May 25, 2011

2012 Bibi Bandwagon gains momentum

Akiva Eldar writes in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about Bibi Netanyahu's triumphant address (two dozen standing ovations) to the U.S. Congress:
Sara Netanyahu once said during a family gathering that if her husband had run for president of the United States, he would easily be elected (assuming, of course, that he were legally allowed to run). Indeed, in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address before both houses of Congress on Tuesday, he made impressive use of all the gimmicks of an experienced and sharp-tongued American politician. ... 
Netanyahu proved that he has no Israeli equal when it comes to plucking the strings of American patriotism, of guilt feelings over the Holocaust, and most of all, of the wish of Congress members to preserve their close ties with the large Jewish organizations.

Old joke:
Q: Why doesn’t Israel apply to become the 51st state?
A: Because then they’d have only two senators.

Poor Obama figured he could take a gentle swipe at Bibi, thought he could articulate American policy without clearing every jot and tittle with Bibi beforehand, because Bibi is the equivalent of a Republican in Israel, so the President would at least have the Democrats in America on his side out of sheer partisanship. He didn't realize that in the U.S. Congress, "Politics stops at the border (of Israel)."

In The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan feels sorry for his President:
Not since Nikita Khrushchev berated Dwight Eisenhower over Gary Powers’ U-2 spy flight over Russia only weeks earlier has an American president been subjected to a dressing down like the one Barack Obama received from Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday. 
With this crucial difference. Khrushchev ranted behind closed doors... Obama, however, was lectured like some schoolboy in the Oval Office in front of the national press and a worldwide TV audience. 
And two days later, he trooped over to the Israeli lobby AIPAC to walk back what he had said that had so infuriated Netanyahu. “Bibi” then purred that he was “pleased” with the clarification. Diplomatic oil is now being poured over the troubled waters, but this humiliation will not be forgotten. 
What did Obama do to draw this public rebuke? In his Thursday speech on the Arab Spring and Middle East peace, Obama declared: “We believe the borders of Israel should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. … Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat.” 
Ignoring Obama’s call for “mutually agreed swaps” of land to guarantee secure and defensible borders for Israel, Netanyahu, warning the president against a peace “based on illusions,” acted as though Obama had called for an Israel withdrawal to the armistice line of 1967. 
This was absurd. All Obama was saying was what three Israeli prime ministers — Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert — have all recognized.  ...
Undeniably, Netanyahu won the smack-down. The president was humiliated in the Oval Office, and in his trip to AIPAC’s woodshed he spoke of the future peace negotiations ending just as Israelis desire and demand. ...
The one explanation that makes sense is that Netanyahu sees Obama as more sympathetic to the Palestinians and less so to Israel than any president since Jimmy Carter, and he, Netanyahu, would like to see Obama replaced by someone more like the born-again pro-Israel Christian George W. Bush. 
And indeed, the Republicans and the right, Mitt Romney in the lead, accusing Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus,” seized on the issue and, almost universally, have taken Netanyahu’s side.

Personally, I don't think the West Bank is very important. I received this great gift a number of Christmases ago, an extra-large free-standing globe for my office. But even on this globe, I can barely find the West Bank. If the Israelis want to push around the Palestinians, well, I don't really care much. I roused myself enough to write a two part review of Jimmy Carter's book Palestine Peace not Apartheid for Taki's Magazine in 2007 (Part 1 and Part 2), but I haven't had much to say since then because it's not my country.

What I do care about is what all this says about my own country.
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. … Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite [foreign nation] are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
—George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Here's the irony. The GOP is, more or less, the party of WGPs -- White Gentile People, the heart of the nation. But, normal, natural national feelings among WGPs have been so demonized over the years that they've adopted a foreign nationalist politician, Bibi Netanyahu, as their proxy so they can enjoy nationalism by proxy.

Bibi's quite a guy. He just isn't my guy.

But what are the Democrats in Congress' excuses?

124 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let's get that constitutional amendment going, then.

nurdinator said...

You're just jealousy 'cause Bibi's sexier 'n smarter than you.

turdinator said...

Bibi has some of the most noxious and unreasonable political views I have ever heard from a politician. Only African dictators like Mugabe come close in bigotry and unfairness. Funny how Jews always pound us with political morality, but when it touches their interests the old unscrupulous methods are employed.

Anonymous said...

Good for Netanyahu and good for the Jewish community for standing up to protect their interests. Being picked on and bullied for 2000 years is enough.

eh said...

"...Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat."

Surprised this statement did not generate more comment.

Just stop giving them money -- let Jews in America give all they want, they seem to have enough. Then increase the price they pay for weapons.

Anonymous said...

I have reason to believe these battle lines were drawn before you or I or Bibi were born. That being the case, I'm loathe to second guess my ancestors who had it in mind to ally me with Israel.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the only difference between Israel and the Soviets is....the Soviet leader was nicer!

Ah, the ugly Old Right. I wonder, just wonder, why they never make any political headway...

Cat Stevens's agent said...

Obama's lack of experience with actual national-level politics was demonstrated for the nth time. This isn't some city council feud, where you play the local reporter sleazes for column inches and then parade your rabble through the bad guy's front lawn out in the suburbs. When he does this Obama manages to terrorize his natural boosters and only pleases people like Steve and Pat Buchanan, who say they loathe him for other reasons, while the Vanden Heuvels of the world become irritated at Obama's meekness in the midst of a sacred rivalry. I think Walt Russ Mead described it as falling between the stools. Anyway, the President, again, looks like a chump, and I share your stated lack of concern for what ultimately happens to gangsters in Nablus who fire automatic weapons upward and whose idea of civil service is more akin to an AM-PM selling $20/gallon gas and gouger-sized bottles of soda to illiterate peasants from the refugee camp, so I am looking forward to Netanyahu conducting more humiliations, perhaps by doing the next discussion with Obama's translator in Hebrew or perhaps a French-Arabic patois.

Garland said...

Well, what's the down side for the Democrats? Do you think they really think support for Israel encourages terrorism? They think poverty encourages terrorism. Do you think they particularly care about Palestinians either? The far Left does but not the Democratic Washington-Left establishment.

Garland said...

Or are you wondering why they don't mind a foreigner pushing us around? Come on, they're Democrats!

Garland said...

From neocon website Hot Air today: "You guys sure you want to keep that “Natural Born Citizen” clause in the Constitution? If Bibi jumped into the GOP primary tomorrow, I’m guessing he’d start at around 65 percent in the polls."

agnostic said...

"But, normal, natural national feelings among WGPs have been so demonized over the years that they've adopted a foreign nationalist politician, Bibi Netanyahu, as their proxy so they can enjoy nationalism by proxy."

A strong people won't let "demonization" get to them one bit -- just like how in high school the nerds' demonization of anyone with a life had zero effect on the togetherness of the popular people.

The demonizers can only succeed when the target group has already grown weak and internally divided. They just deliver the coup de grace to the moribund half-corpse.

Check out Reagan's address to the 1984 Republican Convention (on YouTube) -- no need at all for nationalism by proxy. I stopped counting how many minutes he had to pause while the crowd broke into chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

That's despite all the demonizing that had been building for decades. It didn't slow them down at all, though, because they weren't in-fighting and spineless.

Anonymous said...

Good for Netanyahu and good for the Jewish community for standing up to protect their interests. Being picked on and bullied for 2000 years is enough.

More obfuscation and lies. Jews were the original persecutors of Christians, it can be read in Acts. Since then cause and effect has not turned around.
Who is persecuting Jews nowadays?? More like they are persecuting gentiles financially and Pals physically.

Anonymous said...

The GOP is, more or less, the party of WGPs -- White Gentile People, the heart of the nation.

Nope. 45% or so of "White Gentile People" are Democrats/liberals and I don't honestly think you can say that the Republicans defend the interests of Whites any more than the Democrats do (which is to say, not at all).

Anonymous said...

Good for Netanyahu and good for the Jewish community for standing up to protect their interests. Being picked on and bullied for 2000 years is enough.

Lol!

That was an ironic comment wasnt it? Wasnt it?

Anonymous said...

eh said...

Just stop giving them money -- let Jews in America give all they want, they seem to have enough. Then increase the price they pay for weapons.


Good plan! They sure have money, even though they walk around with a hat all over the place. And I guess money can buy you a certain type of friend, a fair-weather friend. So Republicans are fair-weather friends of Israel. Otherwise Jews don't much have friends.

Anonymous said...

I don't honestly think you can say that the Republicans defend the interests of Whites any more than the Democrats do (which is to say, not at all).

True, but Steve meant they were the party of Whites, not the party for Whites.

Anonymous said...

How many times has this happened? Didn't Bush also get humiliated at some point? You'd think they'd at least learn their lesson and turn down that AIPAC invitation. Surely Ron Paul would turn down such an invitation on principle, i.e. not give lauding speeches to any foreign lobby.

sabril said...

"If the Israelis want to push around the Palestinians, well, I don't really care much."

Well it's kinda like race. You may not care about it, but it cares about you. Pat Buchanan may not admit it, but he is obsessed with the Jews and by extension Israel.

"Bibi has some of the most noxious and unreasonable political views I have ever heard from a politician"

In your view, what is his most noxious and unreasonable view?

dearieme said...

Ahoy, Steve: as the Greatest Living Authority on O, would you care to opine on the strange business of his date mishap?

(Scroll down to 17:45 at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8535086/Barack-Obamas-visit-to-UK-and-Ireland-as-it-happened-day-one.html)

Fred said...

"Just stop giving them money -- let Jews in America give all they want, they seem to have enough. Then increase the price they pay for weapons."

When Netanyahu gave his speech to Congress last time (in '96), he talked about phasing out U.S. aid for Israel. If anything, Israel has less need for U.S. aid today -- it's stuffed to the gills with weapons, and its economic growth, unemployment rate, and currency all look healthier than America's right now. You don't make any friends in Congress by turning down U.S. aid though, since most of it gets spent at defense companies in the U.S.

Fred said...

Netanyahu has a better command of English than any Israeli politician since Abba Eban, but Eban sounded more like Tony Blair or C3PO. Netanyahu sounds like what a charismatic American Republican presidential candidate would sound like if we had one.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Congressional Democrats applauded the guy who was dressing down the President? You'd think they'd realize that making Obama look weak will do them no favors in 2012?

But I guess those kinds of considerations go out the window when the Emperor comes to visit the Death Star.

Anonymous said...

Notwithstanding Netanyahu's protestations and assertions, the best solution for Israel is the South African one: one-man-one-vote in a unified country with right-to-return and forgiveness of political violence on the part of the Palestinians. After all most Jews insisted that this was the only acceptable outcome for South Africa, so why should it not be applicable to Israel?

Silver said...

Good for Netanyahu and good for the Jewish community for standing up to protect their interests. Being picked on and bullied for 2000 years is enough.

He's not playing defense, he's playing offense. Enough lying. Get lost.

Anonymous said...

Now the guys at the Onion are reading your stuff.... well done Steve-O!!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

Anonymous said...

i wonder if any congressmen standing up and applauding realize they are committing treason (not by applauding, but giving into AIPAC) as israel becomes more isolated than ever and is about to demographically swamped, americans are more detached from reality than ever - mindlessly cheer leading policies that have dragged this country to the abyss.

I wonder how prominent jewish americans feel when they see this - do they know its a big lie? Do they know they are being hypocritical when they support an ethno state for jews yet are feverishly working in EVERY western country to make whites a minority?

This is the face of evil. there is no other way to put it - when blatant lies are repeated, the truth ignored, when injustice after injustice occurs, when treason is so widespread that none dare speak its name, it is the manifestation of pure evil.

Anonymous said...

Being picked on and bullied for 2000 years is enough.
It may be nasty but there is an old polish proverb "the jew cries out in pain as he beats you. "

anony-mouse said...

Er, those White Gentile people created:

Zion National Park
Zion, IL
Zion, MD
Zion, MO
Zion, OK
Zion, PA
Zion Twp, MN

I could go on naming places in the US with related names, none of it having to do with 'guilt'.

Perhaps you know less about White Gentile people than you think.

josh said...

"thought he could articulate American policy without clearing every jot and tittle with Bibi beforehand"

Here's what I don't get, Steve. Wasn't Obama articulating *Israeli* policy? Specifically that the Israelis must give land for peace and appease people who have been shooting rockets into their country.

Now, I honestly don't care any more about Israel than I do about Libya, but aren't these two similar situations. Shouldn't we just leave these people and their de facto government alone to deal with their neighbors?

Polistra said...

If truly by itself, Israel would be more free to defend itself. All of our administrations, despite differences in detail, have used the lever of foreign aid to restrain Israel's ferocity. Without that lever, Israel wouldn't have any particular reason to keep the leash on its nukes.

Anonymous said...

"But what are the Democrats in Congress' excuses?"

Since I am from Chicago, and have experienced similar things, I assume that it because of massive graft!

Truthinator said...

Steve is right on the money. For Americans it matters little what happens in the West Bank. It's simply not our problem.

But we make it our problem when we are the ones enabling the oppression. Israel can get away with everything it is doing only because of us.

That might be justifiable by sheer realpolitik, if we got something valuable in return for all our unstinting, unwavering, quivering unconditional lovemaking to Israel.

But we don't! We don't get jack out of it! Throwing three billion into the Potomac every year would be much more productive. No stain on our national conscience, also it would help fight inflation.

Anonymous said...

"More obfuscation and lies. Jews were the original persecutors of Christians, it can be read in Acts. Since then cause and effect has not turned around."

Our interests supporting the historic American nation would be better served if the anti-semites jumped off a cliff.

bjddubbs said...

The only acceptable form of American nationalism is Israeli nationalism. It's what the Freudians call displacement.

icr said...

American nationalism became obsolete when FDR's dreams of a world democratic (cryptocalvinist?) empire led to US entry into WW2. FDR was looking forward to a postwar US-Soviet condominium ruling the planet and supplanting the reactionary empires of the British and French. After the war, Truman quickly found out that this was one of FDR's loonier ideas. Thus the long Cold War between the two universalist superpowers and the Permanent Warfare State which is with us still.

Russian nationalism was reborn after the Soviet collapse-no such easy way out for the US.

Anonymous said...

Bibi sounds (voice and inflection) just like Chaim Witz and has almost as much Chutzpah.

Duncan Idaho

Anonymous said...

and despite seeing this obvious demographic, Jewish american elite are STILL trying to make us a minority.
Gee, thanks.

Baloo said...

Wonderful post, Steve. Ex-Army grabbed your phrase "Nationalism by Proxy," and ran with it HERE.

Luke Lea said...

You may not care about the West Bank, Steve, but the West Bank cares about you.

I don't fault Ashkenazi Americans for using all their influence to secure American support for the state of Israel. If I were in their shoes I would do the same.

What I do fault is their sacrificing the interests of American working people in the name of the unrelated issues of trade and immigration, a sacrifice which, in the case of free trade at least is in theory unnecessary. Friends need friends over the long-term and it seems to me a mistake to define America's national interest in such a way as to ignore the economic well-being of 80 percent of the American population who make their livings with their hands and their feet.

If demographic trends eventually doom the state of Israel (something I hope never happens) Israeli Jews undoubtedly expect in the back of their minds to be able to immigrate to the United States as their final safe haven. But when that happens Evengelical support will lose its whole Biblical rational.

If American Jews befriended the American working class they might a surer foundaton for long-term support. This is the way I would be thinking if I were in their shoes. But what do I know? I'm just a member of the American working class, whose main worry is the future welfare of my daughter and the kind of America she will grow up in.

ZZ said...

OT:

New data on LSAT scores, law school GPA, and bar passage rates by race. Overview, comment, and links to studies, including one by Linda Wightman, here:

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2011/05/down-market-diversity.html

Luke Lea said...

I should add that my working-class posterity contains its full complement of Hispanics, African-Americans, and Jews. This is not about race.

Mark Caplan said...

Q. Why doesn't Bibi run for president of the United States in 2012?

A. There's constitutional impediment: presidents can't serve a third term.

ZZ said...

The new study includes yet another example of the fundamental constant of sociology.

Average white LSAT = 152.88, average black LSAT, 142.25. The test's standard deviation is normed to be as close to 10 as possible, and was 9.9 and 10.25 the two most recent years.

Anonymous said...

"Netanyahu proved that he has no Israeli equal when it comes to plucking the strings of American patriotism, of guilt feelings over the Holocaust..."

Why should Americans feel ANY GUILT over the Holocaust? If memory serves me right, US fought and defeated the Nazis. Should we feel guilt for the Ukrainians who starved to death? The Chinese who died in the Great Leap Foward? The Rape of Nanking--even though, when you think about it, US, prior to the embargo, did more to aid and abet the Japanese war machine than the German one.

Harry Baldwin said...

War Nerd had a column a few years ago about war in the future, focusing on the Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) pioneered by the Israelis and adopted by the US.

He wrote, "The trouble with this nice clean automated-war scenario is that nobody wants to play with us. The US can play that game, but who else can? The Israelis? They're the only real combat-tested RPV-using army. And if it came to a US vs. Israel war, let's face it: the US Congress would back Israel all the way, and the US'd have to surrender before a shot was fired."

Anonymous said...

It's just whores cheering for their pimp.

On some level, there must be an element of resentment and shame among the white gentiles, but the spectacle is so embarrassing that they repress their shame with over-enthusiasm, a desperate attempt to fool themselves and the world that they are completely sincere, in control, and in support of a helpess friend deserving of compassion. It's almost like a bunch of beggars feeling sympathy for a rich person(which can also be said of GOP's slavishness to Wall Street). Come to think of it, our celebrity culture is also like this. We have middle class people, working class people, poor pepole, and even those on welfare feeling sorry for all those famous millionaires and billionaires with all their 'tragic' problems, oh boo hoo. Same in UK. Princess Diana got killed as a result of excessive/reckless living, but all those poor suckers wept and prayed when she died as if she was Anne Frank or something.

The history of US-Israel relations is like a game of GO, where two sides try to encircle one another with white and black pieces. For quite some times, Jews have been winning, encircling American politics in every corner.
But early on, the US support of Israel had its advantages for white gentiles, especially the wasp elite. What was one of the big fears among Wasps? It was the fact of high Jewish intelligence + Jewish leftism, i.e. Oppenheimer the father of the atomic bomb was something of a Soviet sympathizer and closet-communist. So, it was in the interest of wasps to drive a wedge between Jews and leftism--or at least Soviet commmunism. And Zionism, a form of Jewish nationalism, was the key. Recall that Soviets also supported Zionism to win the world Jewry to their side. If Israel had leaned toward the Soviets, American Jews might have felt even closer to communist Russia. All those smart Jews might have served as spies or agents for international leftism.

But US support for Zionism grew stronger, and Israel cozied up to the US. With the rise of Zionism, American Jews felt cloesr to America(than to the Soviet Union). Also, Soviet Jews--and others in Eastern Europe--came under suspicion as Zionist-loyalists than good communists. In the movie SUNSHINE, William Hurt(who plays a Jewish character)is accused and hten executed in postwar Hungary as a Zionist spy. In time, most Jews came to hate Soviet Russia.

So, even though most Jews did remain on the left, the rise of Zionism did drive a wedge between American Jewry and the Soviet Union during the crucial yrs of the Cold War. So, in the 50s and 60s, Wasps were winning and cleverly manipulating the Jews. But who would have thought Jews would gain elite control of most of the powerful institutions and use Zionism to manipulate white gentiles in both parties by tying it to the Holocaus and Christian guilt and all that? So, in the end, Jews have won the game of Go, just like they win at chess.

Anonymous said...

"If Israel wants to push around the Palestinians I really don't care much".

Well you should care Mr. Sailer because their doing it on your dime sir. America gives Israel three billion dollars a year - each and every single year. To a very large extent America enables the bullying and oppression of the Palestinian people.

And Americans wonder why they are so resented and suffer terrorism. But of course they only hate you because you are free.... Apparently not free from the Jewish lobby though..

Anonymous said...

You lose a war you started, then want back the land you lost in initiating that war? Nothing ventured, nothing gained, but nothing lost as well?

Sure, right, give back the land. That'll stop 'em from ever attacking again.

Ed said...

Many on the Left has been contending that Israel is just another white colony, similar to French Algeria or Rhodesia, and are hostile to Israel for that reason.

Increasingly, I am seeing support on the Right for Israel become stronger precisely for the reason that it is a white colony, similar to French Algeria or Rhodesia! I am increasingly seeing the same language used to support Ian Smith back in the day, or Boer-ruled South Africa, used in support of Israel as well.

There is also an interesting divergence between Steve's "citizenship" position and the white nationalist/ supremacist viewpoint of many commentators, who are attracted to his site for the HBD stuff. From a citizenship perspective, Israel poses a threat to American institutions through its rather aggressive lobbying. From a white supremacist perspective, Israel is roughly to the US what Rhodesia was to the UK, which from this viewpoint is a good thing.

travis said...

Here's the irony. The GOP is, more or less, the party of WGPs -- White Gentile People, the heart of the nation. But, normal, natural national feelings among WGPs have been so demonized over the years that they've adopted a foreign nationalist politician, Bibi Netanyahu, as their proxy so they can enjoy nationalism by proxy.

This is an interesting point. I think you're off the mark just a bit. You must take into an account that the Civil War and, even more importantly, Reconstruction and the subsequent Gilded Age have complicated normal national feelings. A sense of nationhood in the South only returned after the entry of the US into WWI (the great film Birth of a Nation was used as a propaganda tool to rally support for US involvement), which set the pattern for creating a feeling of nationhoood from shared opposition to a common enemy (fascism, communism, terror, etc). Without this crusading spirit, so the theory goes, the United States would cease to be united.

Since the conclusion of the war in Vietnam, the Southern fighting spirit has been sublimated into frenzied support for the state of Israel and the local college football team (sorry, Steve, the films of Mike Judge don't incite the same fervor). Of course it's completely irrational, but that's to be expected since the South still remains feudel at heart, even if its exterior has changed, and now that the search for the Holy Grail (Osama Bin Laden) is over, the question becomes how will a sense of national unity be maintained.

If the federal government can no longer meet its financial obligations, then the US could fall into chaos, which, as Whiskey likes to point out, is the state of existence in which the Scots-Irishman thrives. No one understands the Scots-Irishman better than Cormac McCarthy. When discussing No Country for Old Men on here, several commentators stated their dislike for the movie because the repeated stupid decisions made by the main character are unbelieveable. However, if you understand his decisions to be unconscious ones, then the story is more credible. The good ol' boy doesn't really want to live a domesticated life (which is why he lives in a trailer and has no children); he unconsciously desires to bring violence and chaos into his life. He was born to fight. I think we may even interpret the movie's villian, Anton Chigurh, to be the redneck's double, shadow, doppleganger, or whatever you want to call him. He is, whether he understands it or not, the the ultimate badass.

Mercer said...

The white GOP leaders are bigger fans of Bibi then the liberal Jewish bloggers I read. For example:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/05/a_proud_day_for_obama.php#more

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/bibi-netanyahus-case-for-one-state/

Anonymous said...

Obama brought that on himself by overestimating (as usual) his talents for speech.

The problem is, speech-making is about words as well as style and in his choice of words, he was either very carelessly or very arrogant. Both bad, especially in trying to conduct diplomacy, and esp. in trying to conduct diplomacy in the Middle East.

As if that weren't bad enough, he did in with Bibi not even in the country yet, on a plane in route here, I believe. What's that tell you? It's the kid who runs his mouth carelessly or arrogantly (don't really know which was the source of Obama's idiocy), as long as the other guy is not in the room.

Bottom line--our President invited that Smackdown. BTW, I thought the Smackdown was acutally pretty politely delivered considering what provoked it.

Anonymous said...

I'd like Bibi-- to protect my Southern border.

Old Rebel said...

Two dozen standing ovations? Who does Congress think Bibi is, the president of Mexico?

Anonymous said...

Ah, the ugly Old Right. I wonder, just wonder, why they never make any political headway...

Probably because people who coin and use terms like "Old Right" with various connotations for verbal warfare dominate?

Anonymous said...

Check out Reagan's address to the 1984 Republican Convention (on YouTube) -- no need at all for nationalism by proxy. I stopped counting how many minutes he had to pause while the crowd broke into chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!"

That's despite all the demonizing that had been building for decades. It didn't slow them down at all, though, because they weren't in-fighting and spineless.


You apparently don't understand Steve's point.

WGP nationalism doesn't end up articulating and serving WGP national interests.

Anonymous said...

How can 45% of whites be liberals when Gallup routinely lists 20% of all Americans as “liberal”? That 20% includes blacks, Hispanics, Jews and ethnic Catholics?

If you count white Protestants, then it is clear that they tend to be Republicans. And I can’t see any other group fitting the white gentle gentile category. White Protestants are the gentlest of the gentiles and they vote over 60% for Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Ed said...I am increasingly seeing the same language used to support Ian Smith back in the day, or Boer-ruled South Africa, used in support of Israel as well.

Yeah, well I guess its gonna end the same way then.

Anonymous said...

Pat Buchanan may not admit it, but he is obsessed with the Jews and by extension Israel.

You strike me as being a good deal more obsessed with Jews and Israel than Buchanan is, sabril. I'm sure you have some clever theory why you're allowed to be though.

Anonymous said...

Our interests supporting the historic American nation would be better served if the anti-semites jumped off a cliff.
i'm quakin in my shoes

Anonymous said...

I don't fault Ashkenazi Americans for using all their influence to secure American support for the state of Israel. If I were in their shoes I would do the same.

Do you use all your influence to secure American support for whatever your ancestral homeland is? It's not like Israel is even the ancestral homeland of Ashkenazi Jews!

Anonymous said...

At Counterpunch there is an interesting article about the possible results of Israeli intransigence: a one state solution. This is exactly what happened in South Africa and Rhodesia. The whites there felt secure with their formidable army and police, and were unwilling to make concessions whilst the going was easy (intransigence). Eventually they ran out of options and basically had to settle for a negotiated surrender.

http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon05242011.html

Anonymous said...

At this point it seems inconceivable that the U.S. would somehow be able to free itself from Israeli influence, by abolishing foreign aid and pursuing a foreign policy that only benefits American strategic interests.
A much more likely scenario is that as the financial situation of the U.S. continues to worsen, spending on infrastructure will be halted, social security will be discontinued, etc.
Accelerated migration, continued exponential population growth in the non-productive parts of the world (Africa), even more explicitly anti-white policies, and increasingly radicalized messages from our Israeli "entertainment industry" friends in Hollywood will probably create an America in the year 2060 that is as different from today as today is from America of 1960.
One scenario that seems unlikely is people of European heritage regaining their countries.
Thanks, Jews!

Whiskey said...

Buchanon is typically an idiot. He's the super-genius that thought it was smart to "negotiate" with Hitler. And respond to Pearl Harbor with "peace offerings." He's sub-moronic.

Just like Obama. Obama gave a clarion call for Israel to commit suicide -- return to pre-1967 borders and admit any Palestinian. That was never going to fly, ever.

And for what? What other than perking up Obama's Muslim bonafides did throwing Israel under the bus get the US? Sure it made Obama feel good, for a while, but it got him and the US nothing.

Anonymous said...

Conservatives are trying to pull the same stunt they did during the Cold War. If back then, the idea was that radical leftism was bad for Jews since Soviets were allied with Arabs and also persecuting Jews in Russia(a fact that really did piss off Jews, what with Susan Sontag calling Soviet Communism, 'fascism with a human face'), the notion pushed by conservatives today is one of "antisemitic Islamism allied with Leftism", especially in Europe and increasingly in the US. Since the Western Left has grown more critical of Israel and sometimes marches with Muslims agaisnt the American-Zionist controlled global system, the preferred logical conclusion, as far as conservatives are concerned, is that Jews need to abandon leftism and ally with conservatives who care about Jews. And so, there are some on the Right who would have us believe that the War on Terror is the great struggle of our era comparable to WWII--against anti-Jewish Nazis--and Cold War--against anti-Zionist Soviets. Since so much of everything today depends on approval of Jews who control government, purse-strings, media, and think-tanks, white gentiles feel that their interests have to be framed in terms "It's good for Jews". All agendas must pass the Kosher test and win the Zionist stamp of apprval as Grade A Philosemite. And if you can't win over liberal Jews, then at least try to win over Neocon Jews. If not neocon Jews, then orthodox Jews. If not orthodox Jews, then Hasidic Jews. Any Jews is better than no Jews(on your side). You have to show you love Jews, any Jew. By associating modern leftism with anti-Zionist Islamism, conservatives are desperate to bring more Jews to their side.

Anonymous said...

But there's a problem with this strategy. Though most Jews are offended by Islamism and Arab anti-Zionism, few really believe that Israel is on the verge of being invaded or destroyed by the 'Muzzies'. Also, even though Jews came to hate the Soviet Union, it had less to do with the leftist aspect of the Soviet Union than its rightist aspect. Jews lost power not because of Soviet leftism but Soviet rightism, aka, revival of Russian nationalism among the Slavs--and other forms of 'national communisms' in other Warsaw Pact nations. Though the communist bloc remained economically communist until 1989, they had turned politically rightwing by the 1950s, with native gentiles taking power from Jewish communist. So, the decline of Jewish power in Soviet Union fits into the Jewish narrative of 'rise of goy majority national identity/pride is bad for us'. And it is for this reason that American Jews fear white rightism more than leftism. As long as whites are the majority and may be able to mount/pose a threat to Jewish power, Jews will see white conservatives as their their main threat. Jews also remember that Soviet Russians at one time embraced Russian Jews as fellow revolutionaries... only to reject the Jews as alien agents of another nation--Israel. So, even though white conservatives go out of their way to cozy up to Jews, Jews fear that once white conservatives regain power, they'll go after the Jews... .like when James Baker said, 'the hell with them.'
Also, there is an element of pitiful pleading among white conservatives to the Jewish community, and no one respects beggars and tail-wagging dogs. It just fills Jews with more contempt for white conservatives(once mighty people now reduced to whores), especially since Jews suspect--not without justification--that white conservative sympathy for Jews conceals a 'daker' agenda.

One fact we have to understand is that Jews are gonna doggedly cling to their elite position just like Zealots clung to Masada. They are the kings of the hill and they don't want white conservatives to march up to the top, even if the latter pose as the greatest friends of Jews. Jews figure that once white gentiles reach the top, they may reveal their 'true agenda' and push Jews off the cliff.
So, Jews figure that more diversity among gentiles means bickering and tensions among goyim, which means goyim won't be able to unite to march up Masada to come after the Jews.

Whiskey said...

Obama makes a speech telling Israel to commit suicide. Bibi meets with him the NEXT DAY and tells him visibly NO! in very certain terms.

Then, Obama makes the same statement at AIPAC and gets muffled applause. Bibi addresses Congress and gets Standing O's.

HARRY REID rebukes Obama. The Dems in the SENATE! put together a rebuke for Obama.

That's not even smart politics. Its governing by emotion and pique, something out of a small time Black pol, you'd expect it from Maxine Waters. Not the President. He's a joke.

Anonymous said...

Two dozen standing ovations.

And who were the last to rise, and the first to sit down?

No degree of anti-Semitism can be tolerated.

Whiskey said...

Netanyahu has no magic mind control. Israel is just a proxy for anti-Muslim sentiment among ordinary Americans, Western exceptionalism, and evangelical feelings (Evangelicals read the Bible ALL THE TIME and think of themselves as "NEW JEWS" so to speak).

Pretty much any Israeli leader would have met with the same success.

Obama's policy of having Israel commit suicide is akin to his Libyan policy -- stupid and with no advantage whatsoever for America. Or his Syrian policy -- hailing Assad who is using artillery to kill his cities like his dad as a "reformer."

Obama is stupid and unwilling to say what he believes -- he likes hard line anti-American tyrants (Assad, Ahmadinejad/Mullahs, the Saudis, the Pakistanis) and hates pro-American allies (Israel, Mubarak, etc.)

Obama is unwilling to do what it takes to win (Libya, Egypt, Syria) and has no coherent ME policy except "hate Israel/pro-American dictators" and "embrace America's enemies" on the thought that "moral goodness" by hating America will bring peace and prosperity. He is THAT STUPID.

Whiskey said...

As for Israel, demographics alone mean Israelis are desperate for a deal, but one that excludes suicide. The Israelis no more want to rule over millions of Palestinians than most White Americans support Mexicanization.

However, Israel has enemies all around it, the "Arab Spring" means basically the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and elsewhere, and they face Iranian nukes. When withdrawing unilaterally from Gaza, all they got was rockets. Hamas and the PA are not willing to make any deal that leaves Israel intact, and alive as a nation.

Look for: some sort of unilateral withdrawal from part of the West Bank, strengthening the rest, and WAR with Syria, Egypt, Lebanon/Hezbollah, and Hamas. Already Syria is trying mass swarms over the border and Israel is likely to respond by a surprise attack.

Whiskey said...

Lets see who persecuted Christians? Who fed them to Lions, crucified them, and so on. Could it be ... ROMANS?

Jews really don't matter, making up about 2% of the vote in 2008. What matters is how Israel affects US interests in the ME, which is broadly defined as stability (no wars) and cheaper oil.

US aid to Israel restrains its action, puts a proxy out there that has regional power, gains intel (note Ariel Sharon advised against the war to unseat Saddam) that is generally higher quality than that of other allies, and helps secure the Eastern Med. Recent finds of Israeli natural gas fields offshore are so gargantuan as to rival that of Russian ones and possibly feed Europe's needs.

It is the same with the Saudis. We don't like the Saudis, they are hostile often in sponsoring Jihad against us, but the alternative is worse. (Same with Mubarak). Absent Israel, could we get the same or better deal with say, Hamas? Hezbollah? No. So lets be realistic. Israel is a net plus for the US, we can no more retreat into George Washington fantasies of isolation than we are going to be writing by candle-light.

As long as this nation uses oil, we have a vested interest in making the ME stable and oil cheap.

Anonymous said...

What I don't understand about Steve Sailer and his blog is as follows: pretty much 90% of everything he writes is about coming up with arguments to justify stopping immigration from Latin America. Steven really, really despises Latinos. He really does, the protestations notwithstanding. He wants a return to pre-1965 U.S, which he things was much bettet than modern U.S - even though it wasn't a very good place to all who weren't white gentile heterosexual males. Steve is a gentile heterosexual male, so of course he would prefer a society where he is king even if it means that all others who are not like him are subjects. That is natural. Humans are more selfish than altruistic. I can't blame him. Fair enough. But what I don't understand is this: why does Steve love Jews so much and always write about them in such flattering terms since JEWS ARE THE ONES WHO DESTROYED THE BELOVED AMERICA HE LOVES SO MUCH. The 1965 Immigration And Naturalization Act, which opened the doors for non-European Third World peoples to the U.S was essentially a Jewish creation. Jewish intellectuals came up with it, campaigned for it, lobbyed for it and implemented it. They are also behind all minority movements like feminism, black power, gay and lesbian movements, etc. What has been happening in America in the last 5 decades is that Jewish heterosexual men have been using non-white heterosexual men, white heterosexual women, and homosexual men of all races as props to disenfranchise white heterosexual males. It is a MASCULINE DOMINANCE WAR and nothing more. What do they ultimately want? What all heterosexual men of any race wants: the highest social status, power and control over other people. Jewish heterosexual men regard white heterosexual men as their only true rivals, and they believe that once they have ultimate status, that they can easily subdue and control minorities or appease them.

And this is the great paradox of isteve blogspot and Steve Sailer himself: the man loves pre-1965 America and at the same time loves the people who destroyed pre-1965 America. Riddle me that? What a paradox, huh? Either Sailer is completely naive, or he is a coward who knows who the enemy is, but is too afriad to point his finger at them, so he tries instead to appease them and "bring them to our side". Well, you can't, Steve. Jews have never displayed any loyalty to any country they have ever lived in, and never will. There is nothing special about the U.S that would make Jews good citizens who care about their country. If you read Cicero's writings on Jews from two millenia ago he points out how Jews become Roman citiens enjoying all the benefits of citizenship, but never have to comply with any of the duties, and how they take over the World of finance and monopolize it for their own gain to the detriment of everybody else. They have done it innumerable times before. What makes you think it will be different with the U.S?

Crawfurdmuir said...

White non-Jewish peoples living in what used to be called Christendom would have trouble with the Muslim world regardless of the existence of the state of Israel. We have had such trouble since the time of Charles Martel. Hilaire Belloc, who was hardly a friend of the Jews, predicted in the fourth chapter of his book "The Great Heresies" that the West would have to contend with Islam long after Bolshevism was but a memory - and he has been proved correct by events.

Anon. of 5/25 at 9:21AM has his facts basically right. They just need some more detailed exposition. The establishment of Israel peeled away some of the Jewish diaspora's support for communism in general and the Soviet Union in particular. As a consequence, the politics of at least some American Jews has begun to follow a familiar pattern of ethnic voting. Because since 1948 they have had an ethnic identification with a foreign nation, they behave less like the "rootless cosmopolitans" of yore, and more like voters of Irish, Polish, or Greek extraction. Slezkine's "The Jewish Century" discusses these changes perceptively.

On the other hand, the prime identification of other American Jews is more with the international left than with Israel. They had no difficulty with the Israeli Labor party, or with the avowed socialism of the earliest Israeli governments.

But now that Likud is in charge, and the population of Israel is no longer dominated by western Ashkenazic Jews in the way it was in the days of Ben Gurion, the bloom is off the rose. Israeli politics has been shaped more recently by Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union, who have experienced socialism at first hand and are disillusioned with it, and by Sephardic and Oriental Jews who fled thence from Muslim countries. Netanyahu represents the thinking of these people, and not of American Jewish leftists.

If Likudniks running Israel can fracture the near-monolithic support of American Jews for the left and the Democratic party, that is all to the good.

In the mean time, other Americans should not delude themselves that friendly relations with Arab and other Muslim nations are obstructed only by the irritancy of Israel. The West will always have to deal guardedly with Islam. As Pat Buchanan observed long ago, all they have that is of interest to us is oil, and they have to sell it to us, because they can't supply their people with the necessities of life if they do not. Apart from the limited contacts necessary for the furtherance of this commerce, we should have as little to do with the Muslim world as possible. A policy based on this matter-of-fact understanding, free from cant about human rights or 'demaaahcracy', is what will serve Americans best.

Svigor said...

Good for Netanyahu and good for the Jewish community for standing up to protect their interests. Being picked on and bullied for 2000 years is enough.

Newsflash: Jews have been starting fights for 2000 years. The "being picked on and bullied" part is just selectively remembering the parts where they did more receiving than giving, and forgetting the rest.

Svigor said...

But I guess those kinds of considerations go out the window when the Emperor comes to visit the Death Star.

LOL!

tommy said...

Yes, the only difference between Israel and the Soviets is....the Soviet leader was nicer!

The is a good example of what I call an "inflatable man." It's a variant of the straw man: inflate your opponent's statement to the point of hyperbole and then deflate the argument your opponent never actually made.

Ah, the ugly Old Right. I wonder, just wonder, why they never make any political headway...

Followed by the veiled threat: criticism of Israel will get you nowhere, paleoconservatives! (Not that Israel exercises undue influence on American policy or anything...)

Svigor said...

Notwithstanding Netanyahu's protestations and assertions, the best solution for Israel is the South African one: one-man-one-vote in a unified country with right-to-return and forgiveness of political violence on the part of the Palestinians.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I wonder how prominent jewish americans feel when they see this - do they know its a big lie? Do they know they are being hypocritical when they support an ethno state for jews yet are feverishly working in EVERY western country to make whites a minority?

Every white country.

cable 09MOSCOW3033, ANTI-SEMITISM ON THE WANE IN RUSSIA REF: MOSCOW 2586

"the jew cries out in pain as he beats you. "

Liberals in general do the same thing.

Without that lever, Israel wouldn't have any particular reason to keep the leash on its nukes.

Sure they do. If Israel nuked the Arabs, the Pakis or the Russians or the Chinese or the North Koreans would slip the Arabs a nuke, and they'd use it on Israel. Or, everyone would start selling them first-rate arms.

Our interests supporting the historic American nation would be better served if the anti-semites jumped off a cliff.

How so? Just curious.

Personally, I'd like to see Americans trying to leverage something out of our support for Israel. Say, reciprocity vis-a-vis ethnostates from Ashkenazi-Americans? I'd settle for American pols who simply shouted from the mountaintops about loving Israel so much, they want to make America more like her (starting with immigration policy and "civil rights/anti-discrimination law").

"Nationalism by Proxy,"

I think "cuckold fetish" is more spiritually accurate, if not literally. Is there a word for a eunuch voyeurism? I guess we're stuck with transference.

I don't fault Ashkenazi Americans for using all their influence to secure American support for the state of Israel. If I were in their shoes I would do the same.

Me neither.

What I do fault is their sacrificing the interests of American working people

Here's where I diverge. I fault them for supporting their ethnostate, then turning around and vilifying ethnocentrism on the part of whites, and doing everything in their power to deny to whites what they have in Israel. Whatever else it is, it's not the behavior of a friend.

Svigor said...

Ex-Army money quote:

Try to visualize an American politician who was his actual counterpart, and then imagine what the media would do to him.

If you're not constantly thinking in terms like this, you're missing most of the action.

corvinus said...

The good ol' boy doesn't really want to live a domesticated life (which is why he lives in a trailer and has no children); he unconsciously desires to bring violence and chaos into his life. He was born to fight.

Hence the strange similarities between Pashtuns and Scots-Irish. I still think Afghanistan should be dubbed the "West Virginia of the Middle East" by someone besides myself... phooey.

corvinus said...

Many on the Left has been contending that Israel is just another white colony, similar to French Algeria or Rhodesia, and are hostile to Israel for that reason.

This would explain why immigration-restrictionist ("far right") parties in Europe support Israel (or Likud), but they mainly express a kind of "enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of solidarity. The Zionists in the USA, on the other hand, especially the evangelical "Christians", literally worship Israel because it's built into their religion.

This Israelophilia on the part of the majority of Americans will continue until the Zionists commit some shockingly unforgivable atrocity of some kind and get caught, like the Holocaust did to the Germans. Their victims will be the next sacred cows.

Anonymous said...

so let's see if I've got this straight:

it doesn't matter to you what happens to western civilzation EXCEPT for the US - there, you are really concerned.

to heck with Israel, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the White South Africa.

Is that really how you feel?

Let's hope not.

Anonymous said...

"If the Israelis want to push around the Palestinians I don't really care much".

That statement by Sailer, who is an otherwise smart guy, reflects the thinking of many Americans. It also shows the hidden, unacknowledged, but terrible cost of the Jewish/Israel connection to America.

In 1996 there was a 27 year old student in Hamburg, Germany. He has just watched on tv 102 Palestinian civilians being killed in Lebanon by American-equipped Israeli military. He instantly swore revenge and went to a mosque to make out a will.

Five years later Mohammed Atta flew a plane into the world trade center.

TomV said...

Sabril:

Pat Buchanan may not admit it, but he is obsessed with the Jews and by extension Israel.

And you're not?

Sure, you may not be interested in them, but they're interested in you. The question is, who's "they"?

Ah, that may depends on who you ask, right?

Yet in certain conflicts, only one side can give an antagonistic answer and still remain "respectable."

Anonymous said...

Ed said...I am increasingly seeing the same language used to support Ian Smith back in the day, or Boer-ruled South Africa, used in support of Israel as well.

Yeah, well I guess its gonna end the same way then.


Rhodesia had a peak white population of 250K, vs a black population of 4.75m people. Israel's population is about 7m, of which 80% is either Jewish or loyal to Israel. Unlike Jews, Rhodesia's population of expat whites weren't refugees from hostile European and Arab countries and were able to return to the homeland of their ancestors without too many problems. In contrast, Israel is the homeland of the ancestors of the Jews. Rhodesia's plantation economy could not provide 1st world living standards for the white population without a cheap, 95% black labor force, so even if they had carved out 5% (still twice the size of Israel) of Rhodesia and declared independence, the economy would have tanked, driving out the whites who had shown up for a life of privilege. In contrast, Jews built Israel from the ground up using Jewish labor.

Anonymous said...

"If the Israelis want to push around the Palestinians I don't really care much".

But Jews did care much when Afrikaners kicked around blacks. And Americans have been made care TOO MUCH when Palestinians, on occasion, got to kick the Jews back a little.
And Jews surely kick us around as much as they kick around Palestinians.

But most crucial of all, we need to understand that there are two kinds of sympathy: personal and political.
Personal sympathy is genuine and of the heart; political sympathy is instrumental and of the mind. There may be people who genuinely and personally feel sorry for Palestinians or Tibetans or any other people. But that is not the issue here.

The issue is political sympathy as an instrument of power. For example, few of us lose sleep over dissidents in China or Tibetans(unless one is Richard Gere). But we know that issue is useful as 'political sympathy' to pressure and shame the Chinese. Thus, 'human rights' is a power card that we hold and use against other nations.

Similarly, do American Jews really really care about South African blacks, American blacks, or Mexical Illegals? I'm sure some do. But for the most part, it's an instrument of 'political sympathy' to shame and undermine white power. And what a potent weapon it has been indeed!

So, the issue isn't whether we should really care about Pallies or not. Personally, I don't lose sleep over their plight though I do feel for them on some level. What really matters in the game of politics--which is a struggle for power--is the cruciality of holding the right cards. Morality is an instrument of power in the modern world, especially in a democracy that takes and stakes much pride in values such as freedom, justice, and liberty and all that Jazz. Since Jews used the 'human rights' card against whites, whites need to consider the Palestinian issue as 'human rights' card against the Jews. Not because we personally weep for Pallies but because there may be ways to morally blackmail Jews POLITICALLY... as they've done to us.

As Michael Corleone said, "It's not personal, Sonny. It's business."

Anonymous said...

"Our interests supporting the historic American nation would be better served if the anti-semites jumped off a cliff."

What is this "our interests" you are pretending to speak for?

"Anti-semites" in the USA have no power, no influence, no public voice whatsoever. If all anti-semites vanished today, there would be zero public policy impact on US foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

"Israel, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and the White South Africa."

One of these things is not like the others....

Anonymous said...

"(two dozen standing ovations)"

Who would have thought that Americans, the victors over Nazis and Communism, would one day elect as president a man shrouded in an overblown cult of personality?
Well, it happened with Obama.

And now, the spectacle with Bibi isn't too far removed from this:

Chairman Bibi:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIJvwxjVSak&feature=related

Bibi-mania:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6z-dYyl94M

Bibi the Dear Leader:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNVev9fAU7g&feature=related

Anonymous said...

Bibimania's song to America:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1wmvPP_-Qs

Landkey Froom said...

"Q: Why doesn’t Israel apply to become the 51st state?
A: Because then they’d have only two senators."

-Why buy the milk when you can screw the cow for free?

Anonymous said...

Since Jews used the 'human rights' card against whites, whites need to consider the Palestinian issue as 'human rights' card against the Jews. Not because we personally weep for Pallies but because there may be ways to morally blackmail Jews POLITICALLY... as they've done to us.

This card doesn't work that well, given that in the 20th century alone, Europeans murdered half the Jewish population. And the list of European atrocities against Jews goes all the way back to the Roman empire. It's hard to think of anything remotely comparable that Jews have carried out against the Arabs. Now, if Jews had interned 200m Arabs or 500m Muslims in concentration camps and worked them to death, then we could play that guilt card more effectively.

phonon said...

Errr, "public rebuke?" That seems like an overblown description.

The video is here
http://www.youtube.com/v/l28xJitnP78

Bibi starts about half-way through. Okay, Bibi comes off a bit pedantic...on the other hand, this is not a discussion about tariffs, but survival stakes. I really don't see a "dressing down". I think too many people are relying on second and third hand descriptions.

Anonymous said...

"If Israelis want to push around Palestinians, I really don't care much"...

WILL YOU CARE Steve when some terrorist tries to blow you up? Or your family?

The attitude of indifference is a luxury a Swiss, South Korean, New Zealander, Icelander or Mexican can afford. These countries mind their own business, do not supply Israel with military and financial freebies and are not controlled by a Jewish lobby.

Unlike America

Anonymous said...

And who were the last to rise, and the first to sit down?

No degree of anti-Semitism can be tolerated.


They must be purged immediately.

Anonymous said...

I have no problem with Israel. I just wish that American politicians/media would spend as much time thinking about our borders as they do thinking about Israeli borders.

As for Netanyahu, I think it was funny to see him humiliate Barack Obama. He's got more guts than John McCain. Of course, Netanyahu is probably the only person in the world that could get away with that.

David said...

George Washington was clearly an anti-Semite. Someone needs to write up the usual long wikipedia section ("Accusations of Anti-Semitism") for him, quick.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey said...

Lets see who persecuted Christians? Who fed them to Lions, crucified them, and so on. Could it be ... ROMANS?


Please read Acts in the NT. The Romans came later.

Anonymous said...

In 1996 there was a 27 year old student in Hamburg, Germany. He has just watched on tv 102 Palestinian civilians being killed in Lebanon by American-equipped Israeli military. He instantly swore revenge and went to a mosque to make out a will.

Five years later Mohammed Atta flew a plane into the world trade center.


But not a building in Israel.

Odd that.

cognac.100 said...

Not because we personally weep for Pallies but because there may be ways to morally blackmail Jews POLITICALLY... as they've done to us.

You're assuming that Jews feel ashamed about such behavior. Small problem is that Judaism doesn't instill the same level of conscientiousness as Christianity.

troasd said...

Perusing this thread it's obvious that Jewish and white gentile interests do not overlap; unless whites are being suckered or bribed to support Jewish interests, which is the case with Christian-Zionists and congress. In fact they are diametrically opposite, and since Jews are not known to compromise, when whites stick up for their own, it leads to automatic conflict between the groups.

trotzky said...

Anonymous said:But what I don't understand is this: why does Steve love Jews so much and always write about them in such flattering terms since JEWS ARE THE ONES WHO DESTROYED THE BELOVED AMERICA HE LOVES SO MUCH.

My impression is that Steve does not loathe Jews on a personal level, but does reject the undue influence which they have on the US political system in order to further the particular interests of Israel. And threads about Jews instantly get lots of responses. The only other topics which go similarly well are Obama and stuff about pretty women.

Anonymous said...

"In the mean time, other Americans should not delude themselves that friendly relations with Arab and other Muslim nations are obstructed only by the irritancy of Israel."

Bingo. Arabs don't accept that anyone other than an Arab ever contributed anything to humanity--they were first in everything, don't you know?


The "We'd like you if not for your support of Israel" is ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

"Steve love Jews so much and always write about them in such flattering terms since JEWS ARE THE ONES WHO DESTROYED THE BELOVED AMERICA HE LOVES SO MUCH."

He prolly saw TEN COMMANDMENTS a bunch of times. You mess with Jews and some mysterious force kicks your ass. So, I guess we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we accept Jews, Jews kick our ass. If we reject Jews, some mysterious force kicks our ass.

Anonymous said...

"Not because we personally weep for Pallies but because there may be ways to morally blackmail Jews POLITICALLY... as they've done to us."

"You're assuming that Jews feel ashamed about such behavior. Small problem is that Judaism doesn't instill the same level of conscientiousness as Christianity."

Shame? Not most Jews but some do feel them and their numbers are increasing.
But the real issue isn't shame. It's making Jews feel DEFENSIVE and ISOLATED. Also, as oppressors of Pallies, they lose the mantle of historical sainthood.
So, we can apply or reduce pressure on Jews depending on what Jews do for us. If Jews keep pushing us, we push them. If they stop guilt-baiting us, we stop with them.

And it's not just the Israel-Palestine issue. A potentially bigger issue where Jews are morally vulnerable is their great wealth, power, privilege, and influence in America. For a people who preach about equality and 'disparate impact' and all that stuff, they sure are doing a lot better than the rest of us.

The card we must play is 'should Jews be counted as a separate racial group'? This issue will make Jews very nervous.

Anonymous said...

"Lets see who persecuted Christians? Who fed them to Lions, crucified them, and so on. Could it be ... ROMANS?"

Maybe, but that's okay because Christians got even and then some. Once Rome became Christianized, it was the pagans who got their asses whupped.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

This card doesn't work that well, given that in the 20th century alone, Europeans murdered half the Jewish population."

Yeah, "Europeans". All of them? Every last one of them? Any of them still alive? Americans are derived from europeans. Did americans kill them too?

rudante said...

Anonymous said:But the real issue isn't shame. It's making Jews feel DEFENSIVE and ISOLATED. Also, as oppressors of Pallies, they lose the mantle of historical sainthood.

I turned from being a "Christian-Zionist" to being an Israel-boycotter. I make sure to not buy any of their products and services if I can identify them. Israel should be treated like South Africa, only they are worse.

Reluctant WN said...

"In the mean time, other Americans should not delude themselves that friendly relations with Arab and other Muslim nations are obstructed only by the irritancy of Israel."

I agree with this statement completely. The problem is in the meantime America's Mid-East policy is being dictated by those who at BEST suffer from dual-loyalty syndrome. Until this is no longer the case America can never deal rationally or honestly with the Islamic world.

sabril said...

"You strike me as being a good deal more obsessed with Jews and Israel than Buchanan is, sabril."

Of course I am . . . I'm a Jew and a Zionist. Duh.

David said...

>Israelophilia on the part of the majority of Americans will continue until the Zionists commit some shockingly unforgivable atrocity of some kind and get caught<

"Get caught" is the key. By whom?

sabril said...

"And you're not?"

I admit that I'm obsessed with Israel. What of it?

If there were a big movement against Ireland; if people were constantly calling for boycotts against Ireland and other policies calculated to lead to Ireland's destruction; if people were constantly insinuating that Irish people are trying to destroy Western civilization; I would hope and expect that Buchanan would obsess over and defend Ireland and the Irish.

Anonymous said...

"All agendas must pass the Kosher test and win the Zionist stamp of apprval as Grade A Philosemite. And if you can't win over liberal Jews, then at least try to win over Neocon Jews. If not neocon Jews, then orthodox Jews. If not orthodox Jews, then Hasidic Jews. Any Jews is better than no Jews(on your side)."

From "God on our side" to "Jew on our side."

Silver said...

If there were a big movement against Ireland,

The movement isn't "against Israel," though. It's against what Israel does. If Ireland were oppressing Ulster, hounding its people, denying them basic rights, flooding their Ulster's territory with "settlers" etc everyone would be "against Ireland" too.

I know you people get a lot of mileage out conflating taking stands against Israel's actions with taking stands "against Israel" but some of us are starting to see through the lies.

Anonymous said...

I admit that I'm obsessed with Israel. What of it?

Not just Israel, anything Jewish related gets you commenting. And "what of it" is that you're an odd one to go around accusing other people of being obsessed with Jews and Israel. Buchanan at least has other interests. You're a single issue commenter.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Jew and a Zionist.

Then shouldn't be be living in Israel? If that's how you self-identify?

I know that self-awareness is not your strong point, but try to imagine your own reaction to people living in Israel who said things like "I'm a Muslim and a Palestinian nationalist".

As long as you go about saying things like "I'm a Jew and a Zionist" you have zero basis to whine when other people question your (largely non-existent) loyalty to the country you live in.

ATBOTL said...

"But, normal, natural national feelings among WGPs have been so demonized over the years that they've adopted a foreign nationalist politician, Bibi Netanyahu, as their proxy so they can enjoy nationalism by proxy."

I think that's a big part of what's going on with Christian Zionists and pro-Israel conservatives in general.

Steve Sailer said...

I think he does live in Israel.

sabril said...

"The movement isn't 'against Israel,' though. It's against what Israel does."

:shrug: If there were a big movement against "what Ireland does," then I would hope Pat Buchanan would obsess about it. My point stands.

"If Ireland were oppressing Ulster"

To make your analogy complete, let's assume that the people of Ulster repeatedly tried to destroy Ireland and chase out all the Irish; had chased out all the Irish from Ulster itself; were taught from birth to hate Irish people and to believe that Ireland has no right to exist or defend itself; regularly launched vicious attacks against Irish civilians; and the oppression was reasonably necessary in self-defense.

sabril said...

"You're a single issue commenter."

That's not true, I comment on other stuff regularly too.

Anyway, if Pat Buchanan were obsessed with Ireland and the Irish, I wouldn't hold it against him, especially if there were a lot of anti-Irish sentiment floating around, allegedly directed at "what the Irish do."

Anonymous said...

I think he does live in Israel.

At Dennis Mangan's he's said he does not live in Israel. You have his IP of course.

sabril said...

"Then shouldn't be be living in Israel? If that's how you self-identify?"

Yes, unfortunately family obligations require that I remain in Jew York City for the time being.

"to imagine your own reaction to people living in Israel who said things like 'I'm a Muslim and a Palestinian nationalist'."

It would be the same. Ideally, Arab nationalists should voluntarily leave Israel but I can accept that some of them need to remain for various reasons. I don't have a big problem with it if they are not raising money for terrorism or whatever.

Anonymous said...

I comment on other stuff regularly too.

Really? Remind me of what that other stuff is again.

sabril said...

"Really? Remind me of what that other stuff is again."

Google is your friend:

http://tinyurl.com/3c699on

Note that less than half of my posts on the first two pages are related to Jews and/or Israel.