In the 2008 election, an overwhelming 83% of Jews voted for Obama. Since then, the Obama administration has not been sufficiently pro-Israel to satisfy the the pro-ethnic cleansing/apartheid crowd at AIPAC and the Weekly Standard. The empire struck back, organizing “The Emergency Committee for Israel” to try to panic Jewish voters into voting for Republicans.
It didn’t work. As Eric Alterman notes, Jews split 66 to 31 in favor of Democrats. This is down from the 83% for for Obama, but more in line with traditional patterns. Alterman points to a gap between the leadership and rank and file Jews. To some extent this is true, but explicitly Jewish organizations like the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center and de facto Jewish organizations like the $PLC remain bastions of a multicultural America, closely associated with the political left. And, as Norman Podhoretz points out, citing an academic study, Jews “back Republicans only so long as they adopted the liberal position on ‘such bellwether issues … as immigration, abortion, gay rights and the separation of church and state.’”
Diaspora Jews in the West react primarily as a Diaspora group, and that means identifying with the multicultural, pro-immigration, anti-White left. The Jewish identification with the left is a strategy designed to increase Jewish power as an elite hostile to the White European majority of America. Indeed, the organized Jewish community has not only been the most important force in ending the European bias of American immigration laws, it has assiduously courted alliances with non-White ethnic groups, including Blacks, Latinos, and Asians; and these groups are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party. As the Geert Wilders case shows, the organized Jewish community and the neocons (who often favor the Republicans) will not support any political candidate who is opposed to massive non-White immigration no matter how fervently they support Israel.
I suspect that most Jews simply don’t believe that Israel is in a dire emergency despite the machinations of Bill Kristol and his friends. And they are right. The Obama administration could doubtless have been more supine in the face of Israel’s behavior, but in fact Israel has done nothing to conform to any putative US pressure. Indeed, as Uri Avnery notes, “For two years now he has succeeded in thwarting every effort by Barack Obama to compel him to start a real peace process. He has defeated him at every turn, time after time. Now Obama has suffered a stinging setback at home, and a new chapter has begun.” Netanyahu recently turned down a plea to postpone settlement building for two months, a move seen as intended to give Obama no help immediately before the election. If Israel can thumb its nose at a Democratic administration with a solidly Democratic Congress, where’s the emergency?
Moreover, in March it took AIPAC only three days to get 327 members of the House to pass a resolution asking the Obama administration to stop pressuring Israel. All the leaders of both parties signed the letter. Some emergency.
And if there is no emergency, then Jews go into their default mode of voting Democrat. It’s a no brainer.
Finally, Alterman quotes a writer who suggests that “Israel-oriented attack campaigns aren’t really aimed at Jewish voters so much as they are aimed at conservative Christians anxious about terrorism and who imagine themselves as having some kind of religious/cultural kinship with Jews.”
The CNN exit poll found that 78% of Christian Evangelicals voted Republican in the Congressional races—the most lop-sided percentage for any religious group. Nevertheless, the recent pro-Israel campaigns are not likely to have been critical. In 2008, Evangelicals voted 70% Republican in Congressional races. This is less than in the recent election, but surely the increase from 2008-2010 is most likely due to the general Republican surge among all White groups in this election, brought on by disenchantment with Obama and the Democrats. In other words, it is much more likely to be due to the increased racialization of American politics brought on by the reality of the Obama administration than to Bill Kristol fanning the flames of an emergency over Israel.
Facing the Future as a Minority
@KMac
“…the general Republican surge among all White groups in this election, brought on by disenchantment with Obama and the Democrats. In other words, it is much more likely to be due to the increased racialization of American politics brought on by the reality of the Obama administration than to Bill Kristol fanning the flames of an emergency over Israel.”
Exactly.
Obama doesn’t “get it,” to use the modern cliche. His speech on Wednesday cited the economy as the main reason the Democrats got trounced. He doesn’t understand that he has to yield his ideology to the popular will. This suggests that he’s setting himself up for a comeuppance in his own election two years hence. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jews deserted him the way they did Jimmy Carter in 1980. Jews pay lip service to the idea of peace in the Middle East, but they won’t do anything substantive to get it. By forcing any kind of different situation for the Palestinians on Israel, Obama is setting himself up for a neoconservative defection to the Republicans in 2012. It doesn’t make any difference whether the Republican candidate is someone weak like Sarah Palin. The Jews understand that they have two choices: Democrat or Republican. If they decide Obama has to go, the neocon contingent of Jewry will support the Republican nominee no matter who it is.
Part, but only part, of Obama’s sudden weakness is the withdrawal of some, but not all, media support over the settlements and not attacking Iran.
The element of American jewry who won’t accept anything less than 100% blind support for Israel (as opposed to those who’ll accept 98% blind support) will be building up Hilary Clinton as a 2012 primary challenger…
right…
about…
now.
nb. They’re insanely paranoid as a group. The minority who are the most active politically are the most insane ones. The neocons are the most insane segment of that most insane minority. They don’t think like normal people.
Well, I guess my brother who ran for a State rep position in our town of Framingham MA, USA was o for two here becasue he is aganist ilegal immigration and the politics of the Jews in my town is quite democratic. Even the ADL mentioned him:
http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/extremist_candidates_2010.htm
MASSACHUSETTS
Jim Rizoli, a Holocaust denier and an anti-immigrant activist, lost his bid to become the state representative in the 6th Middlesex District in Framingham, Massachusetts. He received 1,219 votes or about 9% of the vote.
Although Jim Rizoli denies charges of anti-Semitism by claiming that he is merely “anti-Zionist,” his Holocaust denial activities and references to a “Zionist controlled government” reveal his anti-Semitism.
During an October 2009 segment of his public access television show in Framingham, Rizoli delivered a lengthy diatribe promoting Holocaust denial. He defended Holocaust denier and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instructed viewers to conduct their own research on the Holocaust to discover the alleged “truth,” and directed people to visit Web sites that advance Holocaust denial. Jim Rizoli’s public access cable show, which he did with his twin brother Joe, was taken off the air in June 2010 after the cable station cited the Rizolis for 26 policy violations.>>
Joe Rizoli
CCFIILE.com
I noticed that a zambo named Raul Labrador, a conservative Republican, has been elected to the US Congress from the State of Idaho.
That’s while estimable White Idaho attorney Edgar Steele sits in jail on the word of a paid federal informant.
So much for all of that northwest escapist nonsense.
I’m sure the 9% who voted for your brother appreciate the fact that you have not run away like so many White ethnics in our urban areas who flee to the suburbs and beyond at the first sight on non-Whites.
Cheer up Joe. Things are looking up. Wegmans is set to open in the Northborough Crossing this February.
“Indeed, the organized Jewish community has not only been the most important force in ending the European bias of American immigration laws, it has assiduously courted alliances with non-White ethnic groups, including Blacks, Latinos, and Asians; and these groups are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party.”
The problem is the Constitution itself. It say no discrimination based on race, color, or creed. This must apply to immigration as well. If US favors white immigrants over non-white immigrants, it is violating the Constitution. It is favoring white numbers and power in America over all others.
Conclusion: The Constitution is a noble document but it should have been more race-specific and racially conscious instead of so high-minded.
As for Latinos and Asians, I don’t think many of them have much in the way of ideological affilation. They are mainly followers and sheep. Since liberals run schools, government, and culture, they are going to tilt to the Left. But this is true of many whites as well.
But I doubt if Kevin MacDonald would be happy if most blacks, Hispanics, and Asians voted for the GOP. After all, he’s about white power, not about ideology. So, even if all blacks were to adopt conservative principles, KM would be upset because what he really doesn’t want is white women to have sex with blacks(even conservative ones). Well, I agree with him on that.
Andrea OL,
The preamble to the constitution is very clear. It has been subverted by the Supreme Court.
“Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity”
The men that wrote the constitution were White. America was never more White at that time. Only Whites were allowed in politics at that time. America had slaves and strict racial segregation laws for hundreds of years.
It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Also:
Posterity:
1. future or succeeding generations
2. all of one’s descendants
That is a clear statement of race.
So the problem is not the constitution, it is the Supreme Court. They have the power to interpret laws, anyway they choose and they are not elected by the people. That makes them dictators.
Dingo Dongo, all laws change over time, and there is a thing called the AMENDMENT PROCESS in the Constitution.
First off, American whites were indeed guilty of certain historical crimes. They brought 300,000-400,000 blacks to America as slaves. Not very nice to blacks, but much worse for future generations of whites. IF these whites were thinking of POSTERITY, why did they think in terms of short-term gain? Why did they bring in those blacks and encourage them to breed like rabbits? We are suffering from the stupid greed and short-sightedness of American whites of the 18th and 19th century. Some posterity!! They left us a black population that grew from 400,000 to 40 million!!
And do you think any decent nation should allow slavery forever? You think whites today should wield whips and force blacks to pick cotton as in the late 18th century because Founding Fathers owned slaves? Grow up!
Yes, America was founded by whites, but it was not an explicitly white nation, and there is nothing in the Constitution that says it must be a WHITE nation.
Also, ‘posterity’ can be interpreted in many ways. It can mean a race of people but it can also mean culture or legal tradition of a people. Posterity of what? Blood? Language and culture? Shared political ideals? Religious Faith? Posterity doesn’t necessarily mean Blood and Race.
If you wanna go by how things were in 1776 or 1789, US was mostly an Anglo society. Using your logic, Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians, Croatians, etc, etc shouldn’t have been Americans either since US was founded by Anglos for the posterity of only Anglos. And since America was overwhelmingly protestant, I suppose it shouldn’t have allowed in all those Irish Catholics either. In the 18th century and 19th century, many Anglos looked upon Irish as almost another race, a Papist bunch of scum, and that prejudice existed in the US as well. There were signs ‘No dogs and Irish allowed’. If you want American society to function as it had in the early days, we should put down Irish too.
Also, do you know that only 20% of white males were allowed to vote in the early days of the Republic. If you wanna go by orignal intent, we should only let rich white males vote.
And women didn’t get the vote until the 20th century, but I’m sure you think male-only voting rights is a good idea.
Constitution changes over time and Founders designed it to change, which is why there is the amendment process.
15th amendment says: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
That wasn’t written by blacks, Jews, or radical leftists. It was written by white people at the time of strong Christian Faith. America was culturally and morally founded on Christianity, a faith that all races and men are God’s children and should be treated as such.
My contention is the Constitution is a noble and high-minded document, but too noble and too high-minded for political purposes. For a people to survive, they need more than ideals. They need concrete assurances. The constitution favors abstract ideals of liberty and equal justice for all men rather than survival or dominance of whites in America.
OF course, until the 1960s, most Americans didn’t practice the spirit or letter of the Constitution. There was open discrimination against non-whites, affirmative action for whites, privilege of the elite classes, and etc. It was in the 1960s that the letter of the Constitution began to be finally implemented, and there was much idealism attached to this movement. But things are turning out badly because contrary to Christian idealism of ‘all men are equal children of God’, there are racial differences and some races are bad for the white race.
“No Dogs, and Irish” is Irish Roman Catholic make believe i.e. political propaganda.
Although looking back maybe our Protestant ancestors were too welcoming of the Roman Catholics considering the way that Roman Catholics in Congress vote today in alliance with the Jews & Jew agenda.
Discrimination against Irish Roman Catholics in America is a bigger lie than the Holocaust. :)
When will the serfs awake? When Mossad nukes Kansas City? That day is not far away.
I wonder if disaffected Whites vote republican merely because of the “macho” image of the party as compared to the “wimpy” image of the democratic party. Voting for someone like Dennis Kucinich seems more logical, he’s opposed H-1B visas, advocates withdrawal from NAFTA and is against foreign wars.
Hi friends,
This is a veritable smorgasbord of hard truths about the recent election. Just take what you want…
http://dailybail.com/home/busted-tarp-loving-wall-street-puppets-new-gop-leadership-ca.html
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
ReporterNotebook@gmail.com
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
Good work Joe ! I would’ve voted for your brother Jim if I lived in Framingham.Please don’t give up we need more Americans like you and your brother !
First off, American whites were indeed guilty of certain historical crimes. They brought 300,000-400,000 blacks to America as slaves. Not very nice to blacks, but much worse for future generations of whites. IF these whites were thinking of POSTERITY, why did they think in terms of short-term gain? Why did they bring in those blacks and encourage them to breed like rabbits? We are suffering from the stupid greed and short-sightedness of American whites of the 18th and 19th century. Some posterity!! They left us a black population that grew from 400,000 to 40 million!! — Andrea OL
Not exactly Andrea… But that is precisely what the brainwashers want you and your children to believe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUE0si2llTY
“Not exactly Andrea… But that is precisely what the brainwashers want you and your children to believe – WA&FNM”
The Africans brought by jews to this continent were purchased by rich white men to do work rich white men were unwilling to do. That’s all we need to know.