Friday, 18 September 2015

Citing Switzerland’s refusal to take in greater numbers of Jews during the Holocaust, the president of its Federation of Jewish Communities urged his government to take in migrants from the Middle East. 
Federation president Herbert Winter’s plea, titled “Refugees: No, the Boat is not Full,” was published Tuesday in the Les Temps daily. While thousands of Jews found refuge in neutral Switzerland from the Nazi genocide, “thousands also were turned away at the borders and murdered in concentration camps,” Winter wrote. 
The Swiss are “privileged” to have good economic circumstances and “morally obligated to act for those less fortunate,” wrote Winter, who cited the integration of Swiss Jewry into society as proof that host countries benefit from immigration as much as the newcomers. 
More than 340,000 migrants, many of them refugees, have crossed over to Europe from the Middle East this year, according to the European Union’s border authority. The flow has increased drastically in recent weeks, as tens of thousands entered through Hungary and Slovenia. 
Jewish European groups, including the Central Jewish Organization of the Netherlands, urged European governments to act generously toward refugees from Syria and Iraq, who make up a large portion of the migrants. 
Some of the same groups also urged vigilance to prevent terrorism and an increase in anti-Semitic violence as a result of the stream of immigrants. 
In Hungary alone, some 150 Jews are involved in relief operations for refugees, according to the Mazsihisz umbrella group of Jewish communities. 
And in Britain, some 150 young Jews last week took part in a march in London in support of refugees. 
Separately in the Netherlands, a Jewish hotel owner, Benoit Wesly, said this week he would house refugees in two rooms in each of his two hotels in the southern city of Maastricht, where they would also receive free meals. “Entrepreneurs must do something to solve this problem,” he told RTL broadcaster.

Here's another article on the HuffingtonPost from Robin Sclafani, Director of CEJI-A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe.
The political refugees are giving a second-chance to Europe, a moment in history with the momentum to rectify the societal structures which have failed so many times. Just look at the Evian Conference of 1938 in which country after country expressed sympathy for the plight of Jewish refugees, but only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept them. 
The European Union was founded in the aftermath of WWII in order to avoid these kinds of mistakes of the past. The debate as to whether we should or shouldn't allow them to come is exposing multiple fears and uncertainties. The refugees are coming regardless if we "let them" and we must address the fears of the Reticent or Resistant as challenges to be overcome. We need to put in place the policies and programmes to support the realization of the newcomers' positive contribution to the future of our society. 
The refugees are being imprinted by their first contact with Europe, either an idealized version (such as the welcome provided by Germans and Austrians) or a demonized version (such as the mistreatment they are experiencing in Hungary). Even positive encounters with refugees will not be enough to ensure intercultural experiences which enable the new arrivals to become active participants in our democratic, pluralistic, equality-promoting structures. 
The newcomers need to be educated in the rights and responsibilities of our multicultural Europe, we need to help them overcome their possible prejudices, such as those they may have about Jews, women and gays and lesbians. But we as hosts need to be challenged in our stereotypes too; the refugees can help us to overcome our xenophobia, and we can all be better prepared to expand our notions of common identity. 
The good will which is momentarily being expressed by so many towards the Syrian refugees may provide Europe the opportunity to address more effectively the already existing problem of ethnic discrimination in employment and the inequalities reinforced in our school systems. Let us not forget the millions of European citizens who may be Black, Roma, Muslim or other "different" identity who experience discrimination on a regular basis, at work, in the shops, on the streets, searching for housing, in the media and in the schools. 
Economists mostly agree that new workers in Europe will be good for the economy and counter-balance the deficit of an aging population. We need to ensure that employers can make the best use of this increase in the workforce. They must have a strategy in place that will prepare them to succeed and feel fulfilled in their labours. Policies linked to adult education, transfer of competences, programmes that address hard and soft skills, are all necessary parts of this strategy, as is anti-bias training for the existing workforce so that the new arrivals actually feel comfortable and appreciated. 
Let us take seriously the fears of those afraid of an increase in terror acts, even if it has been shown that Europe does not need refugees to bring terrorism into our midst. Screening of asylum applicants is crucial for previous engagement with terrorist organisations. But we should not forget that these people are escaping terror, survivors from the belly of the beast. They are diverse: Christian, Shiite, Sunni, Alawites, Kurds and Yazidis. If our reception of them is done well, there are better chances that they will become evermore loyal to Europe. 
Essentially so much of the resistance expressed to receiving the thousands waiting at Europe's borders comes from a fear of losing one's culture, to find one's identity no longer the norm, to find oneself confronted with a different set of values. The refugees must be feeling this fear 100 times more than those of us within the existing European mainstream. The refugees must adapt because their lives are on the line. How about the Europeans with historical roots that run so deep? A little bit of change is inevitable with or without refugees, but maybe if we can do "integration" gracefully, with curiosity and decency, providing education into the benefits of secular democracy, we may discover a brighter more peaceful future.

Note the casualness with which this woman talks about "we" and "our multicultural Europe". Here's a potted biography of her.
Robin Sclafani is the Director of CEJI-A Jewish Contribution to an Inclusive Europe, the leading European Jewish organisation in the field of diversity education, intercultural dialogue and anti-discrimination advocacy. With over 25 years experience in developing and delivering anti-prejudice diversity awareness training programmes, both in the USA and Europe, Robin is the architect of the suite of training programmes linked to the award-winning project Belieforama: A Panoramic Approach to Issues of Religion and Belief, and she has been coordinating one of civil society’s most promising initiatives in hate crime monitoring training, called Facing Facts!. Originally from New York City, living in Brussels since 1998, with joint USA and Italian citizenship, Robin is a lifelong champion for the value of diversity.

So this a New York Jewess telling we Europeans we need to hand our countries over to aliens and make ourselves a minority in our own home. She sells "anti-prejudice diversity awareness training" and her article advocates its increasingly widespread use, so she is drumming up business for her own no-doubt very profitable diversity racket!

What about Israel? Should it take in any refugees? Its strategic position between the world's two main conflict centres, the Middle East and Africa, surely affords it an ideal opportunity to become an "asylum superpower". Er, no. According to the Jewish Chronicle, Israel's contribution should be confined to sending some ships to rescue invaders in the Mediterranean then ferry them into Europe.
One option is to contribute a naval force to the joint efforts of a number of European countries to rescue refugees and migrants who are being abandoned in the Mediterranean by smugglers. Those migrants come not only from Syria, but from other war-torn countries as well. The resources for this operation are always stretched and could be greatly enhanced by Israel's equipment and personnel.
Israel could mobilise for such an operation in a matter of days as its navy has already established joint search-and-rescue procedures with many of the Nato members that have deployed ships to the Mediterranean. 
At a later stage, once the refugees arriving in Europe have been found places to live and start to plan their future, Israel can assist the host countries with its expertise in adult-learning and technological training.

Sure, maybe Robin could get a piece of that "adult-learning" action, no doubt generously financed by the European taxpayer.

In conclusion, the "myth" that Jews promote policies that would alter the ethnic makeup of the countries they live in, weakening the numerical strength of the indigenous people, actually isn't a myth at all, is it? It's a factual reality. This is ethnic warfare dressed up as moral idealism. It's time the Europeans in the Counterjewhad movement found the moral strength within themselves to publicly recognise the role Jews have played in the catastrophe presently engulfing us and stopped kow-towing to their Jewish paymasters.

For purposes of historical comparison see here.


  1. This is ethnic warfare dressed up as moral idealism

    As Lawrence Auster, a Jewish convert to Christianity, explains in Why Jews Welcome Muslims, the warfare is religious as well as ethnic: ‘there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.’

    Later in the same article he says: ‘these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.’ Of course, his argument applies in every respect to Europe.

    Revenge may play a part, too: revenge for 2,000 years of being cast as the eternal villain in the Christian drama of salvation—which can’t go down too well with people who believe they’re chosen—and revenge for 1,000 years of, as Jews see it, the saintly Jew living in mortal fear of unprovoked attack by the evil European.

    1. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that one. I'm surprised FrontPageMag published that.

    2. The link was buried away in the Occidental Observer archives. The article is particularly devastating because of Auster’s background. If only he were still alive to explain why the ruling élites of what used to be white Christian nations have carried out the Jews’ wishes so assiduously. For me, that’s the one missing piece of the jigsaw.

  2. CZ and JR: The late writer, Lawrence Auster, had a website, (View from the Right). I cam across it on a phony CounterJihad site. The site is still accessible, and the articles therein; interesting, although only towards the end of his life (died of cancer) did he write of the negative and destructive influence of the Talmud on Jews and Western peoples. In other words, he, too, tended to see Jewish beliefs and actions as a response to supposed, unjustified Christian hostility, which is a faulty view because it ignores the enormously powerful and long-term pervasive influence which an ideology has on the people who espouse it and how such tenets of an ideology become part of a people's almost unconscious response to non-members.

    As for the 'ruling elites' of once Christian nations, have a look into how many of them are of Jewish background (Merkel, Cameron, Sarkozy, Reinfeldt, Roosevelt, Churchill, Poroshenko...) Also, Jewish control and dominance in media, finance, academia translates into considerable, determining influence on politicians (i.e. just about every war the US has waged in the Middle and Near East). Cameron's hatred of Christian Russia, for example, has much to do with the fact that his grandfather and great-grandfather, heads of the Singapore Bank, arranged loans to the Japanese government to wage war against Russia in 1905, seriously weakening that country and helping the developing Bolshevik cause. The Japanese politician who helped secure those loans later became Prime Minister and gave the order for bombing Pearl Harbor, thus bringing the US into WWII and further extending the bloodbath of Caucasian Christians and demise of the British Empire and Europe.

    1. Judging by the quotes assembled here, Churchill was opposed to non-white immigration. He talks of ‘the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people’ and he proposed ‘Keep England White’ as an election slogan. Despite those views, in 1955 he told Ian Gilmour, a fellow Tory, that immigration ‘is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice.’

      And it’s not as though Churchill’s third premiership, which ended in 1955, was replete with Jews. Looking at the list of his ministers, if there are Jews among them they were few in number. Yet Churchill was powerless to stop non-white immigration. If anything typifies the ‘missing piece of the jigsaw’, that’s it. I’m aware of Jewish influence in the areas you mention but I’d need concrete evidence of how it affected Churchill, for example, before I could complete the jigsaw.

    2. Some of what Churchill wrote in the 1920s about the Jewish involvement in the Bolshevist movements in Russia would have got him branded an "antisemite" today and hounded from public life.

    3. Good point. His 1920 Illustrated Sunday Herald article on the Jews’ role in bringing death and destruction to Russia is here.

  3. Jews always have to bring up the holocaust. But how much of the story is true?

  4. That article linked to by JR by Churchill is his argument in favour of an Jewish State in Palestine as a way of mitigating the negative aspects of Jewish Bolshevism and redirecting Zionism to a positive outlet. Didn't work out too well as an idea...Churchill was in massive debt throughout the 20s and 30s (amounting in today's currency, to millions of pounds) with his home, Chartwell, and his political career, under threat. He was bailed out by the Focus Group headed by a millionaire Austrian Jew who was enobled in Britain. In return for saving his home and paying his debts (and continuing to do so for most of his life thereafter), the Focus Group pressured Churchill to speak against Germany, press for war against Germany to defend the British Empire and, once hostilities began, to refuse all peace offers from the German Government. He was right to some degree in his appraisal of the Jews, but was a disaster for the British people and Empire, ultimately. And all European peoples.

    1. I agree Churchill was no saint. When, at the beginning of the last century, legislation to restrict immigration was tabled in the House of Commons, Churchill was asked by Jews to talk it out. The legislation fell and Churchill received his reward: the heavily Jewish constituency of Manchester North West (Jews comprised almost a third of the 10,000 electorate) returned him to Parliament.

    2. Churchill, in general, was one of the most disastrous leaders in history. There are quite a few good books that utterly destroy Churchill, the best single one being probably "Churchill: The Greatest Briton Unmasked".

      Whether he was guilty in respect of immigration, however, I'm not so sure. He was a pretty hardcore racist himself. His book The River War is still worth reading for its glorious political incorrectness which now seems hilarious: "savage negroes black as coal".