As I said before, I wasn't paying attention to the Charles Freeman imbroglio, but, even though it's been over for awhile, every time I look into the Washington Post, its editors are still talking about him as if he had set fire to the Declaration of Independence. Now, WaPo editorial board member Charles Lane (formerly, one of Marty Peretz's many bright young men who served as editor of The New Republic) is trying to force Obama into denouncing public mention of the power of the Israel Lobby.
There's been much talk about Charles Freeman and the angry parting shot he aimed at the "Israel Lobby," which he blames for forcing him to withdraw as President Obama's choice for chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Amid the hubbub, however, no one seems to have noticed that Freeman's broadside against "unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country" was also a not-very-implicit indictment of the president himself.
To be sure, Freeman protested his "respect" for both Obama and Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence directly responsible for picking Freeman. But if Freeman's attack on the "Israel Lobby" means anything at all, it is that the president and his staff are either too weak to resist the machinations of these foreign agents -- or are in cahoots with them. The same would go for the senators and House members who also opposed Freeman.
Freeman himself wrote that the affair "will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide, what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government."
So far, however, President Obama has had exactly nothing to say about this extraordinary claim -- either in his own defense, or in defense of the American citizens whom Freeman has impugned.
Asked on Tuesday whether Obama agreed that Freeman was "unfairly driven out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn't talked to the president about it and left the briefing room. When I contacted the White House press office on Friday, a spokesman e-mailed back that they "don't have anything additional to add."
No doubt the president faces a dilemma. I imagine that he finds Freeman's comments repugnant ...
Why would you imagine that? I would imagine that Obama, deep down, sympathizes more with Muslims than Israelis: his emotional ties to various Muslim individuals and his interest in the Black Muslims are a major theme in Dreams from My Father, while his few remarks about Jews are neutral. But he's calculated, sensibly, that the Israel Firsters are vastly more powerful in American politics and media, so he'll try hard to give the Israel Lobby enough that it won't make trouble for him.
... but to say so publicly would raise questions about why the man was appointed in the first place. And Obama has other things on his plate. If I were him, I'd rather deal with Citibank than dive into the nasty Freeman fight.
But the administration's silence is disappointing just the same. The president needs to knock Freeman's insinuations down hard ...
How? By shouting "Pay no attention to that Lobby behind the curtain!"?
This is just a ploy by the Israel Lobby to show off their power, to make Obama dance to their tune, to humiliate the President by forcing him to make a big speech claiming he's not dancing to their tune, that there's not even a tune playing, that only Bad People hear any music. They want him to say like Richard Pryor to his wife, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying ears?"
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
52 comments:
How does the Israel Lobby hold so much power?
One of the reasons that I don't care for the mainstream Republican party these days is that they are so corrupted by the Israel Lobby that it is almost comical. The Irael Lobby completely controls the Republican party's foreign policy.
In fact, they even control the Democrat Party's foreign policy to some extent.
It is disgusting.
Anyone with a scintilla of intellectual curiosity and credibility knows U.S. Mid-east policy is a whore to the Israel lobby. Even honest American Jews will admit the same thing.
As Steve has advocated in the past, we should treat AIPAC and the like in the same way we treat the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida. By all means they can present and advocate their arguments, and should be listened to, but let's not pretend they are doing so for objective reasons. They are doing so out of a sense of ethnic kinship. Israel's interests are not America's interests.
King Obama has his history reversed on which party was most Zionist. The first Republican administration to be utterly under the influence of the Lobby was Bush Junior. Bush the First was accused of “anti-semitism” and although he fought the first Iraq war, he likely did it to gain an upper hand to force Israel to make peace with the Arabs.
Reagan was more friendly to the Lobby then Bush the First or any previous Republican President, but again he sold radar planes to the Saudis and told the Israeli PM to stop bombing Beirut. Compared to Bush Junior and Clinton, Reagan was able to tell the Lobby to get lost. Carter made enemies with the Lobby over his peace plan with Egypt, but Carter’s intent there was entirely pro-Israel, but also of course pro-Carter. Carter thought, wrongly as it turned out, that he would be a hero to the most powerful people in America, then clearly the most powerful country in the world, if he could achieve a peace treaty that would ensure Israel’s survival. In fact, Carter found Israel reluctant to make a peace deal with Egypt, and the result of securing Israel’s southern flank was to allow it to invade Lebanon, which invasion and occupation encouraged the growth of terrorists and non-conventional combatants to become Israel’s long term problem, rather than conventional nation-state military threats. Carter lost more Jewish votes to Reagan than any Democrat has to any Republican since FDR put Jews firmly in the Democrat camp.
In short, the “doveishness” Democrats are famous for usually doesn’t apply to questions regarding Israel. And Republicans were, before Bush Junior, known as the “realist” party that had good relations with the Arab states. The first hasn’t changed, it isn’t clear if the latter has changed going forward.
A good post up until the last paragraph, where you impute bad faith and devious calculation to pro-Israel pundits, when self-righteousness and self-deception would be more accurate.
An interesting question is to what extent the Israel Lobby is able to dominate foreign policy because of the support of the Evangelicals.
Now of course, being very well organized, funded, and Jews having a strong presence in general in America's political, economic, and cultural elite certainly counts for a lot of the Lobby's influence.
But I can't see the Lobby having as much power and influence over foreign policy if all those Evangelicals were old school mainline Protestants instead, without any Israeliphilic "End Times" theology.
Without the Evangelicals, the Israel Lobby would certainly be more powerful and influential lobby than the Cuban lobby, but they just wouldn't have the electoral power. They wouldn't be able to summon up phony religious and 'civilizational' passions and feelings in order to have Americans blindly follow. Most Americans don't know anything about Israel, rarely (if ever) even meet a Jewish person in their entire lives, and frankly don't ever think about or care about Israel.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful than the Saudi-led Islamic lobby in the US, and it's understandable that patriotic Americans should be concerned. A particular threat is neoconservatism, which often combines Israel-first nationalism with suicidal invite-the-world liberalism.
However, worldwide the Saudi-Islamic lobby is both more powerful and more evil, ie more inimical to us and our wellbeing.
Of course the biggest threats arise when the two combine, eg both believe in open immigration to the US and in threatening Shiite Iran.
The main role of the Evangelical worship of Israel is to prevent a populist backlash against the policies the Lobby, er, lobbies for. But it wouldn’t matter anyway, as the same Evangelicals who support Israel oppose amnesty, open borders, “free trade”, gay rights and abortion on demand. Most of those remain in some way the de facto policy of the government and most certainly the preferred policy of the elite.
There is simply no real Evangelical presence among the elite. There are more Catholics among the elite by far than non-liberal protestants. And note that virtually no elite Catholics are opposed to the Lobby and for a very good reason. To oppose the Lobby openly would expose one to being destroyed by those who favor the Lobby. It isn’t Evangelicals who are the key to the power of the Lobby, it is the fact that the Mainstream Media (which rarely even mentions the existence of the Lobby) favors the Lobby and would attack most likely under another pretext anyone who opposes the Lobby. See Walt and Mershemier for example.
To see how the Mainstream Media manages this issue, just see if any rank and file Evangelicals even realize that the Lobby exits or has the degree of clout that it in fact has. They either wouldn’t know about it or would doubt that it is powerful. Instead Evangelicals view the issue of Israel’s survival as associated with their own sense of being marginalized and their own underdog status regarding the social and economic issues mentioned above.
Freeman is a Saudi shill. Steve, you've got interesting things to say. When you write on foreign policy, however, you lack the training, knowledge and imagination to write with any insight -- you come across as an idiot if not worse. A shame, really. Stick to what you know. Also, don't let your personal Jewish complex get in the way of careful thought and exposition. Question: was your father part of the Israel lobby that runs American foreign policy?
There is a Jewish lobby and I'll say so. I'm Jewish.
All you anti Israel types should rejoice because Israel will not get as good treatment as under George Bush. Just look what the 0bama people did to Gordon Brown and the UK. Zero respect for our traditional Anglo ally and it is because the new tilt will be to non white nations everywhere. Mexico too on illegal immigration.
When the king/thug? who rules Kenya shows he will get a royal reception
Israel is a bulwark against Jihad, not that I expect atheist libertarian types to care about that. In that way you are like the naive European socialists who welcome Muslim immigrants. Despite Madoff etc Jews are a much better deal than Muslims and much better for civilizational advancement. Check out the Nobel prizes for medicine, physics and more
Maybe a (subconscious) reason that the American Evangelical types support Israel is that, quite simply, the academic lefty types *don't*?
One side's action demanding an equal and opposite reaction from the opposing side, that sort of thing.
Similarly, on GNXP it's often said that one of the reasons for the kneejerk reaction of religious Americans against evolution and Darwinism is that "the atheists are for it".
Forget the power of the Israel Lobby. Instead look at the power of the coming Madoff Victim Lobby. These people are about to force the taxpayers to pay back their lost billions, in amounts far more than that guaranteed by the government. They'll get much if not all of
what they demand. And, of course, it has nothing to do with their ethnoreligion. Nothing at all. Pay no attention to that. If they were Utah Mormons getting ripped off in yet another Utah Mormon Ponzi scheme they'd get the exact same treatment.
Mr. Wiesel thought the government should help the victims — or at least the charitable institutions among them. “The government should come and say, ‘We bailed out so many others, we can bail you out, and when you will do better, you can give us back the money,’ ” he said at the Portfolio event.
I spoke, for instance, to Phyllis Molchatsky, who lost $1.7 million with Mr. Madoff — and is now suing the S.E.C. to recoup her losses, on the grounds the agency was so negligent it should be forced to pony up.
I've never been among the folks here who engaged in jewbashing. But if this happens I just might start. No - change that to will start. Mr. Wiesel, whose life has supposedly been devoted to fighting anti-Semitism, will ultimately be responsible for causing only more of it.
Most Americans don't know anything about Israel, rarely (if ever) even meet a Jewish person in their entire lives ...
Never meet a Jewish person in their entire lives???
The author of that statement is obviously a rather ignorant foreigner.
In fact, they even control the Democrat Party's foreign policy to some extent.
To some extent? Are you joking? They own the Democratic party 100% and have since the 1970s. Don't confuse leftists and Democrats with "The Democratic Party" when it comes to foreign policy. It used to be the GOP had people, like James Baker and Pat Buchanan, who were not 100% in thrall to Israel, but now even those elements have been successfully purged.
Freeman himself wrote that the affair "will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. ..."
Who's kidding who? If there's a certainty in this world, it is that no U.S. leaders will ever take divergent positions on the Middle East. Those decisions will be handed down to them for as long as that non-existent Lobby possesses the powers of finance and intimidation. I think it's laughable when those partisans attempt to compare the feeble Saudi or other Arab connections to that of the entrenched Zionist gang. "Look, they're doing it, too!" Yeah, right!
We know doggone well that Obama would never be in that White House, if he had not made all the right deals and talked all the right talk to the right people. Remember his AIPAC appearance, where he felt inclined to wear that blasphemous lapel pin that combines logos of the Israeli and American flags. Yuk!
Obama passes his AIPAC test
if Freeman's attack on the "Israel Lobby" means anything at all, it is that the president and his staff are either too weak to resist the machinations of these foreign agents -- or are in cahoots with them. The same would go for the senators and House members who also opposed Freeman.
No, that's what Freeman's appointment getting queered by foreign agents means.
"In cahoots" is an attempt to ridicule activity more soberly described as "conspiring". Members of the Imaginary Lobby use remarkably similar language to insinuate that Freeman's accusations of conspiracy reflect poorly on his "temperament".
Conspiracists heal thyselves!
This is just a ploy by the Israel Lobby to show off their power, to make Obama dance to their tune, to humiliate the President by forcing him to make a big speech claiming he's not dancing to their tune, that there's not even a tune playing, that only Bad People hear any music.
Well said.
The tune is treason.
Why is it that whenever a provocative incident takes place re the Israel business, some optimist claims that the climate for discussion has changed, and a new day is at hand. Of course, this is never the case, not even after the Mearsheimer paper was published. Yes, there was a momentary stir, and then it was business as usual -- if anything, worse than ever. Yet here is Glenn Greenwald pitching the same bit of optimism that I'm sure he believes. I only wish I could believe it.
Charles Freeman, Roger Cohen and the Changing Israel Debate
Talk of the "Israeli Lobby" immediately puts to mind that of the Dreyfuss Affair. Jews reasonably see it as another attempt to demonize them and catch them in a no-win situation.
Deeply assimilated Jews get hauled off to the ovens, as was the case in France, Germany, most of occupied Europe. Jews are the one group that can never be accepted and never will be accepted. In fact, it was the Dreyfuss affair and various anti-Semitic goings on that convinced formerly assimilationist and nationalist Theodor Herzl that Zionism was the only possible solution because Jews would NEVER be accepted in any country but their own.
The reaction of Europe, Latin America, and the Asian nations as well as the Middle East and Europe, to Israel, being the only nation censured for "human rights violations' while Sudan, Burma, Congo, Cuba, North Korea, and others go unrebuked serves to make that case further, in the modern era.
Even more of a concern, is the growing anti-Semitism among the Left in alliance with the "Father Coughlin" right such as Pat Buchanon, noted anti-Semite and Hitler admirer.
Jews tend to have a lot of relatives, distant or otherwise, in Israel. They wish to have the ability to accept them into the US in the case of a catastrophe, instead of having them end up in ovens, JUST LIKE LAST TIME.
The US refused admittance of Jews, most of them wealthy and educated, fleeing the Nazi holocaust. The St. Louis being a good example.
Jews have good historical and recent reasons to equate "Israeli Lobby" (which in practical terms is overwhelmed by the tidal wave of Saudi money that hires former Presidents like Clinton) as an attempt to prevent their relatives from seeking safety and instead make sure they are wiped out. Since it happened the last time, within living memory.
Morever, the Pat Buchanon idiots who blame "the Jews" on Jihad have it all wrong, as usual letting their innate anti-Semitism do their thinking (they hate Jews more than they love their country, something that applies not only to Buchanon, but also to Coughlin and Lindbergh back in the day).
Jihad is all about building an exile Army and militia, to overthrow whatever government. Americans, Soviets, who ever, it does not matter as long as they are infidels and weak targets who don't fight back. Modern technology, being a commodity, makes Western technological dominance a thing of the past.
Evangelicals support Israel (Palin has an Israeli flag in her office) because they face the same enemy: Islam. Evangelicals are active in missionary activities in Africa, where Islam seeks to erase Christianity by killing as many Christians as possible, and enslaving the rest. Evangelicals are active now as they were before in African anti-Slavery activities, the Sudan being a hotbed of Islamic slavery of Christian captives.
In addition, in places like the Philippines and other places like Europe where Muslims are in appreciable numbers, Christians face beheading (three Christian schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia) and such by Muslims as a routine matter.
Evangelicals know their enemy and their one ally against the enemy. THIS more than theology explains Evangelical support for Israel.
Carter is a well-known anti-Semite and Evangelical. Carter pushed for a "comprehshensive" peace plan that basically called for dismantling Israel and was furious when Sadat made his own deal. He's since accussed Israel of being the worst human rights violator on the planet, worse than Burma, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Cuba, Congo, or North Korea. Only willful anti-Semitism can explain that, a feature of older Evangelicals.
What did in Freeman of course was Pelosi wanting him gone. Because her Chinese money-men thought he was too much under the Cronies control and wanted US influence to provide some check (and like Jews, safety lines of emergency emmigration in case of danger) on the Chinese crony leadership.
Anonymous said:
"Without the Evangelicals, the Israel Lobby would certainly be more powerful and influential lobby than the Cuban lobby, but they just wouldn't have the electoral power."
They still don't have real electoral power in the sense of voters who vote on Israel's interest. They really do get all their power, warning -- "canard" ahead -- from monetary donations. Anyone who goes against the lobby, regardless of party and regardless of whether his congressional district is in Montana, will have his opponent lavishly funded in the next election. A few hundred grand here and there can keep everyone in Congress in line, and everyone in Congress knows it.
"An interesting question is to what extent the Israel Lobby is able to dominate foreign policy because of the support of the Evangelicals."
Evangelicals have their theology backwards if they think support for Israel's bellicosity will get them brownie points with God. Support for Israel has nothing to do with salvation in Christ. It may or may not make sense in its own right. But it has no theological significance. It’s on the level of whether you support Taiwan or not. Eventually it will be forced from the church, just like all false teachings before.
traditionally the power of the lobby was on the Democratic side, Ike was the only president, ever to tell them to f*ck off, but then again it would have been pretty hard for the lobby, in 1954 to accuse HIM of anti semitism...
They have been slowly gaining power in the repubs by the mis-directed theologically repulsive christian zionist movement and the loss of wasp power and the increase in over all jewish power.
I am suprised hillary even uttered some criticism of israel, but i suspect its just political theatre
"This is just a ploy by the Israel Lobby to show off their power, to make Obama dance to their tune, to humiliate the President by forcing him to make a big speech claiming he's not dancing to their tune, that there's not even a tune playing, that only Bad People hear any music."
Yes, but this is how it has always been in these situations, Steve, well before there was something called an "Israeli Lobby". You're complicit in perpetuating it - you're censorious of posts that in any way deal with the great taboos, which I can't even list because you'll hit the old delete button. We who've studied those taboos and come up with different beliefs than the party line are, like those who mention this supposed "Israel Lobby", also Bad People.
Your deletions are totally understandable. Like you our livelihoods, for some time now, have been linked to all of us remaining as Good People...deaf or mute or indifferent Good People.
Now I'm heading back to my new E.O. Wilson book, Superorganism.
I have heard it said the the Israel Lobby has been pushing on an open door for the last half century. By not having any sort of opposition, AIPAC and others have not had to defend themselves in the slightest. Their only brakes is how hard they can push.
The advent of mass migration from the Middle East combined with a demographic dearth of Jews in America and elsewhere make it inevetable that they will face increasing opposition at several levels.
While it can be said that White Christians in America are supportive and sympathetic of Jews and Israel, the same cannot necessarialy be said about the "new Americans" such as Latinos and Asians as well as native black Americans.
This will continue to play out in ways that are not entirely predictible nor desirable for those who enjoy the status quo.
How does the Israel Lobby hold so much power?
Jews have a lot of money. Most of them are deeply committed to increasing collective Jewish power, so they spend their money accordingly. Jews are indoctrinated from a young age with a rich mythology of victimization, and the result is an almost total lack of conscience with regard to accumulating power.
Also, arguing over issues has been at the core of Jewish cultures for 2000 years. Their verbal IQ has been driven through the roof, so Middle East debates are an easy victory for them.
Verbally smart Jews get massive financial rewards for coming up with the arguments necessary to justify Israel's actions.
Evangelical Israel-firstism has always struck me as the coloring of the extended phenotype.
Re, Lane's bloviating as equivalent to a "ploy by the Israel Lobby to show off their power".
Charles Lane and, for that matter, The New Republic were influential in building the "neo-con" / "neo-liberal" base for Bushism (and Goreism). But after Bush won, TNR turned against Bush on most of his policies, and lost influence. You'd have a better case if this was a post about William Kristol, if his foil had been Cynthia McKinney, and if it had come out in 2002.
I don't think Lane has the ear of, or is the voice of, anybody but himself. Even under Bush he was redundant. That may explain his bluster, in fact.
Also, Freeman was an odious creature, a beneficiary of the Saudi lobby, with a long history of inflammatory comments. Jews need a whole lobby to complain about that? If Freeman had said the same things about Lapps as he'd said about "Israelis", he'd be getting reindeer dung thrown at him for that.
I'm interested to know, Steve: if Freeman had antagonised some other minority group on a foreign government's dime, and one of said group's supporters made a rant about that - would you cast this in terms of one monolithic "Lobby" with vast amounts of "power"?
Even more of a concern, is the growing anti-Semitism among the Left in alliance with the "Father Coughlin" right such as Pat Buchanon, noted anti-Semite and Hitler admirer.
What kind of person, after all these years, still continues to throw around smears like this? It sounds like the ravings of a lunatic. So, if Buchanan is no toady of the Jews, he's automatically a "Hitler admirer?" If one has contempt for Israeli policies, one ipso facto thinks of Hitler? Who reaches back to Father Coughlin, of all people?
Are you just playing word games?
How can anyone possibly not find T99 entertaining? He's a hoot. Almost a caricature. But remember, he's not Jewish. America is his country and he's definitely not Jewish. Definitely not.
Victoria, Google is your friend.
In a 1977 Globe-Democrat column discussing John Toland's biography of Adolf Hitler, Buchanan wrote:
“Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#Hitler.2C_World_War_II_and_the_Holocaust
Right on Steve!
Steve, is everyone writing in favor of Israel part of "the Lobby"? Am I part of the lobby without knowing it?
There's no Israel lobby! It's not a lobby anyway, it's just the administration, ANY US administration.
Where was secretary Hilary's very first official trip? To Rahm Emmanuel's old country.
Don't dare call it a "petit pays de merde" as some French official did. It's the capital of the New Empire.
How can anyone possibly not find T99 entertaining? He's a hoot. Almost a caricature. But remember, he's not Jewish. America is his country and he's definitely not Jewish. Definitely not.
I don't think T99 is Jewish.
We know he has problems with Anglo-Saxon Americans. (They run Hollywood!) I'm going to guess he's from another prominent Ellis Island ethnic group but has adopted a sort of Jewish world view, but with sympathy for the plight of working class whites. (That bit is not very kosher). My guess is he's Irish Catholic, with a bit of Scots-Irish somewhere in his background.
Too bad Porky didn't have the wit to tell us what he thought was wrong in that Buchanan quote about Hitler.
Tell me, Porky, was Stalin also a BAD, BAD man about whom nothing positive should ever be said. I mean aside from the fact that he knocked off his partner-in-crime(Hitler) when he (Hitler) turned on him.
As I am at other sites, I must agree with Silver: testing99's/evil neocon's posts are fantastic. From Philo down to modern screenwriters and speechwriters, he's one more torchbearer in a long line of amusing, over-the-top, Scotch-Irish rhetoricians.
It seems likely that The Lobby problem will eventually take care of itself. Setting aside foreign policy issues, the next on their list is immigration issues. They have relentlessly and quietly been pushing for America to have an open border to the south, a nearly complete constriction of European immigration and to top it all off, for immigrants to hold to their old beliefs and ways via multiculturalism. It takes very little snooping to figure out that outside of the muslim world, latinos are the most anti-semitic folks on the planet. So, when America has been de-whitened, and the latinos (who have been encouraged to hold onto their heritage - old prejudices) are in charge, where will that leave Israel?
"Porky said...
"Victoria, Google is your friend.
In a 1977 Globe-Democrat column discussing John Toland's biography of Adolf Hitler, Buchanan wrote:
“Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him...Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path."
So? I don't see how this makes Buchannan an admirer of Hitler. He is pointing out that Hitler had some considerable innate talent as a politician, which apparently must have been true. Is there anything substantially wrong in what Buchannan wrote here? I don't see it.
Buchannan may well be an anti-semite - he has written some things which give off that vibe - but being an anti-semite does not make one a nazi sympathiser. Roosevelt was anti-semitic. So was Truman. So probably were a lot of the young American soldiers and airmen who died liberating western Europe from the nazi yoke. Were they nazi sympathisers too?
When will people learn that it is entirely possible to dislike a group of people - and yet not think that they should be harmed, let alone exterminated. If you stop to think about it, there is probably some group of people that YOU don't like (gypsies perhaps - after all, who DOES like them?). Does it necessarily follow that you think they should be exterminated like rats? Or do you just try to avoid them?
It is this conflation of anti-semitism with pro-naziism which really pisses off a lot of people and can even predispose them against jews. If one is told that he must - must, mind you - like some particular person or group of people - his natural inclination may well be to develop a dislike of them.
Testing99 -
How often do you have to be reminded that every passenger on board the St Louis found refuge somewhere. They just happened to find refuge in countries which were eventually overrun by Germany.
I don't see why Jews had any greater a right to escape the conflagration of World War II than anyone else in Europe. Tens of millions of people died in that war. Most of them weren't Jewish.
The United States has no moral, legal or ethical obligation to grant refuge to every threatened or supposedly threatened population. We simply couldn't handle the insane number of people that would come.
Now get back to enjoying your weekend on your unsinkable aircraft carrier. Sorry there won't be any women there with you. I have 30 or 40 hotties staying at my house on Lake Tahoe.
"Anonymous said...
Forget the power of the Israel Lobby. Instead look at the power of the coming Madoff Victim Lobby."
The other night on his TV show, Sean Hannity said he couldn't think of any reason why the victims of Madoff's scam shouldn't get a bailout. Translation: he's on board with the program - no opposition from him. Is it possible that Rupert Murdoch lost a bundle with Madoff?
P.S. Re: Hannity - Lawrence Auster had a great observation about him - "He looks stupid. He sounds stupid. He is stupid."
Quoting Buchanan on Hitler:
. . . he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers . . .
Once one has read one of the major biographies of Hitler, as well as Mein Kampf, how is it not possible to recognize a certain "genius" about the man? To me, Buchanan is making objective observations. The fact that, to your mentality, "genius" is to be applied only in a favorable fashion, shows your limitations. And I thought that Time magazine solved the use of the term "great" long ago. Why don't you "Google" that?
I came away from reading the Bullock bio and Albert Speer's first book viewing Hitler as brilliant in his understanding of human nature and his possession of great intuitive powers. It's kind of childish not to be able to apply objective observations, isn't it? What you see as "good qualities," as mentioned by Buchanan, are nothing more than facts about Hitler's personality and how he evolved socially and intellectually.
What has one's behavior as a soldier got to do with anything? Does the soldier behave in a courageous fashion vis-a-vis his fellow soldiers, or does he cut and run? Is a soldier supposed to gear his behavior towards pleasing the foreign enemy, or towards winning the war against the enemy?
I was struck by an anecdote told by Speer about Hitler's contempt for exaggerating German superiority. Hitler angrily upbraided Himmler for publishing some bragging propaganda about Germany's superior culture. Hitler said something like, Germans were still crouching around fires and living in trees, when Greece and Rome had achieved the highest heights of culture. And he warned his lieutenants to leave off such bragging, as it would be best to be silent about the past. He was not just a raving nationalist, but did have a keen understanding of history, and knew how it could be used for and against Germans. His knowledge is displayed over and over in the bios, in Mein Kampf, and in Speer's memoirs.
Buchanan's views on Hitler are correct and insightful. That's more than I can say for a defensive person who does not have an objective bone in his body when it comes to historical figures he dislikes.
Porky, don't be so obtuse- if you're going to link to something to rebut Victoria- you need more than that- Buchanan clearly says he was a racist and anti-semite who killed with no compunction....he also stated reasons he was able to aquire power...
Where would the proverbial Man from Mars think was the center of Earth's government? Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. or the UN Building on the East River in Manhatten?
Or put it another way. If you as a small country having limited resources could only afford one representative to speak on your nation's behalf on international issues, would you hire a diplomat for the General Assembly or a lobbyest for the US Senate?
De jure world government in in NY City. De facto world government is in Washington DC. Jews are smart. They seem to have figured this out. What's the problem?
Funny I follow the news all the time said...
There is simply no real Evangelical presence among the elite. There are more Catholics among the elite by far than non-liberal protestants.
That is because our elite is regional. The northeastern quadrant of the United States has dominated our culture since at least the Revolution, and this cultural power gets increased over time by the power of simple compounding. Even if the local population gets replaced like it did between 1850-1920 the power remains in that region. The financial markets are located there, the New England Eduplex is still there and the press (ex: NYT) is still there. The connections and prestige built up by these organizations remain even when the locals they hire to staff themselves changes over time. The Evangelicals are regional, based in the interior and South, while our rulers are based in the North and the pacific coast.
I have 30 or 40 hotties staying at my house on Lake Tahoe.
Lost count, eh?
Or maybe you counted some of 'em more than once?
I hate it when that happens....
You da man, Hef!
OR:
So the economic downturn hasn't affecting the escort business, then? Good to know. Call me when you IPO....
Now get back to enjoying your weekend on your unsinkable aircraft carrier.
God I love the unsinkable aircraft carrier thing.
Unsinkable...undrivable, unlandable, unusable...
Where would the proverbial Man from Mars think was the center of Earth's government? Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. or the UN Building on the East River in Manhatten?
He'd think lobbyists ruled the world.
So, when America has been de-whitened, and the latinos (who have been encouraged to hold onto their heritage - old prejudices) are in charge, where will that leave Israel?
Not just latinos, virtually everyone else. Have a gander at that blog "Patrick Cleburne" (vdare) linked to. The Indians commenters assault the author, whom they mistakenly believe to be Jewish, with Jew this, Jew that so brazenly it'd make a net-nazi blush.
Either we'll see a mutiny aboard the good ship USS Lobby or the crew aboard the good ship USS Israel will be forced to jump ship.
The average Conservative bushwacker is told that we gotta stand up to the ragheads and that Israel is the first bulwark of defense in this battle. Therefore to support Jews (any old Jews) is to support America - it is the same as apple pie, the Stars and Stripes, Sousa marches, and Lady Liberty.
White schoolchildren are indoctrinated in Holocaustianity by Speilberg's groups, the ADL, and others (never mind that there is a great deal of funk in the Holocaust; e.g. the Oprah story of the camp romance that turned out to be a fraud; Finklestein's "The Holocaust Industry," the officially retracted claim of human-skin lampshades - still widely taught - etc.)
All this propagandizing explains the Lobby's power among the American electorate.
The "Conservative Bushwackers" also seem to be under the impression that Muslims are hellbent on killing nonMuslims, including and especially Americans.
I can't imagine what in Islam's 1,300 year history could have given Americans (and increasing numbers of Europeans, Hindus, any nonMuslims) the impression Islam is a terrorist religion...
Matra said: "I don't think T99 is Jewish."
I stick by my contention that he's half-Jewish (perhaps on his father's side, which gives him plausible deniability).
I have 30 or 40 hotties staying at my house on Lake Tahoe.
All the WS babes at the recruitment party. Maybe they're into a new line of work. COuldn't think what it would be...
green mamba sed:
"I stick by my contention that he's half-Jewish (perhaps on his father's side, which gives him plausible deniability)."
I agree but obviously it would have to be his father's side. Its suprising how many non-jewish activists for all sorts of cultures and issues have Jewish fathers/grandfathers. Isn't Epstein also such a fellow? Activism seems to run in the veins.
Problem #1: Foreign lobbies have power over the US government. The Israel lobby is the biggest and most powerful, but not the only one. This is a bad thing.
Problem #2: Obama's been rolled several times now on cabinet posts. (He hasn't staffed the treasury department, even though we're in the worst financial crisis since the depression. It's hard to express how horrifying that is.) This is also bad--many of us hoped we were getting a competent leader to replace the previous wellborn fool; this fumbling with cabinet appointments suggests otherwise. (I think it's a symptom of the fact that the president has never run anything larger than his presidential campaign before.)
Problem #3: Domestic politics sometimes trump all other considerations in foreign policy, as with Israel and Cuba policy. I suspect our policies toward many other countries must also live within bounds determined by internal politics--for example, how hostile could we actually be to Mexico, given the number of first-generation Mexican immigrants
living here? This is inevitable, but it also has some unpleasant consequences.
The Israel lobby has power because of #3, and had the power to kill this nomination partly because of #2. All this adds up to a pretty dismal picture for the next few years. (But reading any serious economic/financial reporting will already give you that.)
"The "Conservative Bushwackers" also seem to be under the impression that Muslims are hellbent on killing nonMuslims, including and especially Americans.
I can't imagine what in Islam's 1,300 year history could have given Americans (and increasing numbers of Europeans, Hindus, any nonMuslims) the impression Islam is a terrorist religion..."
Actually Bush lobbied to have ethic-based screening dropped at airports prior to 9/11. Ethnic screening would have filtered out Atta and co. Ann Coulter wrote something about this.
Muslims in Arab countries can want to kill whitey as much as they like, it does not matter and isn’t a threat to the West.
The problem with Islam is wilful uncontrolled immigration of millions of Muslims to western countries. Why are western pols and assorted multicultural/Jewish organisations hell-bent on Muslim immigration to western nations? This is the real question. And there lies the danger.
Post a Comment