less expensive: the workers are here when you need them; and when you do not need them, they just go away. This was one of the reasons why Israel locked up its Palestinian workers and imported Thais and Chinese in their stead. Mass migration is a powerful weapon in the class war. By importing potential workers, the predators-owners undermine the working classes. It is import of labour, and as every import it reduces value of local product, i.e. of native labour.

Predators speak of “creative destruction”. The companies that fail under the new regime have no value to them. The companies that survive might be shifted to India with the click of a button. Immigration breaks unions. Even better for the owners, mass immigration opens the second front in the class war, that between the working classes and immigrants.

Immigration inevitably turns into a war for resources: for employment, for women, food and accommodation. The middle classes reap some benefits: they get cheaper housemaids, cheaper drivers, nannies, gardeners, cheaper sex. The middle-class Gay International (a term of Joseph Massad) is on the forefront of support for immigration: one can explain it by their compassion, but one can also explain it by their own interests of having a pool of cheap and available sexual partners. Immigrants do not compete with the middle classes; they do not live in the same areas; they are not likely to take their jobs. The workers are bearing the brunt of this war, and they have no time or strength left for the class war against the owning classes.

cont., http://www.israelshamir.net/English/immigration.htm

erowe1
06-26-2010, 03:59 PM
The whole article never once mentions illegal immigration.

Kregisen
06-26-2010, 04:01 PM
the whole article never once mentions illegal immigration.

↑↑↑↑

susano
06-26-2010, 04:05 PM
The whole article never once mentions illegal immigration.

In our case, and around Europe, the mass migration is primarily illegal. That's because no sane country or community will tolerate it legally, so the internationalists/globalists merely do what they're doing here, right now.

susano
06-26-2010, 04:06 PM
The whole article never once mentions illegal immigration.

You also didn't even read the whole article :p

erowe1
06-26-2010, 04:28 PM
The part you copied and pasted here in a thread entitled "brilliant analysis of illegal immigration" doesn't mention it. You're right that I didn't bother clicking the link. I see they guy below me did. My sympathies to him.

Dr.3D
06-26-2010, 04:29 PM
The whole article never once mentions illegal immigration.

You mean like in this part of the article?

You see, Sarkozy is considered a normal son of well integrated immigrants, the kind you mention, who don’t want to be the bridgehead for an invasion; and he is now speaking loudly about roots, national flag, the need of throwing back illegal immigrants etc.

Added emphasis is mine. ;)

susano
06-26-2010, 04:43 PM
Israel Shamir, having lived around the world and, especially, Israel, has a very unique perspective on immigration. I would love to talk to him about the founding of Israel. Though the British "gave" Rothschild what would late become Israel, they put immigrations quotas or restrictions on the number of Euro Jews who could migrate there. That was ignored and Israel was settled by mass, illegal immigration or, more correctly, invasion, in exactly the same way that Mexico is invading the US.

Shamir's insights into human psychology and the healthy desire to protect one's turf and culture, really gets to the heart of why humans make laws about who is allowed in. He doesn't address law and political philosophy as much as the reasons behind them.

susano
06-26-2010, 04:45 PM
The part you copied and pasted here inYou're right that I didn't bother clicking the link. I see they guy below me did. My sympathies to him.

And, that's because you like to shoot your mouth without being informed. :)

tremendoustie
06-26-2010, 05:08 PM
I believe the man who wrote this is a socialist, but that's neither here nor there, as this is not about government or political philosophy. This is about why most people oppose mass immigration and the myth of racism being the cause. It is excelllent smack down of the race baiters.


So your point is not that you support the arrest of "illegal" immigrants, but only that those who support it are not all motivated by racism? If so, I agree ... I think many are motivated by economic ignorance, nationalism, or cultural factors.

The context in which you spoke about this article in the other thread indicated that you were posting it in support of immigration enforcement.



Winnie the Pooh on Immigration and Race

By Israel Shamir



A couple of Ukrainians are examining some graffiti: Kick a kike and save Russia!

One Ukrainian says to the other “Great idea! But who wants to save Russia?”

This joke popped into my mind while reading the white nationalist calls: Stop immigration and save the White Race. The means are laudable, but the stated end is irrelevant, at best.

You do not have to belong to the White Race to understand the problems caused by movements of populations. You do not even have to believe in the existence of racial classifications to appreciate that mass migrations cause real problems. The racialist reasoning behind opposition to this phenomenon is superfluous and unproductive at best. Mass immigration is a modern phenomenon, while 140-year old racialism is so dated that it hurts.

Opposition to immigration does not require feelings of racial superiority or even racial identity. Readers of Milne probably remember that Winnie the Pooh, Piglet and Rabbit’s reaction to the newest animal – Kanga – in their forest was anything but welcoming: they kidnapped the immigrant baby. The story of course ended with everyone becoming fast friends, but even Milne could not pull off a happy ending if Kangas were to flood the forest by their thousands.

Humans and other animals have defensive mechanisms used to protect their territory and their access to resources. These mechanisms are now deliberately misrepresented as ‘racism’, or as the unleashing of brutal natural tendencies, but the protection of one’s territory is morally defensible.


Yes, so defend your territory. Meaning your property. Don't try to dictate to others how they must use theirs.



In the Soviet Russia of my youth, a young man courting a girl from a different neighbourhood had a better than even chance of being beaten up by the local boys. There was no ethnic, racial, religious or even social difference between the two neighbourhoods; the boys from block A did not think they are inherently better than boys from block B; they were simply defending their access to “their own” girls.


Does anyone think this behavior by the "local boys" was moral? Anyone?



This protectionism was not extreme: a serious relationship or marriage across an arbitrary territorial border was possible, but the light flirt and easy sex (and sex was quite easy under the socialist regime) was limited to one’s own neighbourhood. Foreigners, that is boys of different ethnicity and origin, were no exception to the locals-only rule. A long-term settler of any stripe would be eventually accepted as a homeboy, but short-term visitors were always ‘foes’ and were treated accordingly. It is reasonable that today’s youngsters act protectively towards ‘their own’ females, or ‘their own’ jobs. They also have to make a living, and the idealistic groups who hand control over to transients die out quickly.


So opposition to "illegal" immigration is based on the same motivation which leads gangs of boys to beat up innocent strangers for trying to flirt with "their" girls. Good to know.



Mass immigration is neatly sandwiched between invasion and slave trade. If the immigrants prosper, it is invasion; if they are kept down, it is slavery.


Wrong. Invasion is a group of armed people coming to kill you. Slavery is forced labor under threat of violence. Neither describe immigration, in either case. And, since when is the only alternative to prospering, being "kept down"? The author's socialistic viewpoint is seeping through here.



Either way a small slice of the local population will profit: they will be called “compradors” or “slave traders” as the situation develops.


Both inaccurate labels. And, free markets are good for everyone in the long run.



In general, wealthy people enjoy the fruits of immigration while poor ones bear the brunt of it.


How so? Bear the "brunt" of what, exactly?



However, not all wealthy people take advantage of the situation to the same degree. Wealthy people, like the rest of us, have different attitudes toward the society that nurtured them: they might be divided into shepherds and predators. The shepherds fleece their sheep while predators will slaughter every last one if the price is right.


More socialist baloney here.



The shepherds might be represented by the great Swedish industrialist family of Wallenberg, unobtrusive owners of 30 major Swedish firms, including nine of the country's 15 largest. Altogether, the Wallenberg family owns or controls well over half the Swedish economy. The great and unique achievements of Swedish society were obtained with this powerful bloc working in harmony with the trade unions and the government. The list of predators would start with Carl Icahn, the feared Jewish corporate raider and financier who ruined more companies and people than Wallenberg ever owned. The presence of unfettered predators makes it impossible for shepherds to do what they do best. Furthermore, predators do not shrink from driving their victims toward the slaughterhouse.


This scenario, obviously, was not caused by freedom, but by corporatism.



Predators use mass migration like a powerful tool. The immigrants have to live somewhere, so real estate and rents rise – benefiting the wealthy.


Wait, I thought we were trying to raise property values? Which is it?



In Israel, landlords divide their old flats into small units and sublet them to immigrants. In such a way, they double and triple their income, while ordinary local people can’t find a decent-sized flat for a reasonable price.


So move. The fact that someone wants to outbid you for an apartment doesn't justify you attacking and kidnapping them, so you can pay less.



The immigrants need credit, so moneylenders have a feast day on them, charging 20% per month. Immigration undermines workers’ security, creates surplus of labour.


Prices also drop, increasing the real wage even if nominal wages drop, and spurring spending. And once again, the solution to a person out bidding you in the market is not violence against that person.



Mobile labour is less expensive: the workers are here when you need them; and when you do not need them, they just go away. This was one of the reasons why Israel locked up its Palestinian workers and imported Thais and Chinese in their stead. Mass migration is a powerful weapon in the class war.


Class war now? This guy's a good little Marxist isn't he?



By importing potential workers, the predators-owners undermine the working classes. It is import of labour, and as every import it reduces value of local product, i.e. of native labour.

If the immigrants spend their money, the added demand balances out the added supply. If they don't, oversupply will mean prices dropping far more than wages, meaning increases in real wages.

The wealth of a society is the amount it produces, period. The aggregate economic quality of life is simply total production divided by populace. If more is being produced, there's more wealth to go around.

Protectionism, like price fixing, is based on economic ignorance.



Predators speak of “creative destruction”. The companies that fail under the new regime have no value to them. The companies that survive might be shifted to India with the click of a button.


Without deficit spending, both by government and individuals, trade deficits are impossible. Free trade in this context allows specialization, and so greater efficiency, and overall wealth.

Indebtedness is the problem, not free trade -- and the problem of indebtedness is almost entirely caused by government policies. The Fed's low interest rate fixing directly causes private indebtedness, while direct deficit spending by government makes the problem far worse. This is the direct cause of trade deficits.



Immigration breaks unions.


Hooray for more competition!



Even better for the owners, mass immigration opens the second front in the class war, that between the working classes and immigrants.


More class warfare ...



Immigration inevitably turns into a war for resources: for employment


Long term unemployment is impossible in a free market, due to the law of scarcity. In such a market, labor will always have a nonzero value, and the lower that value is in nominal terms, the lower prices will be as well. Persistent unemployment is only possible in markets where employment has significant overhead, or when there are minimum wages.



, for women


Because the immigrants will all be men? :confused:



, food


This person obviously knows nothing about markets. If demand for food goes up, more people will be employed creating food, to meet the added demand.



and accommodation.


Once again, if more accommodation is needed, it will be built.



The middle classes reap some benefits: they get cheaper housemaids, cheaper drivers, nannies, gardeners, cheaper sex. The middle-class Gay International (a term of Joseph Massad) is on the forefront of support for immigration: one can explain it by their compassion, but one can also explain it by their own interests of having a pool of cheap and available sexual partners.


:rolleyes:



Immigrants do not compete with the middle classes; they do not live in the same areas; they are not likely to take their jobs. The workers are bearing the brunt of this war, and they have no time or strength left for the class war against the owning classes.

This class warfare B.S. gets really old really quick.

susano
06-26-2010, 08:13 PM
So your point is not that you support the arrest of "illegal" immigrants, but only that those who support it are not all motivated by racism? If so, I agree ... I think many are motivated by economic ignorance, nationalism, or cultural factors.

I'm more a constitutionalist than anything so, I DO support the arrest and deportation of those here illegally.



The context in which you spoke about this article in the other thread indicated that you were posting it in support of immigration enforcement.

Unless and until we get rid of governments & corporations, then I support restrictions on immigration. I am not a libertarian nor a communist/internmationalist/globalist.



Yes, so defend your territory. Meaning your property. Don't try to dictate to others how they must use theirs.

I fully understand your thinking here, but that can only work in a world free of the gov-corp industrial complex.



Does anyone think this behavior by the "local boys" was moral? Anyone?

He's not making a moral judgement, just telling you like it really is.



So opposition to "illegal" immigration is based on the same motivation which leads gangs of boys to beat up innocent strangers for trying to flirt with "their" girls. Good to know.

He's explaining territorial instinct and the desire for self preservation. Do you think it doesn't exist? It's the same instinct, whether it's played out on a national or neighborhood level. How that instinct is expressed varies.



Wrong. Invasion is a group of armed people coming to kill you. Slavery is forced labor under threat of violence. Neither describe immigration, in either case. And, since when is the only alternative to prospering, being "kept down"? The author's socialistic viewpoint is seeping through here.

Nope. What's happening with Mexico is definitely an invasion with policical, economic, and sociological goals on the part of the people behind it.

His comments about "slavery", "prospering", being "kept down" are rhetoric used by the opposing camps in this debate. He's writing about that.



Both inaccurate labels. And, free markets are good for everyone in the long run.

He said, "they will be called..." and he is correct. Your ideasphere (intellectual wankery) version how things should be and how they really are, are different.

What free markets do you refer to?



How so? Bear the "brunt" of what, exactly?

A global plantation is of huge benefit to whatever group of people happen to control it. That's why they've created entities like The Ford Foundation - to further their agenda.

If you cannot grasp the impacts of social engineering upon any population, then you cannot grasp what the author is talking about or why he even took the time to write the piece.



More socialist baloney here.

Not at all. He isn't calling for abolishing the wealthy or stealing their money. He's making an observation of how one group of people interact with a mass immigrant population. Having lived in Los Angeles, I can tell you he's spot on.



This scenario, obviously, was not caused by freedom, but by corporatism.

Yes, he said as much: "Carl Icahn, the feared Jewish corporate raider ..."



Wait, I thought we were trying to raise property values? Which is it?

Who is "we"?

Indeed, renting out a garage with no running water to 30 Mexicans is very profitable. So, yes, that raises property values. Obvioulsy, the author is making a commentary on such practices, as are you.



So move. The fact that someone wants to outbid you for an apartment doesn't justify you attacking and kidnapping them, so you can pay less.

Where did the author talk about attacking and kidnapping anyone?



Prices also drop, increasing the real wage even if nominal wages drop, and spurring spending. And once again, the solution to a person out bidding you in the market is not violence against that person.

You are very far afield of the article, at this point. He was talking about interest rates climbing when there is surplus of labor causing a housing crunch. You are pro bankster, I take it. That's fine as long as you recognize what it is you're arguing for. :)



Class war now? This guy's a good little Marxist isn't he?

Uh, no. Marxism is internationalist and uses mass migration as a tool of class warfare, which he is arguing against. In this respect, it is you who is making the pro Marxist argument.



If the immigrants spend their money, the added demand balances out the added supply. If they don't, oversupply will mean prices dropping far more than wages, meaning increases in real wages.

What "added supply" are you talking about? The author is talking about imported labor. You have not addressed nor refuted what he asserted, which was this:

It is import of labour, and as every import it reduces value of local product, i.e. of native labour.


The wealth of a society is the amount it produces, period. The aggregate economic quality of life is simply total production divided by populace. If more is being produced, there's more wealth to go around.

Once again. you have not addressed what he was talking about - the importing of labor. No, more production does not necessarilly equate to "more wealth to go around". The import of labor is also not just about "producing" but also means service jobs. A causal observer of the US economy knows that production has diminished in direct proportion to the increase in imported labor and manfucaturing being sent out of the country (which is something you should be in favor as you don't like protectionist practices). The global plantation is not the utopia that exists in your mind. It's not about more for everyone, lol. In fact, it's quite the opposite.



Protectionism, like price fixing, is based on economic ignorance.

It is based upon self interest, which can backfire or work out well. It can be for corrupt reasons as well as ethical ones.



Without deficit spending, both by government and individuals, trade deficits are impossible. Free trade in this context allows specialization, and so greater efficiency, and overall wealth.

Indebtedness is the problem, not free trade -- and the problem of indebtedness is almost entirely caused by government policies. The Fed's low interest rate fixing directly causes private indebtedness, while direct deficit spending by government makes the problem far worse. This is the direct cause of trade deficits.

You're a bit all over the place, here, so it's hard to adress you point by point.

The author was talking about globalization. In this context, the real world in which we live, there is no "free trade" between nations. You cannot have your utopia as long as the gov-corp industrial complex remains in existance. I appreciate the concept, though. ;)

I agree with you about debt.



Hooray for more competition!

Genuine, yes, but that doesn't exist.

On the subject of unions, I see them as freedom of association, though they are as corrupt as everything else.



More class warfare ...

Well, yes, that's what he is criticizing - internationalists using mass migration to foment class warfare (social engineering). Your reading comprehension failed you, here, because you seem to think he is advocationg that which he argues against.



Long term unemployment is impossible in a free market, due to the law of scarcity. In such a market, labor will always have a nonzero value, and the lower that value is in nominal terms, the lower prices will be as well. Persistent unemployment is only possible in markets where employment has significant overhead, or when there are minimum wages.

There is no free market in the sense of mass migration between nations. It's all manipulated for a certain outcome - the global plantation.



Because the immigrants will all be men? :confused:


This person obviously knows nothing about markets. If demand for food goes up, more people will be employed creating food, to meet the added demand.


Once again, if more accommodation is needed, it will be built.



:rolleyes:

Allow yourself to indulge in a good writer who extrapolates from the tribal, "women" to world economics. Metaphores and examples are tools of the craft.




This class warfare B.S. gets really old really quick.

But he is the one exposing it and how it is used, while you're the one defending the practice.



Okay, while I felt I should respond because you did, doing it this way, with all of the quotes and having to go back and look at your post, with his quotes, (because what you quoted doesn't transfer over to my quoting you in my post) just takes too long.

Israel Shamir has a lifetime of experience and some insightful perspectives on immigration and mass migration. I totally agree with him about racism and how it's used to foment hate. The more this particular lie of the globalaists is exposed, the better off everyone is.

tremendoustie, you're very idealistic and that's good, but it clouds your judgement. This coversation with you is much like talking with a young communist. I don't say that as insult. They are idealists, too, and they think in terms of a world that doesn't exist, just as you do. Whether it's the desire for fairness and equality, or free markets and personal liberty, we live in a global gov-corp matrix, run by banksters and elite factions who see us all as nothing but pawns on their chess board. Mass migration and the moving around of people are done for their benefit, not ours. Context is everything.

tremendoustie
06-26-2010, 09:37 PM
I'm more a constitutionalist than anything so, I DO support the arrest and deportation of those here illegally.


On what basis do you believe you have a right to demand that your neighbor obtain permission from you, or send you cash, before they allow someone on their land or business? You don't own their property. On what basis do you believe you, or the government by proxy, has a right to attack and kidnap people who haven't harmed anyone or anything, simply because they didn't jump through your hoops?



Unless and until we get rid of governments & corporations, then I support restrictions on immigration. I am not a libertarian nor a communist/internmationalist/globalist.

see above



I fully understand your thinking here, but that can only work in a world free of the gov-corp industrial complex.

So, let's work against the gov-corp industrial complex, not give it massive new power to run everyone's property and business.




He's not making a moral judgement, just telling you like it really is.


Ok, well, I agree that this is undoubtedly the basis of some people's attitudes, and it's dead wrong.



He's explaining territorial instinct and the desire for self preservation. Do you think it doesn't exist? It's the same instinct, whether it's played out on a national or neighborhood level. How that instinct is expressed varies.


Sure, I agree that that instinct exists, but we must use our better moral judgment to overcome those base instincts. If we relied only on instincts, society would be full of rape, slavery, rage, and abuse -- we'd be like cavemen.



Nope. What's happening with Mexico is definitely an invasion with policical, economic, and sociological goals on the part of the people behind it.


Once again, an invasion is an army of people trying to kill you. You need to find another word. Some poor person working at mcdonalds with the consent of the owner, and harming nobody and nothing, is not an invasion.

I can see why some would use this terminology, since it excuses violent behavior against peaceful people, but it's absolutely false.



His comments about "slavery", "prospering", being "kept down" are rhetoric used by the opposing camps in this debate. He's writing about that.


Well, those camps are dead wrong, and are twisting the truth to justify their immoral behavior.



He said, "they will be called..." and he is correct. Your ideasphere (intellectual wankery) version how things should be and how they really are, are different.


Sure, that may be an accurate description of how some individuals behave, but that doesn't make it appropriate or moral. People commit all kinds of evil.



What free markets do you refer to?


I'm saying the problem is that we don't have a free market. The problem is not immigration, and the solution is not a huge bureaucratic police state to enforce immigration law.

If you want a healthy economy, fight socialism and facism -- don't attack and kidnap some poor McDonalds worker. It's absolutely yet another case of government scapegoating innocent individuals for the damage they themselves have caused.



A global plantation is of huge benefit to whatever group of people happen to control it. That's why they've created entities like The Ford Foundation - to further their agenda.

I don't agree with their agenda. I'm certainly not going to hand my liberty to them, including control of my property and business, so they can supposedly protect me from themselves.

Seriously, if anyone still wants to give more power to government in order to supposedly protect you they ought to have their head examined.



If you cannot grasp the impacts of social engineering upon any population, then you cannot grasp what the author is talking about or why he even took the time to write the piece.


They're trying to scare you into giving up more of your liberties. "Fear the terrorists", "be terrified of Wall Street", "fear the bad economy", "immigrants are out to get you", etc. It's the same thing government does over and over, through history. You've fallen for this one.

"Yes Government! Tell me who I may hire or rent to. Make me show papers on demand, institute a huge police state, and gain even a tighter iron grip on the movement of people and money in this country. Make sure nobody can work or live without kissing bureacratic behind! That way, I'll be safe from those terrifying immigrants"

You don't gain or protect liberty by handing your liberties to government. It's insanity to think you will.




Not at all. He isn't calling for abolishing the wealthy or stealing their money. He's making an observation of how one group of people interact with a mass immigrant population. Having lived in Los Angeles, I can tell you he's spot on.


I live in Los Angeles currently, and I'm happy to have immigrants come. What I'd like to get rid of is welfare.

He speaks of all wealthy people being divided into one of two classes of evil, selfish people. That's a very socialistic mentality.



Yes, he said as much: "Carl Icahn, the feared Jewish corporate raider ..."


So we agree the problem is corporatism, not the movement of free individuals across borders.



Who is "we"?


I don't know, everyone keeps talking about trying to help property values recover. You know, to rescue all those people who are underwater on their mortgages.



Indeed, renting out a garage with no running water to 30 Mexicans is very profitable. So, yes, that raises property values. Obvioulsy, the author is making a commentary on such practices, as are you.

And if a person wants to rent out their garage that way, that's their business. It's not your garage, and you have no right to threaten violence against them or the people they rent to because they don't match your personal preferences.



Where did the author talk about attacking and kidnapping anyone?


That's what "immigration enforcement" is a euphemism for. It's what you're currently advocating.



You are very far afield of the article, at this point. He was talking about interest rates climbing when there is surplus of labor causing a housing crunch.


He was talking about a "surplus" of labor. Which, anyone who knows anything about economics recognizes is an absurd phrase.

No, immigration does not lead to high interest rates. It would lead to growth in the construction industry, however.



You are pro bankster, I take it. That's fine as long as you recognize what it is you're arguing for. :)

Not at all. I want to abolish the Fed and move away from the fractional reserve system entirely.



Uh, no. Marxism is internationalist and uses mass migration as a tool of class warfare, which he is arguing against. In this respect, it is you who is making the pro Marxist argument.

"Class warfare" is right out of marx.

And I'm arguing for freedom to control your own business and property, rather than the tyranny that you're advocating, in which busybody individuals presume to dictate to others how they must run their property and business.




What "added supply" are you talking about? The author is talking about imported labor. You have not addressed nor refuted what he asserted, which was this:

It is import of labour, and as every import it reduces value of local product, i.e. of native labour.

If the immigrants consume as much as they produce, the value of labor will not change -- increased supply and demand. If they consume less, the price of labor will go down, but so will the prices of goods, so real wages remain unchanged.

This is basic free market economics. You're advocating price controls for labor, and other protectionist measures, and imagining that it will work better than protectionism in any other economic arena. It doesn't.

Free markets are the most effective, and lead to the greatest prosperity.



Once again. you have not addressed what he was talking about - the importing of labor. No, more production does not necessarilly equate to "more wealth to go around".


Yes, it does. You need to read some Austrian economics.

Forget the movement of little green pieces of paper. Apart from increasing indebtedness, the amount you can consume is simply what you produce, or what you obtain by trading what you produce.

The overall wealth of the country is simply that which it produces. Produce more, and you have more to consume. It's that simple. Money is simply used as a means to trade some goods for other goods, it doesn't change this basic fact.



The import of labor is also not just about "producing" but also means service jobs.


Services count as production too. The more services that are supplied, the more can be consumed.



A causal observer of the US economy knows that production has diminished in direct proportion to the increase in imported labor and manfucaturing being sent out of the country (which is something you should be in favor as you don't like protectionist practices).


In a free economy, with no net borrowing, there could be no net loss of production, because there can be no trade deficit. Please think about this, if you don't understand it. If you are not borrowing or printing money, you cannot consume more than you produce, either on a personal level, or a national one.

This means that for every new good that's imported, there must be a new export.

It is increasing indebtedness, as well as money printing, that is causing the movement of these jobs out of country, and it's absolutely not a good thing.



The global plantation is not the utopia that exists in your mind. It's not about more for everyone, lol. In fact, it's quite the opposite.


"Global plantation" is what you get when you hand total control over living and working to the government. They've messed your mind up to the point where you think more government control means more freedom, and it's disappointing to me that they could fool so many people who otherwise believe in liberty.



It is based upon self interest, which can backfire or work out well. It can be for corrupt reasons as well as ethical ones.

It's based on short sighted, ignorant self interest, which is ultimately damaging to all involved.



You're a bit all over the place, here, so it's hard to adress you point by point.

The author was talking about globalization. In this context, the real world in which we live, there is no "free trade" between nations. You cannot have your utopia as long as the gov-corp industrial complex remains in existance. I appreciate the concept, though. ;)

Right, so the enemy should be the gov-corp industrial complex. We shouldn't give them more power to control people, property, and business.



I agree with you about debt.


Good -- do you recognize that debt and inflation causes trade deficits? That this is the reason for net exports of productive capacity?



Genuine, yes, but that doesn't exist.

On the subject of unions, I see them as freedom of association, though they are as corrupt as everything else.

I agree. I have no problem with unions -- but anytime there's new competition, I'm glad to see it.



Well, yes, that's what he is criticizing - internationalists using mass migration to foment class warfare (social engineering). Your reading comprehension failed you, here, because you seem to think he is advocationg that which he argues against.


"Class warfare" is a marxist invention. To the extent it is a real phenomenon, it is caused by corrupt and favoritist policies of the central state. There is no natural reason middle class, poor, rich people, or immigrants, should be at odds with each other.



There is no free market in the sense of mass migration between nations. It's all manipulated for a certain outcome - the global plantation.

An individual should be able to decide who to allow on their property, or who to hire in their business. That's all I'm saying.



Allow yourself to indulge in a good writer who extrapolates from the tribal, "women" to world economics. Metaphores and examples are tools of the craft.


His points were completely false, that's all I'm saying.



But he is the one exposing it and how it is used, while you're the one defending the practice.


The only thing I'm defending is freedom.



Okay, while I felt I should respond because you did, doing it this way, with all of the quotes and having to go back and look at your post, with his quotes, (because what you quoted doesn't transfer over to my quoting you in my post) just takes too long.


You may be right ;)



Israel Shamir has a lifetime of experience and some insightful perspectives on immigration and mass migration. I totally agree with him about racism and how it's used to foment hate. The more this particular lie of the globalaists is exposed, the better off everyone is.

They use fearmongering to obtain more power for themselves. The "immigration" issue is no different. They need you to fear immigrants in order to get more of a stranglehold on private property and business.



tremendoustie, you're very idealistic and that's good, but it clouds your judgement. This coversation with you is much like talking with a young communist. I don't say that as insult.


Lol, well, it sounds like an insult to me, but that's ok ;). I think I understand where you're coming from -- you believe more liberty in this area is impractical. I think that giving up liberty in order to supposedly protect it is a sucker's game. They take a foot for any inch you give them -- and they use fearmongering exactly like this to get you to hand it over.



They are idealists, too, and they think in terms of a world that doesn't exist, just as you do.


The problem is that they advocate agressive violence. Their "ideals" are immoral and anti-freedom.

One has to have ideals to know what to stand for. My ideal is no murder, for example, but I know some murder will always exist. Likewise, my ideal is no aggressive violence, even though I know some will always exist.



Whether it's the desire for fairness and equality, or free markets and personal liberty, we live in a global gov-corp matrix, run by banksters and elite factions who see us all as nothing but pawns on their chess board. Mass migration and the moving around of people are done for their benefit, not ours. Context is everything.

Even if what you say is true, giving more control to them, and destroying more liberty, in the name of "immigration enforcement" is not the solution. More individual liberty is the solution.

tremendoustie
06-26-2010, 09:44 PM
I've really got to get back to work, so I'll leave this conversation for now ;)

Thanks for chatting.

constituent
06-27-2010, 06:14 AM
I'm more a constitutionalist than anything so, I DO support the arrest and deportation of those here illegally.


Then you're not a "constitutionalist." End of story.

susano
06-27-2010, 01:15 PM
Then you're not a "constitutionalist." End of story.


Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican
Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature
cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.



This is a union of states and it has borders. We are being invaded by a foreign country. There are two ways to get rid of the invaders: arrest and deport or declare war and kill them. Either are perfectly constitutional and Arizona is within it's rights, as a member of the union, to have it's border with Mexico protected and to have foreign nationals removed, or do so all by their lonesome.

Perhaps you have a fantasy constituion that exists in your head, where there are no borders and there is no requirement to protect the states from invasion. It must be that pretend constitution that you think I'm not an adherent to. As long as the united States remains in existance, I am a constitutionalist, not a no borders, one world, libertarian nor a communist.

susano
06-27-2010, 01:18 PM
I've really got to get back to work, so I'll leave this conversation for now ;)

Thanks for chatting.

You went and did that quote thingy, again. You're trying to make me work to post, aren't you? :D

I will go over it and respond.

Thank you for chatting, too :)

tremendoustie
06-27-2010, 01:21 PM
You went and did that quote thingy, again. You're trying to make me work to post, aren't you? :D

I will go over it and respond.

Thank you for chatting, too :)

You don't have to reply to it all, or even reply at all. It does take gobs of time, and I'm sure you're busy too. Write whatever you want to. :)

Pete Kay
06-27-2010, 01:35 PM
There are numerous logical reason why any nation should control immigration from stopping the spread of communicable diseases to preventing violent criminals from entering, but the most important reason is national sovereignty. A nation can't have sovereignty if it has no control of its borders.

tremendoustie
06-27-2010, 01:58 PM
There are numerous logical reason why any nation should control immigration from stopping the spread of communicable diseases to preventing violent criminals from entering, but the most important reason is national sovereignty. A nation can't have sovereignty if it has no control of its borders.

You're using "National sovereignty" as a euphamism for the idea that you have a right to dictate to your neighbors who they may and may not allow on their land, or hire for their business. You don't.

You should manage your own property, and business, and stop trying to jam your personal prefereces down everyone else's throats.

Pete Kay
06-27-2010, 02:46 PM
You're using "National sovereignty" as a euphamism for the idea that you have a right to dictate to your neighbors who they may and may not allow on their land, or hire for their business. You don't.

You should manage your own property, and business, and stop trying to jam your personal prefereces down everyone else's throats.

We already have established laws against illegal immigration. I'm not the one trying to push my preferences here on others; you are.

Your views about immigration are based on a hypothetical libertarian fantasy, not on our present realities.

tremendoustie
06-27-2010, 05:10 PM
We already have established laws against illegal immigration. I'm not the one trying to push my preferences here on others ...


What does what happens to be the current law matter? It just means people are already imposing their preferences on others. There are and have been laws prohibiting all kinds of victimless behavior -- using alcohol, smoking pot, allowing tobacco in your restaurant, etc.

On this issue, you're exactly like the busybody tyrant who mandates that no business may allow smoking -- you just say that no business may allow mexicans. Pushing your preferences on other people, and forcing them to run their property or business only in the way you prefer, is wrong.


you are.

No, I want people to be free to make their own choices about how they want to run their business and property. I am advocating freedom to choose, while you're imposing your preferences on others.

I want you to be allowed to prohibit mexicans from your property, if you prefer.

You don't want me to be able to allow them on my property, if I prefer.



Your views about immigration are based on a hypothetical libertarian fantasy, not on our present realities.

My views on immigration are based on respect for property rights, rather than the tyrannical notion that you get to threaten violence against others, simply because they run their property in a way that doesn't match your personal preferences.

That's what freedom is about -- the right to make choices for yourself.

Dr.3D
06-27-2010, 06:07 PM
Well, I don't want illegal aliens to get welfare I pay for and medical care I pay for. Now how can we come to an agreement to allow you to hire illegal aliens and not have them get welfare and free medical treatment at my expense?

I don't care if the entire country of Mexico or any other nation comes across the border, as long as they don't come here just to get the free stuff our socialist government gives them at our expense.

Till there is an end to the free stuff for people who are enticed to cross the borders into this country just so they can make money and feed off of the government tit of everyone else who are paying taxes into this fiasco, I don't see a better solution than keeping them from entering the country.

tremendoustie
06-27-2010, 06:17 PM
Well, I don't want illegal aliens to get welfare I pay for and medical care I pay for. Now how can we come to an agreement to allow you to hire illegal aliens and not have them get welfare and free medical treatment at my expense?

I don't care if the entire country of Mexico or any other nation comes across the border, as long as they don't come here just to get the free stuff our socialist government gives them at our expense.

Great, I agree. Let's work to end welfare in general, or if we can't pull that off, welfare for "illegal" immigrants.

Surely if Arizona can pass a law to deport "illegals", they could pass a law to cut off benefits to them. That's where we need to focus -- no benefits for anyone who can't prove they're a citizen.

This scales back socialism, and doesn't require a police state to implement.



Till there is an end to the free stuff for people who are enticed to cross the borders into this country just so they can make money and feed off of the government tit of everyone else who are paying taxes into this fiasco, I don't see a better solution than keeping them from entering the country.

Stop the free stuff!!! That's the solution! :)

Jace
06-27-2010, 11:20 PM
Stop the free stuff!!! That's the solution! :)

In my opinion, they are not coming here for the free stuff. They come here to work as day laborers.

Poverty is a corrupting and demeaning thing, and there is an unlimited supply of indigent people in this world who will do just about anything for pennies if they believe it will get them out of the circumstances they were born into. There is a huge underground economy in this country that supplies cheap foreign labor to those who don't mind operating outside the law.

It's the local political groups offering the illegal aliens free stuff in exchange for allegiance. SEIU, ACLU, MoveOn.org, La Raza. They use these people to advance their own ends. They teach the illegal aliens to take advantage of the free stuff after they are already in the country working at crappy jobs. They stoke their resentments at those who were born into better circumstances. Getting rid of welfare doesn't mean they won't stop coming by the millions because that's not why they are coming now.

California is in the last stages of its transformation into a Third World society. It used to be great to be middle class here, and it was the middle class that was politically and economically dominant, but now it's on its last gasp. It is being killed by mass immigration and globalization. The government and economy are collapsing under the weight of immigration from the Third World and what we are being left with are crime-ridden Third World barrios covered with trash and grafitti, while wealthy whites retreat to their own segregated communities, just as they do from the Mexican border down to Argentina.

Just look south for our future -- most people down there live in demoralizing poverty, crime is omnipresent, there's barely a noticeable middle class, a tiny oligarchy owns everything, a giant dysfunctional nepotistic bureaucracy makes simple tasks expensive and inefficient, politics is farce and winners take the spoils, but they do have good soccer teams. Don't get me wrong, I love Latin America -- the cultures, food, people, language, lifestyle, geography. But I love the United States of America too, my culture and my people and my language and my lifestyle, which are leaving California as we become Latin America. I remember when kids rode bikes on safe middle class suburban streets that are now claimed by Latino gangs. High schools that existed for nearly a hundred years as great places to go to school now resemble Lord of the Flies. Gunfire in suburbs after Quince Anos celebrations, etc.

In my view and experience, more immigration means less liberty, and also more entanglements abroad as foreign-born people bring their quarrels to our politics. I feel a sense of loss at what is happening here. Maybe now we get to feel how the Native Americans felt. They had more freedom than we do in many ways. At least they fought against the rising tide.

tremendoustie
06-28-2010, 12:29 AM
In my opinion, they are not coming here for the free stuff. They come here to work as day laborers.

Great then, I'm happy to have those people :).



Poverty is a corrupting and demeaning thing, and there is an unlimited supply of indigent people in this world who will do just about anything for pennies if they believe it will get them out of the circumstances they were born into. There is a huge underground economy in this country that supplies cheap foreign labor to those who don't mind operating outside the law.

I think a lot of the reason the labor is so cheap, and these people can be abused, is because of the fact that they're "illegal", and so under threat of attack by the government.

But, apart from that, I say good for them. I'm happy to see people work hard to improve their lot in life, and happy to see competition.



It's the local political groups offering the illegal aliens free stuff in exchange for allegiance. SEIU, ACLU, MoveOn.org, La Raza. They use these people to advance their own ends. They teach the illegal aliens to take advantage of the free stuff after they are already in the country working at crappy jobs.


Ok, well, get rid of the free stuff, as I say.



They stoke their resentments at those who were born into better circumstances. Getting rid of welfare doesn't mean they won't stop coming by the millions because that's not why they are coming now.

Hey, if they want to put in honest hard work for a fair wage, good on 'em.



California is in the last stages of its transformation into a Third World society. It used to be great to be middle class here, and it was the middle class that was politically and economically dominant, but now it's on its last gasp. It is being killed by mass immigration and globalization.


No, it's being killed by out of control socialism and ridiculously powerful public employee unions.



The government and economy are collapsing under the weight of immigration from the Third World and what we are being left with are crime-ridden Third World barrios


Then arrest people the people who commit those crimes.



covered with trash


Then arrest people who litter on other people's property.



and grafitti,


Then arrest vandals.

I reject your implication that everyone who immigrates without jumping through BS government hoops is a poor littering vandal.

And, there are poor white, and poor black neighborhoods that are every bit as bad.



while wealthy whites retreat to their own segregated communities, just as they do from the Mexican border down to Argentina.

I don't think that's an accurate representation, but even if it were, that's their choice, and they're welcome to it.

Feel free to join them. Don't feel free to use threats of violence to dictate to other property holders who they may allow or disallow from their property. You're welcome to your preferences, but you're not welcome to impose those preferences on everyone else.

Obviously, plenty of property owners in LA don't mind Mexicans. That's their choice. You don't get to jam your will down their throats.



Just look south for our future -- most people down there live in demoralizing poverty, crime is omnipresent, there's barely a noticeable middle class, a tiny oligarchy owns everything, a giant dysfunctional nepotistic bureaucracy makes simple tasks expensive and inefficient, politics is farce and winners take the spoils, but they do have good soccer teams.


I've lived in South America. I find your characterization grossly inaccurate in many cases. It's a vast over generalization and over simplification.

But hey, if you think latin americans are somehow inferior, feel free to move off with a bunch of other white dudes and form your own little society. I, for one, don't mind them at all.



Don't get me wrong, I love Latin America -- the cultures, food, people, language, lifestyle, geography.

Yeah, your love was just shining through in the last couple paragraphs :rolleyes:



But I love the United States of America too, my culture and my people and my language and my lifestyle, which are leaving California as we become Latin America.


Again, apparently property owners around here don't have a problem with different cultures. If you do, I suggest you move among other people who care about maintaining a pure lily white existence.

It's not like white english speaking people are going to disappear, you know. We'll still be around ;).



I remember when kids rode bikes on safe middle class suburban streets that are now claimed by Latino gangs.


Then arrest them for gang violence, not for being latino.

You can make smears against latinos all day. It's still wrong to arrest them simply for being latino and not kissing bureaucratic behind. If they harm somebody or something, arrest them for that.



High schools that existed for nearly a hundred years as great places to go to school now resemble Lord of the Flies.


Public schools suck, and that's nothing new. Work to be able to use your own money on private schools.



Gunfire in suburbs after Quince Anos celebrations, etc.


Then arrest people who use guns to harm others or their property.



In my view and experience, more immigration means less liberty, and also more entanglements abroad as foreign-born people bring their quarrels to our politics.


We've been getting more tyranny steadily for at least 100 years.



I feel a sense of loss at what is happening here. Maybe now we get to feel how the Native Americans felt. They had more freedom than we do in many ways. At least they fought against the rising tide.

I suggest you buy property, either by yourself or with others, and move there. I will absolutely defend your right to decide who to allow or disallow on your own land.

I'm not saying your preferences are totally invalid. I'm just saying you don't have a right to impose them on other property or business owners. They have a right to use their property according to their own preferences.

One last point, by the way. Have you ever considered that since in order to immigrate here, people must jump a fence, live underground, and work crappy jobs, that the immigrants willing to do so are more likely to be desperate people? And, that if people could come across the border at will, wealthy and educated indviduals would be more willing to do so?

Jace
06-28-2010, 01:12 AM
Great then, I'm happy to have those people :).



I think a lot of the reason the labor is so cheap, and these people can be abused, is because of the fact that they're "illegal", and so under threat of attack by the government.

But, apart from that, I say good for them. I'm happy to see people work hard to improve their lot in life, and happy to see competition.



Ok, well, get rid of the free stuff, as I say.



Hey, if they want to put in honest hard work for a fair wage, good on 'em.



No, it's being killed by out of control socialism and ridiculously powerful public employee unions.



Then arrest people the people who commit those crimes.



Then arrest people who litter on other people's property.



Then arrest vandals.

I reject your implication that everyone who immigrates without jumping through BS government hoops is a poor littering vandal.

And, there are poor white, and poor black neighborhoods that are every bit as bad.



I don't think that's an accurate representation, but even if it were, that's their choice, and they're welcome to it.

Feel free to join them. Don't feel free to use threats of violence to dictate to other property holders who they may allow or disallow from their property. You're welcome to your preferences, but you're not welcome to impose those preferences on everyone else.

Obviously, plenty of property owners in LA don't mind Mexicans. That's their choice. You don't get to jam your will down their throats.



I've lived in South America. I find your characterization grossly inaccurate in many cases. It's a vast over generalization and over simplification.

But hey, if you think latin americans are somehow inferior, feel free to move off with a bunch of other white dudes and form your own little society. I, for one, don't mind them at all.



Yeah, your love was just shining through in the last couple paragraphs :rolleyes:



Again, apparently property owners around here don't have a problem with different cultures. If you do, I suggest you move among other people who care about maintaining a pure lily white existence.

It's not like white english speaking people are going to disappear, you know. We'll still be around ;).



Then arrest them for gang violence, not for being latino.

You can make smears against latinos all day. It's still wrong to arrest them simply for being latino and not kissing bureaucratic behind. If they harm somebody or something, arrest them for that.



Public schools suck, and that's nothing new. Work to be able to use your own money on private schools.



Then arrest people who use guns to harm others or their property.



We've been getting more tyranny steadily for at least 100 years.



I suggest you buy property, either by yourself or with others, and move there. I will absolutely defend your right to decide who to allow or disallow on your own land.

I'm not saying your preferences are totally invalid. I'm just saying you don't have a right to impose them on other property or business owners. They have a right to use their property according to their own preferences.

One last point, by the way. Have you ever considered that since in order to immigrate here, people must jump a fence, live underground, and work crappy jobs, that the immigrants willing to do so are more likely to be desperate people? And, that if people could come across the border at will, wealthy and educated indviduals would be more willing to do so?

Yes, more immigration is always better. More people and more people and more people is always good and never bad.

I know it's good because everyone tells me so. Democrats, Republicans, Fox News, CNN, anarchists, libertarians, socialists, communists, corporatists. They all agree. We should welcome everyone to our shores if they want to come. Welcome them by the millions. Come one, come all to our multicultural paradise where labor is cheap and real estate always goes up. Pick your dogma. Communism: More immigration. Libertarianism: More immigration. Statism: More immigration. Anarchism: More immigration.

Anyone who disagrees is just crazy or racist. It's my imagination that Latin America is poor and California is starting to resemble Latin America. All these new people are good folks. Just like me. So bring 'em in by the millions. It's called freedom. 300 million, 400 million, 500 million. Life is better now in California with 40 million than it was with 20. Yes, our schools went from first to worst, our hospitals are shutting down, the middle class is emigrating and being replaced by foreign born working poor, I'm stuck in traffic all the time. Things are bad in California, no doubt. Libertarians tell me the socialists are to blame. Socialists tell me it's the libertarians. But they both agree, bring on the immigrants! Open borders, baby, the cause all dogmatists love!

Mach
06-28-2010, 01:34 AM
;)


http://www.israelshamir.net/English/immigration.htm

Now we can better understand the nature of the self-styled ‘anti-racist’ groups: Antifa, Searchlight, Expo and similar bodies. They are storm troopers for the Predator. They crush local solidarity groups. They act as a solvent, disintegrating traditional society. They are ardent Zionists; they fervently listen to Foxman’s ADL; they are supported by Jewish financiers.

Usually, the Jews do support immigration (but in Israel), but the Jewish prominence in antiracist movement has deeper roots. “Erect fence around the Torah”, teaches Talmud. It means: establish additional prohibitions to protect the important commandment. For instance, a commandment forbids gathering fruits on Sabbath; the “first fence” forbids climbing on an apple tree on Sabbath, for otherwise one who climbs on a tree is likely to pick an apple. The “second fence” forbids climbing on any tree, so one would not get used to it. Jews do not like to be referred to in unfavourable context, so they promoted a fence: do not refer to any ethnic group in unfavourable context. They are worried that those who find faults with blacks today are likely to find faults with Jews tomorrow. The whole discourse of ‘racism’ and of capitalized Other is just a fence meant to defend Jews from critique.

The Jews remember that, and do not take this prohibition seriously when they have to attack their enemies. It is just a fence around prohibition to say nasty things about Jews, not a real thing. That is why a Jewish leader, Israeli Minister of Defence Ehud Barak does not hesitate to call Palestinians “virus”, and not a single important antiracist objects to that. So for Jews, antiracism is just a figure of speech, a rhetoric device to be used against non-Jewish critics, but not a rule they are obliged to follow themselves.

The name of ‘racist’ is given nowadays to anyone who cherishes the attachment of a man to his soil and community.