3,245 words
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
Odds and ends
Then it’s back to Abraham Foxman. He explains that the Israeli Prime Minister said he’d received 4,000 calls from concerned families after 9/11. Later, this got conflated into a story about 4,000 Jews not showing up to work at the Twin Towers that day. It’s nice to see him clearing something up and earning his keep.
Levin goes to Weehawken, the arch-wanker Alexander Portnoy’s old hangout, to discuss the infamous dancing Israelis. He rolls a clip from an Israeli talk show featuring them in 2001, probably soon after they were deported. According to one, “Our purpose was to document the event.” I’ll add that this was a rather poor choice of words. If the point is that there wasn’t anything hinky about it, that was the wrong approach.
Finally, we have one of the most surreal parts of the film. Levin shows up at the National Alliance HQ in West Virginia. He has a remarkably cordial discussion with a skinhead, mostly about their merchandise, including the Protocols. The skinhead is one of the coolest cats in the film, so affable that one would think that the National Alliance no longer had a gripe with the Jews. This is quite unlike the days when William Pierce hardly could get off the topic.
Meanwhile, Levin gets shown around their inventory warehouse with his camera crew. What? There’s a lot to be said for diplomacy. Maybe that really would go a long way. Still, rolling out the red carpet for the grand tour was a little much. What’s the deal with their opsec lately? Also, what benefit did the National Alliance expect to gain from this interview? If William Pierce were still around, surely he would’ve told Levin to buzz off. Even if I showed up with my collection of vintage 1980s National Vanguard magazines to be autographed, the National Alliance shouldn’t let me poke around the stockroom.
There is another surreal moment outside of a polling place in Florida:
Levin: How do you look at, now after 9/11, things that we haven’t seen in a long time?
Little old lady, presumably a Member of the Tribe: They’re starting off all over again . . . It was peaceful for a while. We lived free, and we enjoyed life, now we’re scared again.
That’s an awful lot of doom and gloom. If I get elected dictator, I’d tell her she can relax, have a happy retirement, and be sure to give Disneyland a whirl.
The film then begins to go off on odd tangents. First up is the webmaster of Jew Watch. He discusses Henry Ford’s book, The International Jew. I’m completely unfamiliar with it, but I suppose it might be rather soberer than the bombastic Protocols. For starters, a passage is read from it complaining about jazz. This association likely resulted from Jewish involvement in the music industry. (For that matter, lots of people didn’t care for jazz, including the notorious culture distorter Theodor Adorno of the Frankfurt School. If only everyone tripping out about it could’ve imagined nasty ol’ rap coming up a few decades later! Jazz is a saxophone blast of fresh air compared to that crap.) Later, the webmaster and Levin appear on a talk radio program together. Much hot air is produced.
Following that, Levin visits a prison, meeting with a group consisting mostly of black Muslims. I hardly can imagine what sort of red tape was required to get that shoot arranged! The overall message is uneven, though.
Holy smoke: religion versus religion
The shock when someone shamelessly rips off your most effective lines and throws them back at you.
After that, the topic turns to who killed Jesus. Although the matter isn’t explored as coherently as it could be, I saw where the film was going with it. Whatever scriptural arguments can be made about it, I personally believe that collective guilt is an invalid concept. Guilt is not inheritable. (That is, by the way, reason number 65,536 for why greedy, lazy blacks demanding reparations can go jump in a lake.) The religion digression goes on for quite a while, including about the movie The Passion of the Christ. Really, anti-Semitism is seldom about theology these days, other than for Muslims.
Then there’s an interesting scene at a Passover Seder. As it begins, the conviviality makes for a magical moment on their special night. I’m ten thousand times happier seeing them celebrating their ancient traditions than I am seeing them carrying out tricky political agendas. One thing that does seem a little odd is that Matisyahu, a musician in traditional ultra-Orthodox black garb, performs reggae. Yes, really! (What, no bebop? But Henry Ford promised us!) All told, it started out as a cool experience. Then Matisyahu explains:
Tonight is going into Pesach, which is the story of the freedom of the Jewish people. And we’ve been a small people who has been put into exile all over the world, and somehow we’ve made it through. So, I think in general that sometimes people see the Jews, and they see this is not a normal people. . . . There’s something different about them, something supernatural about them almost, and therefore have wanted to take things out on us.
It seems quite a stretch to say that anti-Semitism has to do with Jews’ historical longevity. Next up in the non-sequitur parade is Douglas Rushkoff, who wrote Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism:
The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea, is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-states. We don’t believe in the idea of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people. These are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that. In a sense, our detractors have us right in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people, because they’re not real, and that’s very upsetting to people.
Now that’s a precious bit of obfuscation. First he denies the existence of races and nations, a position which is factually untenable. Then he equates them to false gods, a badly overstretched analogy. Finally, he says that this is a teaching of his religion, which is theologically incorrect, since Scripture has its own explanation for the origins of the races and nations, as well as extensive discussion about specific nations and tribes. (As he says this, they’re at a freaking Passover dinner commemorating the liberation of the Israelites from the Egyptians. Yeah, who were those imaginary people again?) Finally, the implications are that those who don’t care for his peculiar interpretations of Scripture are idolaters who believe in “false gods.” The funny thing, though, is that Israel’s government doesn’t believe that their nation is only a social construct, and neither do they have an open borders policy.
You can buy Beau Albrecht’s Space Vixen Trek here.
Hadassah Gross, a lady rabbi, almost saves the day with a droll anecdote, though I was too flabbergasted by the last guy’s utter disingenuousness to appreciate it. A little later in the film, Elie the Weasel pops off with his usual guff — even Kofi Annan, the then-United Nations Secretary General, is obviously sick of listening to his jawing — but not even that wrinkly old windbag’s bloviating outdoes Douglas Rushkoff’s. The optics were horrible. In fact, I’ve seen that very quote of his alongside Barbara Spectre’s infamous bon mot in one of those “wonderful things Eskimos say” videos, and now I know where it came from. That’s not exactly how to be an ambassador for your people!
After that is an exploration of Muslim radicalism. There’s some pretty ripe stuff on Arab TV: a movie depicting a kid whose throat is cut to provide the special sauce for a matzo recipe, some bold armchair jihadist trying to encourage other people to be suicide bombers, and later, a cute little Muslima denouncing the Jews as apes and pigs. Levin notes that the charter of Hamas mentions the Protocols. Very well, then, though I doubt that’s their only gripe, or that Hamas really needs an old book by Sergei Nilus as an excuse to be bugshit crazy about Jews.
He visits a mosque, and it looks like they’re warming up for evening prayer time. A Palestinian lady sets down a poster reading, “Nazi Israel guilty [of] genocide” right in front of him. (Does that count as cultural appropriation? The people who usually call other people Nazis don’t like to be called Nazis themselves — how about that?) Levin glares at her; the scene is priceless. What an epic death stare! An anti-Israel sermon follows; apparently both sides are guilty of mixing religion and politics. After that, he gets into a discussion with one of the Palestinians. It begins congenially enough, until someone walks up and calls Levin the real terrorist. Needless to say, it didn’t turn out to be so productive. That outing failed to win hearts and minds, since it ended with a crowd chanting “Allahu Akbar!” at him.
At this point, I wished both sides would just permanently return to their ancestral homeland, sort it all out over there, and leave us out of their quarrel for once. Again, this came out in 2005, so obviously that’s not what came to pass. Last up in the discussion about the Religion of Peace is the fate of Daniel Pearl, whose head was cut off on video in Pakistan. Although I generally have little affection to spare for (((journalists))), I’ll concur that he certainly didn’t deserve that.
Circling back at last and finishing up the movie, Levin sets out to demonstrate that there were indeed some Jews who died at the World Trade Center. The points are presented well, and I have no argument about that. I always figured that the story alleging that they all stayed home that day was some guff made up in the Arab press.
Whoa, Nellie!
New York City’s Israel Day parade — is that The Donald?
What a film! This woebegone self-portrayal makes Jews look like an embattled minority beset on all sides by heathens with short fuses. Although that’s how they see themselves, the feigned helplessness shtick rings hollow. Most of the heathens portrayed were the loudmouthed vibrant immigrants who come a dime a dozen in the Big Apple. Then the National Alliance skinhead was remarkably friendly and even gave Levin the grand tour. While interacting with numerous people who really don’t care for his kind, the worst he got was an “Allahu Akbar!” chant after he went into a mosque and found himself as welcome as a stripper in a convent. As for the arguments, they were quite polite by New York standards. Nobody was sharpening knives. The Egyptian cabbie he mentioned apparently didn’t even clap him in chains and try to make him build a pyramid.
Really, how embattled can they be when they have several lavishly-funded institutions to further their interests, with their top executives paid salaries beyond the wildest dreams of working stiffs? (Whenever we try to advocate for our own interests as they and everyone else do, these massive “watchdog” outfits are the first ones to throw a conniption and denounce such efforts as “extremism,” call our organizations “hate groups,” smear and censor our advocates, rat them out to law enforcement agencies as supposed subversives, and otherwise shriek like little girls at a slasher movie.) Do they have any idea how silly they make themselves look with this? Then again, I suppose these foundations have to churn out trainloads of doom and gloom. If not, the donations from nervous senior citizens would stop rolling in, and the exorbitant salaries for the officers would dry right up.
Zionist influence was down from its high water mark in 1991, when the first Gulf War eroded a significant amount of their moral capital. Still, they remained unchallenged in 2005. They had elbowed their way into the corridors of power long ago, and politicians were sucking up to them since my grandparents were children. The pro-Israel lobbies were the 800-pound gorilla in Washington — and this massive creature was perilous even to notice. They dominated executive positions in the media. Moreover, an enormous public relations campaign concerning past persecution had created a major taboo about criticizing them. Through media ownership and a “get out of criticism free” card, they rose to the top of the ethnic pecking order. Although shortsighted strategies have eroded their towering influence, as has overplaying their hand in general, they’re still in a preeminent position with no competitors on the horizon.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.
The frowning, consternation, and somber talk got surreal less than ten minutes into the film. Why so nervous? It’s strange that criticism of any sort hits their panic button. That’s not the picture of confidence. Besides that, what makes them so special that they deserve to be exempt from criticism? They wouldn’t be able to stand a day in our shoes. The constant trash talk from precious minorities that we routinely ignore would have Jews scurrying for the nearest cellar. Heck, sometimes we even make comedy about darkies moaning about wypipo, usually using our technology to do so.
Since Jews don’t like criticism, there’s one thing that really should scare the living daylights out of them. When non-whites run their mouths about whites, they’re included, too. Many Jews assume that there’s a vast and obvious difference between themselves and us. Only White Nationalists[1] tend to take their word for it that there’s much of a difference — the last people they should want to convince. Non-whites disagree; at most, they consider Jews to be a particularly disagreeable white ethnicity. Their concept of Jews wasn’t informed by orchestral virtuosi and quirky comedians, but rather by slumlords and pawnbrokers.
If Western civilization falls, the greatest Zionist fear — that is, a cataclysmic reversal of fortune — would be a probable side effect. They might therefore want to knock it off with the subversion. For starters, the effort since the 1920s to recruit blacks as golems failed miserably. As for now, they should think twice about pushing this “white privilege” baloney. We know that’s classic Freudian projection, but if the racial situation continues to deteriorate, they’ll find out too late that they aimed at us, but shot themselves in the foot. Well, stop doing that.
They’re just not getting it
Mr. Levin is sincere enough: He searched for answers to something that’s surely troubling to him, but it missed the target to name an old book as the point where things went wrong. He’s hardly alone. Difficulty in analyzing sources of friction is as old as the Bronze Age. Scripture often says something like, “Our neighbors made war on us because the Lord was angry with us and sent them to chastise us.” It seems the Israelites didn’t much consider that at least in some instances, their own behavior might’ve provoked their neighbors. (Why bring God into it?) Thousands of years later, their powers of analysis haven’t improved much.
Lately, their explanations for their famous tribulations often sound like humble-bragging. Recall that the film does actually present some of such explanations at the dinner party. (Other than that, sometimes they tell themselves that they’re hated for their superior virtue. Another line is that others are jealous of their marvelous accomplishments. Even so, it’s hard to imagine Julius Streicher and Joseph Goebbels accusing them of being unacceptably virtuous or otherwise too cool for school.) If they’re serious about wanting to improve public relations, then humble-bragging about why nobody likes them isn’t constructive.
Clearly they’re not listening to their critics. That’s ironic, given that the film is all about their critics, as well as the fact that Jews have a number of institutions that track their critics with a singular obsession. Levin himself brushes off some serious points of contention. When debating the Palestinian wiggers, he hand-waves the topic of Zionist overrepresentation in the American government. Elsewhere, when discussing control of the media, he explains it away by saying that it’s just corporations and that there are exceptions. That much seems rather disingenuous, since the details really aren’t that hard to find. Yes, this is a problem. Suppose Israelis discovered Navajos strikingly overrepresented in Israel’s media. Then they’d have legitimate cause to wonder what is up with that and suspect a Navajo agenda in the Levant.
Other than that, there’s not much focus on soberer and dispassionate critiques. If he’d consulted with Dr. Kevin McDonald regarding points of contention, it would’ve been a long and productive discussion. Dr. David Duke’s book My Awakening could’ve filled him in, too. As for the Palestinians, mostly they’re upset about being run out of their own country,[2] though the nuance tends to get lost in the “Allahu Akbar!” stuff.
All told, here we have another example of Jews using their remarkable capacity for introspection, searching for the source of ongoing tensions with the outside world and unfortunately missing the target. (It would be quite helpful for them to drop the axiom that they can do no wrong.) De-escalation would be good for everyone, but a faulty analysis isn’t constructive. In this case, the film concluded that the problem goes back to a second-rate hit piece from over a century ago. Still, haven’t they received a lot of criticism at other times for things having nothing to do with the Protocols? Was any of that legitimate, or was every last bit made up, too?
It’s understandable that the Jewish establishment would be mindful of public relations. (If they never stood up for themselves, they’d be in the same position as garden-variety whites. Other than the dissident Right, nobody disputes even the most outrageous smears — quite often from white renegades — and this inattention got us to the bottom of the ethnic pecking order.) The problem is that there are some major figures who would be happy to ban any criticism whatsoever, no matter how well-founded, and by any means necessary. Some of the tricky “watchdog” foundations have done exactly that, working in close collusion with the Left Coast’s Tech Tyrants to censor anything they don’t like.
Surely it’s comforting to them to believe their modern tribulations go back to a nasty lie made up by some Russian glowie. Still, it’s a bit much to take a position such as, “If it weren’t for Sergei Nilus and his damnable Protocols, we’d all be getting along now.” By focusing on old disinformation as the ultimate source of trouble, Zionists are missing the primary cause of their chronic public relations problems: their own behavior. When things they’re doing cause tensions, there’s an easy fix: stop doing it.
Notes
[1] I’m not too inclined myself to split hairs about it, and don’t have a problem with Jews who are decent citizens. However, I’m unimpressed with the Zionists, the screwball Leftists, and the ones who duplicitously identify as either white or non-white depending on what benefits them at the moment. If their ancestors were white enough to get through Ellis Island, then they’d better start acting the part. For the ones who disagree, they can — to quote an old joke — swim back to Israel with a Negro under each arm.
[2] It’s quite unfortunate for the common people on both sides who have to suffer from all this. Since Arabs and Jews have been at it with each other for the last 3,000 years, I don’t have any easy answers. All I have to say is they should take it back home and not involve us.