Replies

FDR ? He sent the St. Louis back to Germany to be killed. I don't get it. The New York Times knew it but refused to report it. I am pro jewish but don't understand most Jews. I have close Jewish friend and asked him why because he is Conservative and secular. He says that Protestants scare them

In New York, Hillary scores 61 to 19 percent among Jews..

Isn't that a form of Munchausen syndrome, the more terror attacks that happen the more sympathy they get? Because they damn well know if Hillary wins, the Allahu Akbar attacks are going to rise astronomically. It's been reported she wants to bring anywhere from 650,000 to 3 million Syrian "refugees" into the USA even though the United Nations (of all things) released a report last January stating that 10 to 30% of these "refugees" are radicalized. So think of the possibilities here...She brings in 3 million, the possibility exists that 900,000 Allahu Akbars are coming in with them, about as many police officers there are in this country. Basically an entire army of terrorists, and guess what is the #1 target in this country? New york city. That's what these New York Jews are setting themselves up for.

Why do freepers act so baffled

It’s really simple and it’s always been this way since the civil war

Southern Jews were the last on these shores to vote like and assume the culture of the host

I the Eastern European Jewish mega wave was a far different animal

Israelis don’t surprise me

That was always my feelings about them

They were more my kind of folks and I’ve known plenty around the world including working with them big time

The base instinct of liberal European descended Jews in the USA today is many believe behind most Christians lies a potential Nazi or Ustachi or Okhrana

Some buck it to their credit

Once any group gets used to victim hood privilege or exclusivity in our culture it’s hard to resist playing the role

We basically inhabit a blame and hate the white mostly Christian west for all our accomplishment

Scott Adams recently wrote about how evolution is pushing us not to live in reality.
Liberals like to see themselves as rational, but barring the low IQ on welfare, they opt to have few if any children. The 10% of the average population not having children upping to 20% among Baby Boomers is an example. The average 1.5 children liberals had otherwise is another, while conservatives average 2. The more religious you are, the more likely to have two or more children.
Thus hope for the future or religious mandates encourage at least replacement level fertility whereas atheism doesn’t. This is true of Jews and Christians. Religious Muslims certainly have more children than the secular ones. And the future belongs to the ones who show up. That’s why liberals want to dominate education - they know they have to convert part of the population that wasn’t born to them. It is why homeschooling and private school horrify them - large sections of the population they can’t educate.
Very long term, generationally, this means the secular dominance in our society won’t last because the cultural institutions they dominate are being challenged by a growing demographic insulated from it. But that doesn’t mean the damage won’t be done from Balkanization to regular Muslim terrorism in the West from native born attackers if we don’t stop them now.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

To get on or off the Greenfield ping list please reply to this post.