The QCA are humble men, with a lot to be humble about

Posted by William on July 15, 2007, 07:37 PM | #

“Some gratitude.”

While Alex Zeka’s final point was undoubtedly meant rhetorically, the question of gratitude from German & Polish Jews has never arisen in a WW II context except in the snotty concept of “Righteous Gentiles,” a fabulous slur expressed in the most supremacist way possible. (It names all the rest of us cattle as “Unrighteous Gentiles,” if you don’t grasp its fabulous nature. Fabulous in the old meaning.)

That gratitude never existed can be documented by two prominent hate-Gentile Hollywood films made right after World War II in 1947.

One was “Gentleman’s Agreement” which had the sole purpose of smearing European American taxpayers, voters, workers, and leaders who maintained steadfastness in fighting in World War II. It was a vicious thank you note to all European Americans for their sacrifices in World War II, and it didn’t take long to deliver.

http://crazy4cinema.com/Review/FilmsG/f_gentlemans_agreement.html

A second was “Crossfire” which had the sole purpose of smearing Europan American soldiers on their return to the USA after World War II. By portraying returning European American soldiers as evil creatures, it became another horrifying and hateful thank you note to all returning European American veterans.

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800341088/details

A bitterly ironic aspect of both films is that Jewish (and by extension all) critics fail to notice the hateful and left-wing racialist nature of the films. But they are both classic agitprop examples of disparaging artful anecdotes and negative stereotypes.

Just some evidence to back up Alex Zeka’s ironical final comment.

Posted by danielj on July 15, 2007, 08:05 PM | #

Reading the reviews for the movies William has referred to has made me realize the importance of the tactics of the Resisting Defamation boys.

Really! I mean how big are your balls when you can shit all over WWII veterans a few months after they saved your ass and all your gold?

We need to have that kind of chutzpah. Lately, I must say that I have done just that. The friend of ours we have been staying with while we wait to get into our apartment has decided to date a Jewish kid and I was friendly and danced around the issue for no more than a day or two. The four (my girl, me, our friend and the jewish boyfriend) of us went out and after a few drinks he admitted how much he liked me and it was nice to meet decent people. Later on that evening I admitted the feeling was mutual but that I was a raging anti-semite. He totally understood.

Also, a couple of years ago while I was still undergoing my transformation I went out with a few jewish girls to test the things I was reading about. I made one of the girls admit that Israel was a terrorist state before I would come up for the evening.

I am going to start applying the strategy of the ADL (in reverse of course) to everything I watch and read and bring up the facts relentlessly in conversation. I will read into absolutely everything anti-gentilism and anti-christianity and be extremely vocal about it with all of my family and friends.

Posted by Alex Zeka on July 15, 2007, 08:24 PM | #

Fred,

You know where Auster’s blindspot is. Comments about all other ethnicities are fair game, but ones about Jews are anti-semitism and EVIL. Churchill’s exclusion means that the whole WW2 story becomes ‘evil Euros oppressing Jews’. Obviously, Auster dislikes such an outcome - he does make a habit to point out unreasonable defamation of Euros, after all - but can’t really be too specific about the esoteric reasons it’s being done. Hence the overcooked explanation (‘history is being abolished’?).

Posted by wintermute on July 16, 2007, 02:17 AM | #

Really! I mean how big are your balls when you can shit all over WWII veterans a few months after they saved your ass and all your gold?

Shitting on American WWII vets has been going on for quite some time, not that they’re getting anything less than precisely what they deserve.

Let’s crunch the numbers, shall we?

Date the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is made open to the public: 1993

Date the National WWII Memorial is made open to the public: 2004

You strike me as a bright young man, Daniel.

If you really want to know the the status differential - or even status imperative -  which obtains from honoring World Jewry over your own servicemen,  dead and alive, simply subract 1993 from 2004, and you’ll have your answer.

You may want to factor in the following quote, made by President Ronald Reagan on October 5, 1988, at the groundbreaking of the future Holocaust Museum:

We must make sure that when the tall towers of our greatest cities have crumbled to dust in the turnings of time, the Jewish people will still be on this Earth to cast their blessings and remind all of us that this world and the people who live upon it have a history and, yes, even a destiny.

What does this statement say about how the highest office in the land regards our people, our nation, and our destiny compared to how it regards the “moral imperative” of making sure there are Jews on this earth when “our greatest cities have crumbled”?

What does the reception of this statment say about the media, American Jews, and American Christians?

One president calls us publicly to a higher goal than the propogation of our race, culture, and nation to the incomparably more sublime demand that, in setting all these things aside, we rededicate ourselves to the task of making sure that there are Jews thriving on this earth long after we are dead. If digger wasps and bot flies could write prose, we might imagine that it would sound very much like this: “Long after our own children and internal organs have been devoured, we must make sure that bot flies and digger wasps will still be on this earth to cast their blessings.”

You will note, Reagan is still regarded as the greatest conservative president of the twentieth century, possibly ever. From his words above, I am in no position to dispute that accusation.

Posted by Al Ross on July 16, 2007, 03:01 AM | #

That old duffer Reagan actually convinced himself he’d been in Germany at the end of WW2 and witnessed the aftermath of the ‘Holocaust’.  His Jewish handler, Max Fisher,  doubtless applauded this variation of the Stockholm Syndrome.

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 16, 2007, 03:04 AM | #

Really! I mean how big are your balls when you can shit all over WWII veterans a few months after they saved your ass and all your gold?

They hated the Jews. They had no desire to save their ass. It was incidental. The Eastern European Jewish immigrants were radical, Bolsheviks, agitators; unscrupulous in their ambition to aspire to the elite. The Fifteenth Air Force flying out of southern Italy was able to reach Auschwitz. In August 1944 they struck within five miles of the camp.

It’s naive to expect gratitude. The Jews still seethe with gentile hatred and view the Allied war effort as facilitating or enabling the Nazi effort against the Jews. Trying to convince the Jews that we saved their ass is a waste of time.

Posted by Asdf on July 16, 2007, 08:02 PM | #

Wintermute—the only source for that quote is a revisionist website. Do you have a primary source? It really does seem too fantastic…

(Note that I am sympathetic in general with your pov)

Posted by ben tillman on July 17, 2007, 12:14 AM | #

There is another source, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, National Archives and Records!  I hope that’s sufficiently authoritative:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/100588b.htm

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/publicpapers.html

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1988/88oct.htm

Posted by Rnl on July 17, 2007, 02:26 AM | #

William wrote:

A second was “Crossfire” which had the sole purpose of smearing Europan American soldiers on their return to the USA after World War II. By portraying returning European American soldiers as evil creatures, it became another horrifying and hateful thank you note to all returning European American veterans.

I agree with your general point, but you state the matter too strongly.

The film does not portray all Euro-American soldiers as evil. There is only one evil American in _Crossfire_, the anti-Semitic killer.

We could call him a representative aberration. One lesson of the film is that mainstream, polite anti-Semitism (“we don’t want Jews in our country club”) is responsible for murderous, nazi-like anti-Semitism. The normal American, we learn, has tolerated a social environment that can lead to gratuitous racial murder, though the normal American is not himself murderously anti-Semitic. The normal American is part of a flawed social environment, and therein lies his passive guilt, but he is markedly different from it. He may not even notice Jews; they can be invisible to him, since his bigotry (if it exists at all) is a mild bigotry. Thus none of the good soldiers notices that the Jewish character Samuels is Jewish, whereas the homicidal soldier notices it almost immediately and kills him accordingly.

_Crossfire_ may be the first film depiction of the White hate criminal. The killer Montgomery is a psychological nazi even though he has just finished fighting nazis. His anti-Semitism is irrational, having nothing whatever to do with the target of his hate. To understand his crime you must look not at the victim, a wounded veteran of the Hebrew persuasion, but at the hate criminal’s own inner sickness. The detective cracks the case when he grasps how someone could have hated the victim without knowing anything about him. In other words, the detective discovers that the motive was ignorant racial hate, aka “racism.” All of this is of course standard fare today.

_Crossfire_ is arguably a minor noir classic and holds up well. It has fine performances (especially by Robert Ryan, playing the hate criminal) and a strong script, unlike _Gentleman’s Agreement_, which has dated badly.

On the other hand, in 1947 it was still necessary to explain “racism,” which was an esoteric concept for many Americans, so in one important scene near the end of _Crossfire_ “racism” must be laboriously explained for the benefit of viewers unfamiliar with the concept, using a folksy anecdote delivered by the detective, a traditional pipe-smoking authority figure (Robert Young) whose grandfather was killed by anti-Irish bigots. This overtly educational episode now stands at odds artistically with the rest of the film, because in the intervening decades we have been inundated with increasingly sophisticated explications of “racism.” An early effort therefore seems heavy-handed and primitive when it becomes explicit. 

The producer of _Crossfire_, Dore Schary, went on to run the ADL. The director, the talented Edward Dmytryk, was one of the Hollywood Ten. His _Hitler’s Children_ was an early anti-nazi propaganda film.

In the original story the victim of hateful intolerance was a homosexual, not a Jew.

Posted by Rnl on July 17, 2007, 02:33 AM | #

wintermute wrote:

Shitting on American WWII vets has been going on for quite some time,

It’s worth pointing out the counterculture of the 1960s was directed against the heroes of the Second World War. They had become the fascist enemy twenty years after they defeated fascism. They were the establishment oppressors whom New Left activists wanted to humiliate and degrade.

not that they’re getting anything less than precisely what they deserve.

Normal people go to war when they’re instructed to go to war. Germans went to war for patriotic motives. So did Americans. They went to war in Europe because they believed it was their patriotic duty, just as their grandchildren in the military would obediently head off for Iraq sixty years later. None of them deserves vilification, though they do deserve better leaders.

Posted by Scimitar on July 17, 2007, 03:13 AM | #

I find myself in agreement with Desmond here. American GIs were anything but the biggest fans of the Jews. In fact, dislike of the Jews reached unprecedented levels in America during the Second World War. We have survey data that proves it. From the OCD American History Timeline:

1940:

Polls find that 60% of Americans believe the Jews have undesirable traits and 40% believe the Jews have too much power.

^^ There are similar polls to this one. If I recall correctly, Jews were hated more in America during WW2 than the Germans and Japanese. Unfortunately, I forgot to save the citation at the time.

Posted by Scimitar on July 17, 2007, 03:24 AM | #

WW2 wasn’t the “Good War” of the “Greatest Generation” that it is made out to be either. That’s revisionist, although typical Yank spin (mostly from people who never fought in the war). American GIs, much like their counterparts in Korea and Vietnam, fought for their buddies and often didn’t agree with the policies of the federal government. I doubt anyone who ever fought on Guadalcanal really gave a damn about “Freedom” or “Equality.” They were simply doing their duty. So were the Japanese. It is good to see the recent attempts to humanize both sides, especially in the Pacific theatre.

Posted by Rnl on July 17, 2007, 06:18 PM | #

Polls find [in 1940] that 60% of Americans believe the Jews have undesirable traits and 40% believe the Jews have too much power.

I think this is misleading. Scimitar and Desmond Jones appear to be confusing hatred for Jews with dislike of undesirable Jewish traits. Of course Jews had and still have many undesirable traits. Americans were more willing in 1940 to speak occasionally about those bad traits than we are today. Elite White opinion often assumed that Jews are pushy and money-grubbing. Country clubs notoriously excluded Jews. Many Americans were aware of the Jewish penchant for Marxism and the Jewish hostility to Christianity. The informal prohibition of anti-Semitism was weaker then than it is now, so unflattering opinions of Jews were closer to the mainstream. But none of that amounts to hating Jews. It’s closer to the mere recognition that Jews are different from White Gentiles.

Only eighteen percent of non-Jews surveyed by the AJC in the 1940s believed Jews were “a threat to America.” By the 1950s that figure had almost disappeared. The question was subsequently dropped from the survey. It was no longer worth asking.

Now from a Jewish perspective eighteen percent is a large number. From our perspective it is low. The Russian Revolution had occurred only two decades earlier. Yet fewer than one in five Americans believed that Jews were a threat to America.

To call someone an anti-Semite in 1940 was a serious charge, just as it is today and just as it had been in the 1920s, when Henry Ford capitulated before the accusation. Calling someone an anti-Semite wasn’t a compliment, as it would have been in a nation filled with Jew haters.

It’s more accurate to say that the _threat_ of anti-Semitism was stronger in 1940 than it was in, say, 1990. The possibility that Jewish misbehavior could provoke a strong response (anti-Semitism) was always present throughout much of the last century, even though America was by world standards a philo-Semitic nation. Jews were therefore more circumspect. They were less likely to risk provoking anger in the White majority. They were, on the whole, much better behaved, at least before the 1960s.

Today they are quite certain that we’re too passive to respond to most provocations. Jewish organizations spend millions annually to study us, as a biologist might study the behavior of a rare breed of turtle in the South Pacific. They therefore have a good idea of what they can get away with and what might cause dangerous irritation. The recent Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which turns every critic of Jews and Israel around the world into an enemy of the US, is a sign of their confidence. It would have been unthinkable sixty years ago, not because Americans hated Jews, but because Jews feared Americans.

***

The ADL mobilized prominent Jews and non-Jews to publicly oppose Ford’s message. They formed a coalition of Jewish groups for the same purpose and raised constant objections in the Detroit press. Before leaving his presidency early in 1921, Woodrow Wilson joined other leading Americans in a statement that rebuked Ford and others for their antisemitic campaign. A boycott against Ford products by Jews and liberal Christians also had an impact, and Ford shut down the paper [The Dearborn Independent] in 1927, recanting his views in a public letter to Sigmund Livingston, ADL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

***

Charles Lindbergh spoke timidly about the Jewish campaign to entangle America in a European war, just as a mainstream critic of the neoconservative adventure in Iraq would speak today. Lindbergh knew what was occurring and he understood the danger, but he had to speak cautiously, because he believed he could not rely on high levels of anti-Semitism. He was right, as it turned out. 

On September 11, 1941, Charles Lindbergh appeared in Des Moines, Iowa, to speak on behalf of the isolationist America First Committee. The famous aviator criticized the groups he perceived were leading America into war for acting against the country’s interests. He expressed doubt that the U.S. military would achieve victory in a war against Germany, which he said had “armies stronger than our own.” The Des Moines speech was met with outrage in many quarters, and Lindbergh was denounced as an anti-Semite. In his hometown of Little Falls, Minnesota, his name was even removed from the town’s water tower.

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/index.asp

The simple facts that the vast majority of U.S. Jews were indeed in favor of intervention and that Jews did have a significant effect on public attitudes and public policy had become irrelevant. As Lindbergh himself said, the choice was ‘whether or not you are going to let your country go into a completely disastrous war for lack of courage to name the groups leading that country to war - at the risk of being called ‘anti-Semitic’ simply by naming them’ (as paraphrased by Anne Morrow Lindbergh 1980, 224). America had entered into an era when it had become morally unacceptable to discuss Jewish interests at all. We are still in that era.

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html

***

I doubt Ford - or whoever wrote the following - mischaracterized the philo-Semitism of his own time. Talking critically about Jews was dangerous and disturbing in 1920, just as it is today.

There is a vague feeling that even to openly use the word “Jew,” or to expose it nakedly to print, is somehow improper .... There is extreme sensitiveness about the public discussion of the Jewish Question on the part of Gentiles. They would prefer to keep it in the hazy borderlands of their thought, shrouded in silence .... The principal public Gentile pronouncements upon the Jewish Question are in the manner of the truckling politician or the pleasant after-dinner speaker; the great Jewish names in philosophy, medicine, literature, music and finance are named over, the energy, ability and thrift of the race are dwelt upon, and everyone goes home feeling that a difficult place has been rather neatly negotiated (6/12/1920).

Anyone who essays to discuss the Jewish Question in the United States or anywhere else must be fully prepared to be regarded as an Anti-Semite, in high-brow language, or in low-brow language, a Jew-baiter .... The press in general is open at this time to fulsome editorials in favor of everything Jewish ... while the Jewish press, which is fairly numerous in the United States, takes care of the vituperative end (6/19/1920).

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no4/km-ford2.html

I’m sure most readers will be struck, as I was when I first read these lines, at how contemporary they sound. The only substantial difference is that the mainstream press now also “takes care of the vituperative end.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on July 17, 2007, 07:54 PM | #

Why don’t you people learn to live with your neighbours wherever you are? Why are you hated? Frederick Charles Blair, Canadian Minister of Immigration, defending Canadian exclusionary policies to Jewish refugee advocates, 1938.

On August 16, 1933 upwards of 10,000 Jews and Gentiles hammered each other with bats, tire irons, bricks and fists over the display of a home-made Swastika at a baseball game at a Toronto park called Christie Pits. If that’s not hatred, I don’t no what is.

On August 1, 1933—The Swastika Club (formed to keep “undesirables” off Toronto’s beaches) holds its first event. Numbering around 150, they march from Balmy Beach to Woodbine Ave., singing (to the tune of “Home, Home on the Range”): “Oh, give me a home, where the Gentiles may roam/Where the Jews are not rampant all day/Where seldom is heard, a loud Yiddish word/And the Gentiles are free all the day.”

Posted by danielj on July 17, 2007, 07:57 PM | #

Shitting on American WWII vets has been going on for quite some time, not that they’re getting anything less than precisely what they deserve.

I don’t know where I stand here. I swing from anger with our brothers for running off to kill “towel-heads” (is ‘towel head’ two words?) at the behest of our true enemies and feeling like they deserve whatever fate awaits them in the desert - other times I feel like they are merely pawns on a chessboard (Brzezinski’s term) they don’t know about.

I am certainly not “villifying” them, but I think glorifying them is just as much an unthinking and reactionary position as well. As hard as detatched objectivity is, especially when one has family in the theater, it is an essential character trait in understanding history, and thus the present.

Date the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is made open to the public: 1993

Date the National WWII Memorial is made open to the public: 2004

I did not once think of that. It is one of those “party tricks” you can use to stop conversation. I love facts like that. In fact, GW, we should come up with some sort of “quick sheet” for different topics where one, theortically, could memorize a list of small facts and their respective sources to spout off at Christmas time, in Church (for me and Scroob) and other totally inapproriate places to jar people into thinking about something, they might not normally consider.

You strike me as a bright young man, Daniel.

Appearances can be deceiving

We must make sure that when the tall towers of our greatest cities have crumbled to dust in the turnings of time, the Jewish people will still be on this Earth to cast their blessings and remind all of us that this world and the people who live upon it have a history and, yes, even a destiny.

I mean… The Gipper was well past crazy. In fact they should have called him the ‘tinfoil president’ (I can safely assume no one at MR believes in aliens right - or at least wouldn’t resort to tinfoil hats even if they did…)

However, that quote is startling (it should be on the “Holocaust Fact Sheet”) and proves the point that “conservatism” is dead. The worship this man receives is beyond my comprehension. In fact, I am still young enough to play around on MYSPACE - although play I do not, I actually try to debate people on their level - and you wouldn’t believe how successfully the younger generation of republicans have been brainwashed about this man’s legacy as well!

They hated the Jews. They had no desire to save their ass. It was incidental.

First of all, as one of us, don’t you think that just maybe it is propaganda that the Jews were ever hated? All that crap about the “North East Wasp Elite” who supposedly raised their children up to be nothing more than little Nazis might just be a psyop no?

I mean the first thing those j-holes did when they set up shop here was takeover Columbia and ruin public education, create the Boaz school and let Red Emma (Blue Star of David Emma is a little more realistic) run around raising holy Hell.

Secondly, I think RNL has demolished the idea that anyone in America “hated” Jews.

Thirdly, even if they did, their hate would be incidental.

My point was: How big are your balls to shit all over WWII veterans? I mean, wasn’t the jingo meter full blast for Americans until the 60’s? We need that

WE NEED THAT KIND OF CHUTZPAH!

We could call him a representative aberration. One lesson of the film is that mainstream, polite anti-Semitism (“we don’t want Jews in our country club”) is responsible for murderous, nazi-like anti-Semitism. The normal American, we learn, has tolerated a social environment that can lead to gratuitous racial murder, though the normal American is not himself murderously anti-Semitic. The normal American is part of a flawed social environment, and therein lies his passive guilt, but he is markedly different from it. He may not even notice Jews; they can be invisible to him, since his bigotry (if it exists at all) is a mild bigotry. Thus none of the good soldiers notices that the Jewish character Samuels is Jewish, whereas the homicidal soldier notices it almost immediately and kills him accordingly.

This is what I meant by using their “critical theory” tactics against them. Shout this crap out at the dinner table, when the t.v. is on, when the radio is spitting out lies and when your mother/wife/daughter tries to pick up a Cosmo.

Analyze ‘em right back. Make a night where the family can deconstruct a movie together. The last time me and the woman went out it didn’t take very much. We saw “Knocked Up” and they were ramming Jewish culture down your throat (in an unabashed and slightly truthful manner) the entire movie!

1)The group of Jewish friends have one Gentile friend who they want to not shave for an entire year as part of a bet. Some sort of Fruedian slip I think where they are imperializing culturally.

2)The group of friends are starting a perverse website where they mark the time of the first time an actress bares her breast in a movie. (We all know how overrepresented they are in porno right?)

3)The female is the prototype Aryan woman and ends up with this dorky Shyster? They are after our women!

Anyway, that should be sufficient for you to see my point.

Rnl makes another good point re the Jews and Crossfire<?em>.