Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg are Jewish, all of the rest of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic.
The problem for the Jewish brand is that all 3 of the Jewish justices are hostile to White interests. It is practically a certainty that all will vote against the Arizona law when the case comes up, with the possible exception of Kagan recusing herself due to conflict of interest, since she was the Solicitor General on the case in the first place. If a 4-4 tie didn't have the same net effect as 5-4 against (since to overturn the previous court requires a majority), I doubt very seriously whether Kagan would recuse herself despite the blatancy of her conflict of interest. Sotomayer will also almost certainly vote against the law. In all likelihood, the decision will hinge on the vote of Kennedy.
Now, when things fall apart and the center does not hold, just WHO do you think is going to have absorbed the blame here? It doesn't matter who writes the majority or prevailing opinion, or who concurs in part. What matters is the end result and whether it tars the Jewish brand further. Breyer and Ginsburg have long been hated by many. Kagan creates the possibility of creating decisions that inspire vitriolic hatred on the back of a majority Jewish vote (3 Jews and 2 Catholics). Who do you think will be blamed here? Do you think this will inspire a pogrom against Catholics? No, they'll be swept under the rug, and the fact that 4 Catholics voted on the side of 'righteousness' will be considered instead. There are presently several really significant issues on the Supreme Court's docket, issues that I guarantee will create lots more anti semites if they go the wrong way and might even if they go the correct way. The fact that all 3 votes can be predicted with a great deal of certainty in advance without even so much as a law degree by a layman is also very concerning.
Ginsburg and Breyer are both pretty old (born in 1933 and 1938 respectively). I'd suggest that when the time comes to replace them, that Jewish folks back a Jewish justice somewhere to the right of Justice Thomas for one seat and a white Protestant for the other. Holding a block of 3 seats in the SC is an extremely dangerous lightning rod. It's not in your interest to have the average Joe in the US think of those 3 when he thinks 'Jew'.
Well, the JQ is a very important one.
But to actually discuss it in public? You must know how difficult that is. The media blanked out the OWS protests when they connected the 1% to the jews.
People need an enemy. A strong and powerful enemy creates unity in a people. The jews of course have their goyim, the eternal enemy to the chosen. They also have the Palestinians, an enemy of their own making.
We could sit here and write about the WASPs and other whites. Our people are already demoralized. Why provide the opposition with ammunition? Use emotion for the many, logic for the few.
"Jewish folks [should] back a Jewish justice somewhere to the right of Justice Thomas for one seat and a white Protestant for the other. "
Ostensibly, it should not matter who "Jewish folks" back, as the decision is up to the non-Jewish president (to be confirmed by the 88%-nonJewish Senate). But..... well, we all know.
By the way, your phrase "holding a bloc of three seats on the Supreme Court" reminds me of a particular empire that was neither holy nor roman (as some wag had it), and its system of electors, the religious-makeup of which was a central cause of the Thirty Years War: While the people of the HRE were continuing to move away from the Roman Church, the Hapsburgs insisted that the electorate stay majority Catholic, and were willing to use force to ensure it. In early 1619, the electorate had four Catholics (the bishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne, and the King of Bohemia) and three protestants (the rulers of Saxony, Brandenburg, and the Palatinate). The anti-Catholic "voelkisch" revolt in Bohemia deposed their Catholic monarch, and the rebels began searching for a protestant to install. A protestant king in Bohemia would have tipped the HRE electorate 4-3 in favor of the Protestants, thus the protestant bloc could have elected non-Hapsburg Protestant Holy Roman emperors! An Imperial-Catholic offensive was in the offing. Thus began one of Europe's most destructive wars (reducing the number of German speakers in Europe by one-third in a generation), which did a lot to delegitimize the HRE itself (probably a good thing), and also -- so they say -- delayed German unification by a century or more. All because of fears about voting blocs in a SCOTUS-like entity.
Presumably present and potential Jewish justices are part of the Jewish community as a whole. That community can exert pressure on justices to consider Supreme Court position, to not consider them, or to retire. The Jewish community is a lot more cohesive than most gentiles, perhaps a few rabbis could have a 'Come to Yahweh' meeting with some of their coethnic potential Supreme Court candidates.
Of course they won't, but that would be the most feasible way to improve the image of their brand. As it is, I really see no way to prevent an anti-Jewish pogram when things finally fall apart unless something dramatically changes.
The taboo on the discussion of Jews as such is immensely destructive. It prevents, as you mention, an actual discussion of the way bankers have screwed over the American taxpayer (any criticism of bankers as such gets equated to Jewish bankers, which gets the taboo treatment). In addition, any criticism of Jews, or even merely mentioning that they're a lot more powerful than the 1.5-2% they make up in the population, draws powerful retaliation. This is also enormously destructive, and probably creates more hatred for Jews in the US than anything else. I believe there are two main errors regarding Jews. The first is that they are the source of ALL of our problems. The second is that they do not contribute disproportionately to their numbers to our problems. At the Chariot we attempt to avoid both of these errors. We do not level personal, and CERTAINLY not moral, criticism against those who hold either of these views though. Anyone who supports maintaining and preserving our demographic hegemony is NOT our enemy and will not be treated as such.
your consistent misspelling of pogrom is unsettling
The pogrom has been updated. Interesting choice of words to find a misspelled pogrom unsettling.
Post a Comment