ADDED: "What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II."
November 17, 2015
"On 13 May 1939, more than 900 Jews fled Germany aboard a luxury cruise liner, the SS St Louis."
"They hoped to reach Cuba and then travel to the US - but were turned away in Havana and forced to return to Europe, where more than 250 were killed by the Nazis...."
ADDED: "What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II."
ADDED: "What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
142 comments:
Syrians fleeing the breakup of the Baathist regime there are not European Jewish refugees. Just needed to point that out, in case anyone brings it up.
Importing former regime members to the US from Syria would be the equivalent of bringing over the guards from the concentration camps, after the war.
Is that the actual comparison you are trying to draw, professor? That these hordes of refugees or "refugees" are equal, or equivalent, to Jews fleeing the Holocaust?
I would just like you to put your name to that first, then we can discuss. If you won't, why not? #aintsayinjustsayin #passive-aggressive
Just a morality check.
Get your bearings.
Saudi Arabia should be obliged to set up enormous camps in the deserts of the Empty Quarter, and warehouse all the refugees of the Ummah there. Let Israel, haha, build a desalinization plant. No security, easy to bomb (no Israelis stay).
Let Muslim talent, and only Muslim talent, run the plant and attend to all the other logistics of keeping X million souls alive. Nobody leaves, on pain of death, until positively averred safe, or to return to their homeland, whether after peace, or in the vanguard of an anti-Islamofascist army, or just to creep back and try to exist. Enforced by coalition no-fly zone/close quarantine.
They can have jobs servicing the extraction industries, if well vetted (this can constitute probation for release), or doing whatever else they can find to do out there. All of them should be completely documented and made identifiable thereafter. All of their connexions should be identified and located.
As payment for the work, Israel gets to ship half their Pals there.
...
Haha just kidding. Muslim talent? They'd be dead in a year.
A lot of parallels between the way Muslims treat certain groups and the way the Nazis treated certain groups.
I didn't understand that as a yes or a no.
Of course we all recall the worldwide campaign of terrorist murder and destruction that the Jews had unleashed in the 1930s, making this a perfect analogy. It's even more perfect when one recalls the explicit threat by radical rabbis to embed terrorist fighters into streams of refugees; as well as the fact that just one week before the SS St. Louis docked in Havana an *actual case* of that scenario happened in a terrorist attack in Europe.
Analogy: The solution to the problem was deploying the military to Africa and Europe and Asia with sufficient force and defeating the Nazis and their allies.
I like this morality check. I think we have a moral obligation to protect ourselves from importing a culture that is disproportionately violent, and not endanger innocent people to preserve our precious, precious self-regard.
We never should have gotten involved....war was just what the Nazis wanted.
If FDR had shown leadership on the issue, it could have been resolved in an honorable way. Jefferson, Jackson, and, most recently, Wilson have seen their reputations take a hit. Can FDR be far behind?.........In the Middle East, there are mass rallies to burn Israeli and American flags. I gather from this that they don't like America very much. Why is my distrust of them bigotry and their hostility to America irrelevant?.....I wouldn't use the concentration camp guard analogy. They're more like Brownshirts. The Brownshirts were legitimately victims of Nazi persecution without in any way being worthy of our sympathy or shelter.
Ann, if the Jews of Europe had behaved in the fashion we see in Islam today, nobody would have blamed the Germans for exiling or killing them. Can you freaking IMAGINE, if Dreyfus or Leo Frank were guilty, proud, exhorting other Jews to rape and kill and take over the world?
"But, as Post columnist Dana Milbank notes, it's hard to ignore the echoes of the past when faced with the "xenophobic bidding war" of the present:"
Ignore? You don't have to ignore anything to reach the conclusion that the analogy is not apt.
Get your bearings.
No, you get your bearings. The majority of "Syrians" flooding Europe are young males in case you haven't noticed. What about the humanitarian question of women, children, and old people? Are they better left to die in your eyes and Darwinian sensibilities?
And since YOU link the direct comparison to a persecuted religion, what about the question of trying to save persecuted Christians?
Maybe save some of that self righteous opprobrium for the Moslem nations surrounding Syria which refuse to admit them because they are Christians.
In the very prior post:
"In one scene, viewers witness 'children being taught how to kill people, how to behead, and how to become suicide bombers.'"
Yes, there was a time when the US refused to accept refugees, and those refugees, in the end, though we didn't comprehend it at the time, died as a result. Not just this case, but countless others hoping for visas out of Germany in the 1930s.
What do we learn from it? Is the lesson that we must allow all refugees now living in camps, into this country?
But even in the historical what-if: what if we had known what the future held, for these 900, for those waiting for visas from Germany, for the millions of Jews in Poland? Would it have been the right thing for the U.S. to have offered, before we entered the war, and in that period of time, if it existed, before the Nazis decided that the sheer existence of Jews anywhere on the planet, was an existential threat, to resettle all Jews everywhere in Europe, to the United States, saying, on the voice of time-travelling people from the future, with conclusive proof, that their lives were threatened otherwise?
And yes, why would you ship them halfway around the world when there are friendly, culturally compatible nations with plenty of room next door?
I'm not believing what I'm reading in the post. Jewish refugees from the holocaust equivalent to the Muslim, combat-age young men, most who probably hate the Western values and Christian religions of the nations they are seeking to enter? Is our hostess trying to give us an object-lesson in lefty/Progressive nonsense?
Wherever they are held it should be in strong containment, like the banlieues in France, designed for the easy rendering of its inmates into strawberry jam at the first sign of any trouble.
the "xenophobic bidding war" of the present
The new definition of xenophobia is fear of letting enemy combatants waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters.
Analogy: Further solution to the problem was a homeland like this:
President Obama, 2011:
Indeed, one of the broader lessons to be drawn from this period is that sectarian divides need not lead to conflict. In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. The Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence in favor of a democratic process, even as they’ve taken full responsibility for their own security. Of course, like all new democracies, they will face setbacks. But Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region if it continues its peaceful progress. And as they do, we will be proud to stand with them as a steadfast partner.
State Department (US Embassy in Baghdad), 2011:
After a long and difficult conflict, we now have the opportunity to see Iraq emerge as a strategic partner in a tumultuous region. A sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq that can act as a force for moderation is profoundly in the national security interests of the United States and will ensure that Iraq can realize its full potential as a democratic society. Our civilian-led presence is helping us strengthen the strong strategic partnership that has developed up to this point.
I understand the moral dilemma. Are we taking in refugees like the Jews? Or are we letting in more fake flight students?
Guilt isn't going to be enough for this conversation. We need to hear how this is going to work, why it's going to work.
If you don't like the Empty Quarter idea, there's always Australia.
Or some island somewhere.
Ann, you deleted the post where I discussed you being bashed in the face with an iron bar by people like this. Possibly because I named the nameless...the point is these people have nothing to offer you but existential, nihilistic violence. There were more potential Nobel laureates among the 900 on that ship, than there are in this entire mass of Levantine miscreant losers.
You can offer them everything, you could even offer your body to them, but they wouldn't accept it as a gift, they'd have to take it. It wouldn't be good for them if they didn't make you scream.
Brought to you by the same pollsters who said Landon would defeat FDR?
That said, it's pretty clear we did not welcome Jewish refugees then. Anti semitism may not have been more rampant in the 1930's, but it was more out in the open.
Our feckless policies in Syria have helped to create this refugee flood. I think that is one reason why we should take in some of these people.
Steve Jobs was a Syrian immigrant to the USA. He would have made one hell of a terrorist.
Aren't you even mildly skeptical?
Althouse well knows the tactic of guilting/shaming people into submission to the position of the chosen few. She's discussed this as a tactic of the left, and she's engaging in it now
"Guilt isn't going to be enough for this conversation. We need to hear how this is going to work, why it's going to work."
Don't expect explanations from this President. It's beneath him.
Steve Jobs was born in the USA.
A question for Althouse:
Does your moral preening about these refugees extend to actually incurring any cost to yourself? Have you donated money, time, or effort, or is this just another typically-leftist willingness to sacrifice other people's welfare so you can tell yourself how wonderful you are?
No, you get your bearings. The majority of "Syrians" flooding Europe are young males in case you haven't noticed. What about the humanitarian question of women, children, and old people? Are they better left to die in your eyes and Darwinian sensibilities?
The quotation marks are appreciated as they. by and large, aren't Syrian either. Perhaps ending colonialism was a bad idea, but that is what they wanted. Either they want us to rule them or they do not. If they do not, then don't ask us to save them from themselves, either.
Anybody calling for more refugees should house them and pay for them personally. Otherwise, they're asking others to spend money to make them feel better.
As for a morality check,maybe Dana Milbank will step up and volunteer to sponsor 3 or 4 young Syrian men, randomly selected, and put them up in his home. That would be nice, wouldn't it?
I believe Turkey has a history of settling refugees in the Gobi desert. Has anyone called Erdogan to help?
Were Nazi saboteurs hiding among the Jewish refugees?
I believe Turkey has a history of settling refugees in the Gobi desert. Has anyone called Erdogan to help?
Turkey is hosting some 2 million Syrian refugees. They are taking in way more than their fair share. And I don't understand the Gobi reference.
Genuine war refugees, who ought to be happy with conditions that are better than war, should be housed in camps to wait out the carnage. It's all the young able-bodied men moving to Europe to secure housing, government benefits and possibly plotting jihad that has people concerned.
What moral obligation do WE have to accept these people into our society and let them roam free?
"Ann Althouse said...
Just a morality check.
Get your bearings."
I really don't take morality checks from someone that accepts abortion is murder, but thinks it should be legal.
Plus your comparison is pathetic.
Except Muslims are more like Nazis. The refugees just happen to be losing Nazis, except for a few ISIS infiltrators.
There will certainly be some Nobel prize winners in this gang of imports. Look at their track record, it speaks for itself.
"The new definition of xenophobia is fear of letting enemy combatants waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
You perfectly illustrate the old definition of xenophobia by assuming that everyone fleeing the depredations of various factions of killers are themselves "enemy combatants" who wish to "waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
Just a morality check.
The moral thing to do is to destroy our culture, standard of living and nation by allowing anyone and everyone to move here.
Christy doesn't even want to take in 5 year old orphans. I understand why he does not want another mouth to feed.
In WWII, Great Britain actually held refugees (including Jews) from the Nazis in camps as a security measure.
The United States didn't inter the refugees that made it to its shores, although it came close. Most of the refugees that made it all the way to the US had better artistic or cultural pedigrees than your man-in-the-street refugee that could make it to Britain, and so were known quantities.
Sadly, even for the US, the historical record for countries helping out masses of refugees is not good, even when the refugees faced the worst of circumstances.
You perfectly illustrate the old definition of xenophobia by assuming that everyone fleeing the depredations of various factions of killers are themselves "enemy combatants" who wish to "waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
Everyone? Isn't fear that *someone* might pretend to flee the depredations but might actually be an enemy combatant actually enough to not be xenophobia? I mean, come on. It actually just happened.
I don't think anyone thinks its "everyone".
Yes, Robert. They are saying that everyone of the refugees is a terrorist.
Expect to see this kind of propaganda for continued mass migration into the West amped up to non-stop ear-splitting screeching in the coming weeks.
You perfectly illustrate the old definition of xenophobia by assuming that everyone fleeing the depredations of various factions of killers are themselves "enemy combatants" who wish to "waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
Idiot. One out of hundred is plenty.
I remember after 9/11 an FBI agent "whistleblower" came out and said he had warned muslim men were taking flight school in large numbers. That person was a post-facto hero. But we all knew that it would have looked bigoted to announce we weren't allowing students from Muslim countries to take flight lessons in the US. So the visas continued. After 9/11, there was a big, "What were we thinking? We weren't very careful with our Visa program"
So, maybe it's ok to take a lesson from that, now. We don't always have to go full speed ahead and be sorry later. We can do due diligence up front without being bigots, no?
You perfectly illustrate the old definition of xenophobia by assuming that everyone fleeing the depredations of various factions of killers are themselves "enemy combatants" who wish to "waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
We don't assume that everyone of the refugees is a terrorist. We just assume that the Muslims are telling the truth when they tell us they tend to infiltrate among the refugees and attack.
FBI Whistleblower warned about flight schools"
Officials said FBI counterterrorism agents in Phoenix were suspicious why several Arab men were seeking airport operations, security information and pilot training. The agents recommended that the FBI begin alerting local offices when Middle Easterners sought visas for training at local aeronautical schools.
"FBIHQ should consider seeking the necessary authority to obtain visa information from the USDOS (State Department) on individuals obtaining visas to attend these types of schools and notify the appropriate FBI field office when these individuals are scheduled to arrive in their area of responsibility," the memo said.
The FBI's concerns about the U.S. flight schools is the latest revelation about information, much of it sketchy, that the government possessed before Sept. 11 concerning the possibility of terrorism in the skies.
Eight brought Paris to it's knees.
Just a morality check.
Get your bearings.
Jews weren't a threat to the Western values.
The trouble with the morality argument is that Western values are not founded on themselves. Their growth and defense depend on violence outside the system.
Within the system, the values are all you need. That isn't the case with Islam.
I think we should admit Syrian refugees with the proviso that, if they're going to commit any violent acts, that they be directed exclusively toward:
1) Journalists
2) Politicians
3) Law professors
4) Public intellectuals
There's what's called a Law of Genre. The rule is that any genre announces what it is by something outside the genre.
In the case of Western values, it's violence. If you burn the widow with her husband's body, we hang you. And lo! the practice stopped. Our cultural values vs theirs, plus guns.
"Yes, Robert. They are saying that everyone of the refugees is a terrorist."
Well...that is what they're saying if they unconditionally oppose haven for all the refugees because terrorism!
I haven't heard anyone here expressing merely conditional scorn for some of the refugees.
"Idiot. One out of hundred is plenty."
Why do you assume it would be that many?
I haven't heard anyone here expressing merely conditional scorn for some of the refugees.
That's what everyone is saying. How do we determine which refugees are what? The country is torn apart. The borders are a disaster. Who is from where, and why?
Cook, this will go quicker if you assume there are satisfactory answers to your stupid questions, which you haven't heard or have desperately ignored or misconstrued, and go from there. Nobody really cares what you think, so delaying tactics like "I didn't know the sun rose in the east! Nobody told me! Is that almanac notarized?" is recognized and scorned as the BS it is.
Anyway, when we answer you, you don't care, so why bother?
No immigrants from muslim majority countries would be a good rule, if we ever go back to legal immigration as a system instead of letting in only future Democrat welfare cases.
How can anyone look at our current immigration system, hear the people who advocate mass illegal immigration, listen to Obama specifically ignore immigration laws for certain people, and think "oh, this Syrian refugee thing is going to be handled really well"?
Maybe they could have panels or tribunals consisting of Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrians, etc.
I bet they vet 'em good. I bet they know how. Cultural insight has doubtless resulted in hundreds of shibboleths to be exploited.
You could make them stomp on an image of Mohammed or something, eat pork, whatever, but taquiyya lets them do that in order to escape detection, so you would have to monitor their vitals or Voight-Kampff them or something. Plus, Kurds are Muslims but are AFAIK "good guys," so that would have limited effectiveness.
No, Robert, that is NOT what they are saying. What they are saying is that these people are coming from a region where a significant percentage of the population is infected with a highly contagious, virulent, deadly disease, and that before we let any of these individuals in, we need to verify that they are not carriers of this disease.
I care what Cook thinks. I don't always agree with him but I prefer not livng in an echo chamber.
On the other hand, your threatening emails directed at Ann are way over the top. There are lots of blogs that reflect your extreme views. Why hang out at this one?
Cook knows that he's not representing these concerns fairly. Tells you something about his confidence in his arguments.
So tell us, Cook. How many innocent Americans should die so you can retain your pious self-regard? Because even if it's probably not you, some people will die.
I mean to say posts, not emails.
If Americans weren't genuinely worried about the Jewish refugees launching terror attacks in this country--especially after seeing France suffer recent attacks that are strongly suspected to have been done by Syrian refugees--then this is an apples to oranges comparison. I think most Americans have no problem taking in refugees, particularly refugees of a war torn area who are threatened by vile pieces of garbage like ISIS. But where ISIS could easily infiltrate these refugees as a way to sneak in here, clearly we have reason to be worried about this.
Ideally, we can find a safe way to resettle them--I'd hate to send innocent people back to face that mess just as we sent Jews back to face the Nazis. But we can't just ignore the security implications.
If you omit enough factors you can make almost any equivalency.
""Yes, Robert. They are saying that everyone of the refugees is a terrorist."
Well...that is what they're saying if they unconditionally oppose haven for all the refugees because terrorism!
I haven't heard anyone here expressing merely conditional scorn for some of the refugees."
Please explain to us, Robert, how we vet them.
Robert Cook is the same guy who said that offering bin Laden safe haven in Afghanistan and allowing him to set up training camps was not any kind of "assistance" to Al Qaeda in the run up to 9-11, so you have to take into account that he is not very aware of all of the facts in any given case on which he chooses to opine.
Plus remember that despite his obvious intellectual limitations, he believes each and every one of us to be complete idiots and therefore he simply needs to put the most idiotic argument in our mouths and then disprove it to win the day.
The irony is that Robert is going to vote for Hillary, who advocated policies in Syria and Libya that created the refugee crisis in the first place.
But Benghazi wasn't about anything. Thousands of refugees have drowned in the Mediterranean escaping the hell that Hillary's policies unleashed there. She also supported the "good rebels" in Syria, and Obama abandoned Iraq to ISIS. This is a hell that the Democrats made, and you wouldn't think they could figure out a way to make it worse, and yet here they have.
"Well...that is what they're saying if they unconditionally oppose haven for all the refugees because terrorism!"
Not really--if among "all" refugees are "some" terrorists, then accepting "all" (which necessarily includes mostly innocent refugees) still means taking in those "some" terrorists.
Imagine it's freezing cold out, and a pack of dogs are howling to get into your house where it's warm. You want to let the dogs in so they don't freeze, and you know most of those dogs are friendly, safe dogs. However, you also know one or two of the dogs may be rabid and violent, particularly as a similar pack had a violent dog that mauled your neighbor the previous night when she let them in her house.
It's an ugly situation, but unless you can figure out how to differentiate the good dogs from the bad, you're taking a risk in letting them all in unconditionally.
Now, maybe you can just let them into your garage, which isn't quite as warm as the house but they'll survive, and then the bad dogs can't get into the house. There are measures you can take to reduce the risk and still accomplish your humanitarian (or dogotarian) objectives.
But I don't think you have to believe "all Syrians are terrorists" or "all dogs are violent" to have these considerations.
My family arrived in New York on July 30, 1939, my mother 8 months pregnant. All of their wealth had been confiscated by the Germans and without $10,000 a visa was worthless. They lived in limbo until a series of celestial accidents caused a complete stranger to sign a bond for them. 95% of my very large family was murdered. Between the ages of 18 and 40 I met three eyewitnesses to murders of family members, www of whom had no idea who they were speaking with. These conversations taught me more about European history than a dozen years of study.
This isn't a reality check, it's an attempt at manipulation through false equivalence. It's not just dishonest, under the circumstances it's irresponsible.
I didn't realize that the Jews wanted to kill everyone who didn't change to their religion. Thanks for letting me know this. No wonder we didn't take the refugees in back then. (snark)
AA: Just a morality check.
Get your bearings.
Yeah, because this kind of transparent moralizing propaganda is just so novel, it's really going to make the skeptics smack their foreheads and say "Wow, I didn't know nuthin' about refugee crises in the past! Especially re Nazi Germany - nobody ever references Nazi Germany when these things come up. It's like Nazi Germany was just shoved down the memory hole! I'm going to have to re-think all of this!"
It is the evil fortune of genuine refugees that their need has arisen after decades of arrogant, corrupt, and heedless mismanagement by Western leaders of immigration, asylum, and integration, decades of treating with utter contempt (and sometimes even criminal prosecution) the legitimate concerns of their citizens. Sane people no longer trust either the competence or motivations of these leaders.
So after decades of demonizing their own objecting citizens as seething Nazi vermin, these geniuses are now rolling out a fresh new propaganda offensive. (Spoiler: Bet you've never heard of the Nazis, have you? Well, prepare to be shocked and rocked into ovine compliance by these exposés!)
This isn't a reality check, it's an attempt at manipulation through false equivalence. It's not just dishonest, under the circumstances it's irresponsible.
No. Ann is superior to you in every way and has duly earned her smugness.
It's likely that Ann feels guilty having voted for the guy who decided to abandon large swaths of Iraq to whichever group was the most viciously violent.
I am a long time reader of Ann's blog but I have never commented before. Ann, I must tell you as the child of holocaust survivors that I find this analogy very unfortunate and offensive in just about every way. I also find it intellectually lazy for you not to grapple with the clear differences - why so many men in the current group of refuges? Why aren't we compelling the Moslem countries in the Middle East to take these people (as opposed to the Jews who had nowhere else to go)? Are the values and culture of the current set of refuges compatible with our society? Very disappointing post.
Why not take just families that include children? Certain self-vetting in this process and eliminates the foolish premise we are currently operating under which is to take in all of the refugees, a significant percentage of which are fighting age males traveling solo.
The USA in 1939 had 15% unemployment, and as FDR stated 1/3 of the country was ill-housed and ill-fed.
Plus, Jews weren't "fleeing the Holocaust" in 1939. There was no holocaust until 1941.
In any case, that's ancient history. Probably a more apt analogy would be the Boston Marathon Bomber who was also a refugee.
Accept several thousand refugees and leave millions and a wasteland behind.
The refugee crisis was created through Obama's premature evacuation of American forces from Iraq, followed by a social justice movement to assassinate and depose politically unfavorable regimes.
The situation is analogous to Americans starting a war in Europe, sending the Jews to be aborted in socialist ovens, then importing socialists to replace them. While simultaneously normalizing or promoting abortion and planning of millions of your own people in order to make room for the fallout from the humanitarian crisis created, and exploiting democratically lucrative minority voting blocs that will neither assimilate nor integrate with local standards.
This is the basis for an anti-native domestic and foreign policy.
We have three choices. Kill them all, not just the refugees, but all of them. That's not on the table, no matter how sensible it appears in a realpolitik sort of way. Besides, Ghengis Khan and his grandson tried it, and despite great success, it did not prove a permanent solution.
Convert. To what? Sunni or Shia? If the whole world was Islamic the war would still not end. So that's out.
Accept that we are going to have these attacks.
We can then punish them mercilessly, and with some persistence and live our lives.
Or
We can have a little fit and heave a few bombs for symbolic effect which does little to discourage them, and by displaying weakness, helps their recruiting until the infection grows to the point where we are considering options 1 and 2 again.
We are crippled in this fight by guilt, they know it. On it will go. There is some comfort in the fact that they are most likely to attack blue cities where the liberals who invite them are the thickest, like Boston, NYC, or Minneapolis.
Yeah, I'm guessing deep down this is one post that Althouse wishes she could take back.
Mother Jones sees the problem.
Ann Althouse said...
"Just a morality check.
Get your bearings."
You should feel shame. This is beneath you.
We know that ISIS probably has the wherewithal to infiltrate a few of its people into the flood of refugees. And most voters have no idea how easy it is to get past US screening. They probably figure it's pretty easy.
So it doesn't seem xenophobic or crazy to call for an end to accepting Syrian refugees. It seems like simple common sense. After all, things changed after Paris.
Mocking Republicans over this—as liberals spent much of yesterday doing on my Twitter stream—seems absurdly out of touch to a lot of people. Not just wingnut tea partiers, either, but plenty of ordinary centrists too. It makes them wonder if Democrats seriously see no problem here. Do they care at all about national security? Are they really that detached from reality?
- Kevin Drum!
That's from MayBee's post.
Then he goes on to assert that the screening is "already very tight" but declines to offer any specifics. I guess it is just because he trusts the US government implicitly!
Yeah, I'm guessing deep down this is one post that Althouse wishes she could take back
I seriously doubt it.
Jonah Goldberg @JonahNRO 1 minute ago
I'm perfectly willing to concede that most of the refugees aren't a threat. Other side unwilling to concede that some -- or any-- might be.
"We have three choices. Kill them all, not just the refugees, but all of them. That's not on the table, no matter how sensible it appears in a realpolitik sort of way."
Heh. "Realpolitik" always was just jargon to justify often psychopathic decisions. "Sensible," too, for that matter.
There is a historical echo here but it's not the one Dana Milbank hears.
"The irony is that Robert is going to vote for Hillary, who advocated policies in Syria and Libya that created the refugee crisis in the first place."
HA! Not on your (or anyone's) fucking life!
It's as if Obama wants Trump to be elected.
So many liberals decry the rise of what they call the extremist right wing, the "reactionaries" who seem to be able to command a majority of the House. Well, you know what Barry? Maybe if you denied them the oxygen by moderating your policies? Naah! He would rather have the polarization, seriously. This is what happens when you elect a "community organizer" who presents seminars at the University of Chicago with a terrorist who wrote in the NYT on 9-11 before the attacks that he regretted not killing more people!
For those of you who doubt the ties of Obama to a terrorist.
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/971106/justice.shtml
what do Americans gain from importing a bunch of potential terrorists and poor people from countries that fucking hate us? NOTHING. Fuck your morality check. Politics isn't morality. Lefties don't have morals - they just want to give away the country.
Where is the part where Jews as a group hated America and a significant subset of them violently so? Where is the part where Jews were weaned on anti American propaganda from the day they were born? Where is that part in the equivalence?
Or are those two facts untrue?
As lefties are wont to say, asserting a fact becomes not a question of the truth of that fact, but a question of motive. Pointing out those two facts can only be motivated by racism. Racism is the important takeaway. That's how Althouse reasons.
"I'm perfectly willing to concede that most of the refugees aren't a threat. Other side unwilling to concede that some -- or any-- might be."
Yeah, what a surprise. JG is always trying to score points by showing how hypocritical and unyielding the Left is. And it accomplishes nothing. The left doesn't care.
Steve Uhr:
You are also a sucky poster with mush in his head.
There, attention paid.
I would say you lie, with your allegations of threats, but you're probably not smart enough to understand the difference. Briefly, I am trying to get through to her with vivid representations of the things she does not seem to grasp or accept, in hopes of getting through to her. Another example from literature:
It was time for action now. He took a belaying pin from the rail, and walked up slowly to the seated pilot, weighing the instrument meditatively in his hand.
"Monsieur," he said, "I want you to pilot this ship out to sea."
The pilot goggled up at him in the faint moonlight.
"I cannot," he gabbled. "My professional honour — my duty —"
Hornblower cut him short with a menacing gesture of the belaying pin.
"We are going to start now," he said. "You can give instructions or not, as you choose. But I tell you this, monsieur. The moment this ship touches ground, I will beat your head into a paste with this."
Hornblower eyed the white face of the pilot — his moustache was lop-sided and ridiculous now after his rough treatment. The man's eyes were on the belaying pin with which Hornblower was tapping the palm of his hand, and Hornblower felt a little thrill of triumph. The threat of a pistol bullet through the head would not have been sufficient for this imaginative southerner. But the man could picture so clearly the crash of the belaying pin upon his skull, and the savage blows which would beat him to death, that the argument Hornblower had selected was the most effective one.
"Yes, monsieur," said the pilot, weakly.
(C.S. Forester, Flying Colours)
Morality check. Trust the US Government, or you're immoral.
Heh. "Realpolitik" always was just jargon to justify often psychopathic decisions. "Sensible," too, for that matter.
Did you even bother to read the rest of the comment? Or did your knee-jerk cause the computer to fall over?
You can do better, Bob.
HA! Not on your (or anyone's) fucking life!
Tut tut tut
Your handlers will be upset!
The official Communist position is to support the Democratic nominee. (of course)
How 'bout we compromise. Locate Syrian "refugees" only in Sanctuary Cities.
I don't know if someone had already brought this up, I can't fully read either the blog or its comments anymore but is Althouse suggesting she would welcome refugees at her home, neighborhood, or her office, perhaps in student housing? After all, it would seem she's suggesting that the rest of us do much the same. Or is this just an excuse for moral preening or virtue signaling? Life must be grand in the faculty lounge. I've said this before but didn't allowing refugees into the country do wonders for the Algonquins?
The Philippines was one of the few countries that not merely permitted Jewish immigration, but encouraged it. President Quezon put out a blanket invitation for Jewish refugees in 1940-41 and started a resettlement project. Unfortunately it was on the other side of the world, and few (under 2000) refugees made it all that way before the Japanese invaded and ended it.
As a tragic postscript many of these Jewish refugees were caught in Manila in February 1945 and were massacred by the Japanese; some years ago I learned that the well-known massacre on our street (Manila is full of ghosts of 1945, some commemorated by memorials, many not) involved several Jewish refugees.
Just a morality check.
The analogy is pathetically weak, Professor. One would think someone so intelligent could do better... On second thought one must admit that only so much can be done with truth; it isn't as malleable a medium as falsehood.
Just a reality check.
A small suggestion:
Perhaps Ms Althouse and Mr Meade would open their home to a few "refugees". After all with only two people living in such a large house there must be a bedroom or two that could be used for housing these poor unfortunate souls.
Being a tenured professor probably pays really well so you could buy food and clothing from your earnings. Meade is retired so he could cook and clean for them. Madison is such a welcoming place that your guests would probably be feted by your contemporaries and you could bask in the glow of your compassion.
It would be the moral thing to do.
So why don't you step up and volunteer for such a wonderful, moral and fulfilling opportunity?
C'mon check your moral compass professor.*
* It would also give you a new subject to blog about. Days at the dog park with Ahmad and Abdul, sunset bicycle rides around Lake Mendota, dinner at the local BBQ joint.....
Racism is the important takeaway. That's how Althouse reasons.
Does Althouse believe Jews constitute a race? Does she believe Muslims constitute a race?
Islam is a disgusting negation of civilization, and its followers are deluded at best. If that makes me a racist, then I wear the badge proudly.
"The official Communist position is to support the Democratic nominee. (of course)"
Even if this were true, how does it apply to me?
And what means this "(Of course")?
1. If you're not a literal card carrying communist, Bob, it's probably because you left your card somewhere, or possibly that you are too crazy for them.
2. Of course means that Democrats are the closest thing in this country to communists. Maybe half a Pinocchio on that.
"As a tragic postscript many of these Jewish refugees were caught in Manila in February 1945 and were massacred by the Japanese;"
The Japanese also killed many German nationals during the "Rape of Manila" - despite the fact that they were their Allies. The Japanese also murdered a bunch of German Nuns and priests when they conquered Rabual in 1942.
MayBee said...
Althouse well knows the tactic of guilting/shaming people into submission to the position of the chosen few. She's discussed this as a tactic of the left, and she's engaging in it now
That's odd. It doesn't seem to be working on me.
Robert Cook said...
"The new definition of xenophobia is fear of letting enemy combatants waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
You perfectly illustrate the old definition of xenophobia by assuming that everyone fleeing the depredations of various factions of killers are themselves "enemy combatants" who wish to "waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
Shhhh. hush.
pay attention.
It only takes one.
You jump to some pretty absurd conclusions.
What am I saying?
it's comade Bob.
"The new definition of xenophobia is fear of letting enemy combatants waltz into our cities to kill us in our own restaurants and theaters."
Well said. Xenophobia is a word like "Racism" which it so overused its meaningless - except as an insult.
"It only takes one."
Yes, it only takes one. But the US let in millions of refugees (e.g. many of our great-great grandparents) during the 19th and early 20th centuries. As with any group of people, some were bad. A few were even terrorists and assassins who kill a president (McKinley) and waged a terror bombing campaign against public officials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings
In retrospect, do you think all of those millions of immigrants should have been kept out to prevent those things? Would America be a better place now if they hadn't been allowed in? Would YOU and your family be here if that were the case? (I wouldn't--my Mom's side of the family descended from German immigrants who came over in the 1870s),
Mark W;
Were those huddled masses comprised of fighting age men without their wives and children? Did we let in millions of solo males?
Think, dude, think. Do you want the kind of man who would leave his wife(ves) and children behind?
So MarkW says that a bunch of people he doesn't know should man up and die so that MarkW can show us how evolved he is. That about cover it MarkW?
Weapons today are no more powerful than they were in the 19th century. Nope! Plus we need thousands more people who believe that gays should be stoned to death and women should be covered and allowed only to marry their cousins and not allowed to drive or allowed (Notice all this "allowing"? All the "allowing is done by men.) outside the house unaccompanied by a man. Yeah, this will end well.
"Think, dude, think. Do you want the kind of man who would leave his wife(ves) and children behind?"
Well of course there were lots of young single men seeking their fortunes among the earlier waves of immigrants (as well as men coming to establish themselves and planning to bring their families when they could afford it).
Mark W
Like 78%? Now I am as open to your virtue signaling as the next guy but I think you should just stop there. The current situation bears absolutely no resemblance to the immigration waves you describe. And I should hope that you know that.
Plus, Jews weren't "fleeing the Holocaust" in 1939. There was no holocaust until 1941.
Just to set the record straight on what the Jews on the ship were fleeing from – according to Wiki:
“Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in death camps.”
http://tinyurl.com/qeux29w
What is even more disturbing about he Paris attacks, as well as the Charlie Hebdo attack, is that these were long time residents of these countries, not just-off-the-boat terrorists. So it's not like even weeding out the ISIS actors among the refugees gives any level of security.
I wonder if the grandchildren of those anarchists still nurture a burning hatred for America?
"Just to set the record straight on what the Jews on the ship were fleeing from – according to Wiki:"
Yeah, Ok, that doesn't disprove what I said.
"(I wouldn't--my Mom's side of the family descended from German immigrants who came over in the 1870s)"
That's nice. The idea that we should let in Syrian refugees because we let in millions of immigrants 100 years ago, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Derp said...
I wonder if the grandchildren of those anarchists still nurture a burning hatred for America?
Since the primary function of some of our most influential institutions is to convince people to hate America it's hard to see how people who started with such a hatred would lose it.
Back in the late 4th Century the Goths were invited to settle inside the Empire. How'd that work out?
MarkW: Yes, it only takes one. But the US let in millions of refugees (e.g. many of our great-great grandparents) during the 19th and early 20th centuries. As with any group of people, some were bad. A few were even terrorists and assassins who kill a president (McKinley) and waged a terror bombing campaign against public officials:
Yes, that was one of the reasons why the demand for immigration restriction began to grow, culminating in the restriction act of 1924 - Americans of that period realized that things were getting out of control, and that it was only prudent to have an immigration breather, to allow society to settle down and the recent large batches of immigrants to assimilate. Americans of that period hadn't had their brains turned to mush by decades of relentless open-borders propaganda and a dumbed-down, "all about the feels" educational system, and were intelligent enough to recognize that "but your parents were immigrants!" was the base appeal to emotion, not reason, that it was.
In retrospect, do you think all of those millions of immigrants should have been kept out to prevent those things? Would America be a better place now if they hadn't been allowed in? Would YOU and your family be here if that were the case? (I wouldn't--my Mom's side of the family descended from German immigrants who came over in the 1870s),
When people trot out this line of pseudo-argumentation about immigration, it doesn't indicate anything but that they haven't thought very seriously about the issue at all. You really don't grasp how dumb it sounds to insist that Americans have no right to exercise control over who gets to move into our country, because earlier Americans let your grandfather in?
To be fair, there are lots of people with Ivy League degrees, holding prestigious posts, who run around making precisely this brain-dead argument, but that doesn't make it any less brain-dead.
Bushman:no Althouse does not want to take this post back. She never apologizes or changes her mind. She is right all the time.
I do t know what is the right approach. Counterterror? If you betray us, we'll kill you worse than they will?
It would be VERY Interesting to know how to make the Althouses of the world decide what side they're on.
"Back in the late 4th Century the Goths were invited to settle inside the Empire. How'd that work out?"
Bought the empire another century probably.
There was no manpower for the limes otherwise.
Re the St. Louis -
In the not-quite end the passengers were all taken by the countries nearest Germany - Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands. The Captain had indeed worked out a fine and humanitarian resolution, and carried them all to safety. For 1939.
France was the most powerful military nation in Europe, and the guarantor of the security of the West.
Nobody at that time had any idea that this was NOT safety. The critical factor was that France collapsed, completely, in 1940, taking down the Netherlands and Belgium with it. This was a profoundly shocking, unexpected event, that exposed not just these refugees but also the hundreds of thousands of other refugees residing there at the time, Jews, Poles, Czechs, and Spanish Republicans.
1) So we should prioritize Yazhdis and Christians, since they are being ethnically cleansed.
2) There are ways to care for the other refugees and "refugees" without importing them. How about deploying US military assets (like Combat Engineers, Medical, Cooks and Coast Guard) to Turkey to make sure that the refugees are housed, given medical care, fed and rescued from drowning in the Med - but also kept in Turkey, per "first safe country" doctrine. Let's help out the Turks, the Europeans and ourselves in one move.
I would sponsor a Syrian orphan, woman, or child 12 or under. I would also allow adult males age 55 or older. I have a college friend who is Syrian. His family is Catholic. His grandparents were persecuted in Syria and emigrated to upstate NY in the 1920's. They started a grocery store that became a supermarket. Good people.
Just no males ages 13-55 should be admitted. To say they can be vetted is not a lie, it is a FUCKING LIE!
The Jews, every one of them, were not noted for wearing chest bombs and shooting people with AK47s. And thus it was a travesty they turned them away.
On the other hand, the Syrian Muslims may very well have terrorist hiding in their mist.
So yes, turn them away.
Plus, Jews weren't "fleeing the Holocaust" in 1939. There was no holocaust until 1941.
Just to set the record straight on what the Jews on the ship were fleeing from – according to Wiki:
“Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in death camps.”
http://tinyurl.com/qeux29w
Yeah, Ok, that doesn't disprove what I said.
It destroyed the commentor’s implication – which was that the Jews on the ship had nothing to fear from the Nazis. Historical accuracy is always important in these discussions.
"Just a morality check.
Get your bearings."
Hmmm. How shall I put this?
Go fuck yourself.
The DHS has confessed that there is no database available in order to vet these people, most of whom are young, fighting age males.
ISIS did say they will send a flood of 500k refugees to the west, and hide among them.
The EU admits only one in five 'migrants' are from Syria.
Over 70% are young, healthy, men.
Hello?
The Jews in the ship are equivalent to the persecuted Assyrian Christians being denied Visas and left to submit or die because Obama says they are not victims of genocide.
The UN and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation will be deciding which Syrian refugees to send to populate the US. We can't use a religious test but they won't have any problem recommending religious Muslims while rejecting and condemning Christians to slaughter. Morality check.
What Jewish refugees have to do with the current situation is beyond me. Indeed, the Jews from Germany were Western Europeans with a shared culture, literate and educated. There is no jihad doctrine in Judaism, no promise of paradise for those who kill infidels, no blasphemy laws that call for death to those who insult the prophet, no honor killing, no FGM, no stoning of adulterers and gays.
Even Arab nations refuse the refugees from Syria for security reasons. Lose the guilt.
In my initial comment at the top of this thread, and with Althouse's response, I demonstrated the fundamental difference between progressive leftists and conservatives: there is no truth able to be found by leftists, while conservatives believe that objective reality defines differences and similarities.
Syrian regime members, leaders of one of the most despotic dictatorships on earth for the past 50+ years, are compared favorably by Althouse to civilian refugees fleeing certain death.
My morality allows me to differentiate between murderous Assad regime supporters who are losing their civil war, and those fleeing Nazi persecution.
Althouse, why does your morality NOT allow you to make that differentiation?
It destroyed the commentor’s implication – which was that the Jews on the ship had nothing to fear from the Nazis. Historical accuracy is always important in these discussions.
Sure if you project your 20/20 hindsight into the past, they can see the future and thus America *knew* it was sending these people to likely death. Is that what you are calling "historical accuracy"? Honest question. I can never figure out the terms some of you guys use so I need them explained.
And for rcocean's information, as if he didn't know, Kristallnacht was in 1938. Many discriminatory laws were passed before and after Kristallnacht and Wannsee (i.e., the Final Solution) might have been predicted. You would not in my mind be a fool if you fled Kristallnacht to avoid Wannsee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht#Early_Nazi_persecutions
...
Beginning in 1933, the German government enacted a series of anti-Jewish laws restricting the rights of German Jews to earn a living, to enjoy full citizenship and to gain education, including the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, which forbade Jews to work in the civil service.[13] The subsequent 1935 Nuremberg Laws stripped German Jews of their citizenship and forbade Jews to marry non-Jewish Germans.
The result of these laws was the exclusion of Jews from German social and political life
...
Sure if you project your 20/20 hindsight into the past, they can see the future and thus America *knew* it was sending these people to likely death. Is that what you are calling "historical accuracy"? Honest question. I can never figure out the terms some of you guys use so I need them explained.
The implication, perhaps inadvertent, was that the Jews on the ship had nothing to fear since the Holocaust began after the ship’s journey was over. But the Jews were aware that they were in danger where they came from. That’s the accuracy I was commenting about.
Whether US officials knew the passengers on that ship would face death if returned to Europe is unknowable but my feeling is probably not.
Post a Comment