Is there a comparison?
This picture has been doing the rounds. Taken from these two articles: Israel’s Jewish Essence non-negotiable; America’s white identity a scourge
Is there a difference in morality between wanting to keep Israel Jewish and wanting to keep another nation white (or Christian, or whatever)?
It does seem that Menachem Rosensaft is inconsistent.
The present high rate of immigration interferes with much else that liberals want to achieve. A heterogeneous work force is more difficult to organize into unions than a homogeneous work force. Immigration, especially Hispanic and black immigration pushes the white working class to the right, and induces white workers to vote Republican.
A growing population for any reason means less of everything good to go around. It has an inflationary effect on prices, while deflating wages. In the process it raises profits, and contributes to the growing income gap.
Also, we should make a candid appraisal of different immigrant populations. European whites and Orientals usually perform and behave well wherever they live and move. The same cannot be said of other groups. The Ashkenazim are a gifted people whose immigration should be encouraged everywhere.
On the subject of race and intelligence, the scientific consensus among psychologists and anthropologists, at this point, is that there is no good reason to infer genetic differences.
Schultz went on to quote Brimelow as having said at CPAC that, "Democrats have given up on winning the white working class vote, so they use bilingualism to build up a client constituency. It’s treason.
I do not think it is treason for the Democrats to give up on the white working class vote. I do think it is foolish. The Democrats need to win back most of the white working class, and much of the South.
It is possible. In 1992 and in 1996 Bill Clinton won four former Confederate states.
Then why does the race gap in mental aptitude test scores continue?
Why is it that the only countries that out perform U.S. children academically are nearly all white or all Oriental?
Take a look at this chart of various countries and their various IQ averages.
http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
Here is another evaluation of the relationship between genes, intelligence, and race. It is an evaluation, which unlike the post you linked to, accommodates the facts I posted:
A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic.
The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast “a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural).”
The paper, “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors’ reply.
“Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause,” write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx#id_d90f8fc5-74e1-46ab-bd03-eafd0730133a
It is not a question of morality or ethics. Each of those nations were founded on different ideas and the differences in immigration attitudes reflect those ideals. In the U.S., the issue of whether or not to accept “others” has been a debate that has existed nearly as long as the nation, itself. It is not a matter of “morality,” simply a matter of differing views of the nation. First, (and continuing through several successive waves of immigration), the Catolics were considered a threat to the nation’s identity. Then people of East Asia were considered a threat. Then people from Eastern and Southern Europe were considerd a threat. Then people from Central America were considered a threat.
All those immigrants did, indeed, modify the national character, but the nation has continued and the overwhelming majority of the descendans of those originally considered an outside threat are now “100% American.” So those who oppose immigration for specific groups (to prevent diluting the “real” Americans), are firmly in a longstanding tradition of beliefs, but they have nearly always been on the losing end of the argument. It is not an ethical issue, simply one of differing ideals regarding the nature of the country.
(I don’t recall any pro-immigration speaker ever insisting that we go to another country and compel them to accept immigrants; we simply argue over what we should do.)
New Deal Democrat, BrainGlutton, and anyone else, take the “race intelligence” discussion to a separate thread if you insist on having it.
This thread is not on that topic.
This thread discusses the differences in approaches to immigration and it does not need the clutter of a hijack.
[ /Moderating ]
Not that I can see. Away with both.
All of Israel plus the occupied territories are less than one percent of the Arab land. I think the Jews should have it, and that we should encourage the Palestinians to move elsewhere in the Arab world. If the other Arabs really cared about the Palestinians they would make this easy.
The Muslims have Mecca and Medina. They should leave Jerusalem to the Jews and Christians. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran.
Jerusalem is the third holiest city in Islam and is important to all the “people of the book”.
The Muslims are as devout followers of the God of Abraham as both the Jews and the Christians. Admittedly the Muslims and Christians have more in common with each other than either has with the Jews.
I’m not sure that “whites” are a nationality in the way that Jews are. Moreover, “whites” most certainly have not been persecuted and slaughtered for thousands of years all over the world so one can’t credibly make the argument that they need a country of their own to avoid a second Holocaust.
Jerusalem is more sacred to Jews and Christians because many of the events of the Bible happened there.
Can you elaborate ? I would have thought that Jews and Muslims have more in common theologically, as more classically monotheistic than the Trinitarian version of monotheism of Christianity.
Muslims also believe in the Bible – it’s one of the three Abrahamic (is that the right word?) religions. They too believe in Moses, Abraham, etc. In fact, Jesus plays a role in Islam as well.
Yes. I recall Isaac Asimov using (coining?) the word “Yahvistic,” but “Abrahamic” means the same. All purport to derive from Abraham’s original covenant with God. There is also a legend that, as Jews all descend from Abraham through his son Isaac, Arabs – as distinct from Muslims – all descend from Abraham through his son Ishmael. So they’re the cousins of Jews, and there’s no quarrel like a family quarrel . . . In Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong – who is not a Muslim – argued that Mohammed originally intended his religion as a race-specific religion, the right way of worship for Arabs as Judaism is the right way of worship for Jews – rather than a universalist religion to which all the world should be converted. Since he only extended his rule over Arabia in his own lifetime, the question of converting non-Arabs did not arise until the Arabs started conquering their neighbors. And in the early years, Muslim Arabs living among and ruling over non-Arabs made no attempt to proselytize, were reluctant even to accept converts, and kept themselves separate in military compounds and did not socially mix with the locals. That eventually changed.
I would like Jews to stop thinking about themselves as Jews, ans Muslims to stop thinking about themselves as Muslims. Same goes for all other groups. I say this as someone who used to think of himself as “Jewish.”. Life’s too short for group identities.
Well, since Jews can be of any race or background, I’d say you’re comparing apples to paperclips.
That would be nice. But one would be hard pressed to tear peoples’ lifelong values from them.
People who segregate themselves into groups are really making this planet a lot worse. It’s been the cause of countless wars, and it really needs to stop.
I do think they are different simply because there is no “white” identity. It would be more apt to compare “Jew” to “English” or “Italian.” After all, “Jew” is just another word for “white” in the census. And so is “Arab.” 
Please bear in mind that much of Islam’s early history is hotly disputed, and Muhammad’s intentions for non-Arabs is definitely in that category. Looking at the actions of the Umayyads (the early years) for clues is problematic, because records of that time come to us from the Abbasids and as the deposers of the Umayyads they had an interest in claiming that the Umayyads were unfairly holding the True Faith back from people, among their other “crimes.”
While I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that Muhammad was creating an ethnic faith for Arabs (Such as he would have understood “Arabs”) I am bothered by several things, not least of which is the fact that as far as I know he never condemned Christianity’s universality as one of its many corruptions. Anecdotally, I have also not met a scholar of Islam who would claim that Islam was originally not universalist, full stop. I don’t recall this argument being really fleshed out in Karen Armstrong’s (who is excellent) book, but I’d appreciate it if you could cite or quote it for my reference.
