September 18, 2012

Maureen Dowd accused of anti-Semitism

From Dylan Byers in Politico, about Maureen Dowd's recent New York Times column "Neocons Slither Back" on the influence of Dan Senor and Sheldon Adelson over the Republican campaign's foreign policy:
Maureen Dowd meets anti-Semitism charge

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd set the Jewish political community on fire today with a column about the Republican ticket's foreign policy proposals that, according to her critics, peddled anti-Semitic imagery. 
Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a "neocon puppet master" who was leading the neocon effort to "slither back" into power. 
Such language, to say nothing of the questionable legitimacy of her claims, struck experts on American-Israeli relations as an inappropriate (though perhaps unintentional) appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah. 
"Dowd's use of anti-Semitic imagery is awful," Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Twitter. 
"Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews," Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic columnist and leading journalist on Israeli issues, wrote.

Right, Jeffrey, Maureen Dowd is obviously a naive young girl who hasn't been around the block a few times, so she doesn't understand the meaning of what she writes.

Goldberg, as usual, is way exaggerating, but, still, there's a more here than when, say, Goldberg started the smear campaign that got Glenn Beck thrown out of the MSM.

Look, Dowd's not twelve, she's sixty. Of course she knows she's peddling an old stereotype. She just happens to think the old stereotype is true, at least when it comes to Republicans. (Obama spent age 18-24 socializing predominantly with anti-Israel Pakistanis, so he's less naive than insular Republicans about what the rest of the world thinks of Israel.)
"[A]mazing that apparently nobody sat her down and said, this is not OK," Blake Hounshell, the managing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, tweeted. 

That sentence is worth pondering.
On the right, The Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper called it "outrageous," while Commentary's Jonathan Tobin described it as "particularly creepy." 
"Dowd’s column marks yet another step down into the pit of hate-mongering that has become all too common at the Times," Tobin wrote. "This is a tipping point that should alarm even the most stalwart liberal Jewish supporters of the president." 
"[The] weirdest part of the anti-semitic tropes on the Dowd column is how lazy they are," Max Fisher, an editor at The Atlantic who is leaving to launch a foreign policy blog at the Washington Post, tweeted. 
UPDATE (8:01 p.m.): Rosenthal emails, via a Times spokesperson: 
"No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd's column supports the allegations you and others are making. She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone's religion."

Because it's only about religion.

Seriously, my guess is that Dowd will get away with her column, even though she's Irish-American, because her column was in service of getting Obama re-elected, and she only attacked the influence of Zionists on the GOP. She didn't mention, say, Haim Saban's Adelson-like role in the Democratic Party. Dowd's a liberal Democrat who writes for liberal Democrats, and this was in the cause of hurting Republicans, so it's all good. But, anybody on the right who did this would be toast, career-wise. I mean, in the right wing media, Saban gets mostly good publicity, such as when Saban periodically whispers that Obama isn't pro-Israel enough.

My personal view is that the Sheldon Adelsons of the Republicans and Haim Sabans of the Democrats are a lot like Phil Knight and T. Boone Pickens, with their 9-digit efforts to win NCAA football championships for their alma maters (U. of Oregon and Oklahoma State, respectively). Boys will be boys. Knight and Pickens are excited by the idea of their linebackers flattening opposing quarterbacks; Adelson and Saban are excited by the idea of their bombers flattening Israel's enemies.

To extend the analogy, Adelson (pro-Likud) and Saban (pro-Israeli center, whatever they are called these days) are like big boosters of Alabama and LSU, respectively, who desperately want to beat the other for the SEC championship, but are also both in the joint business of making the SEC the dominant conference in college football, so that winning the SEC got you a near automatic invite to the BCS national championship game.

I'm fine with college football boosters wanting their teams to win as long as we're free to point it out, joke about it, criticize it, root for other teams, investigate college football corruption, campaign against college football in general, and so forth, without fear of being tarred as, say, an anti-Oregonist and being blackballed by all those fervent Oregonists and anti-anti-Oregonists who play such a huge role the media.

Similarly, I'm fine with Adelson and Saban doing their thing, just as I'm fine with some sleazy Coptic Christians (who do have a not unreasonable ethnic beef against the Muslims who are persecuting their relatives, don't they?) doing their thing on YouTube. I just think the rest of us should be allowed to point out what thing they are doing and why they are doing it.

The best criticism of the neocons and neolibs was made by George Washington in his famous Farewell Address, when he wisely urged Americans to avoid letting pro-France or pro-Britain partisans drag the country into the wars of the French Revolution. Granted, the prose style is difficult, but in an America with an unfettered discourse, this passage from the most carefully considered of all the testaments left us by the Founding Fathers would be referenced frequently in the MSM when discussing the Adelsons and Sabans:
"So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation…. 
"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. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests."

Judging from a Google search, however, citing the applicability of George Washington's Farewell Address to current events marks you as some kind of fringe nut, suspected and odious, far beyond the bounds of mainstream American discourse.

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://www.amren.com/news/2012/09/study-nfl-draws-best-grade-for-diversity-hiring/

IHTG said...

What has Israel ever done to Pakistan

Sheila said...

Good post. Prepare for the inevitable "You Jew-hater!" responses.

Anonymous said...

IHTG said...
What has Israel ever done to Pakistan

And which of these two countries did more to smash Soviet imperialism?

Anonymous said...

Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy


Uh huh.

Has she ever "fairly observed" that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are experts in the field of foreign policy? They are the people who've been screwing up US foreign policy for the past four years, not Romney and Ryan.

Anonymous said...

I am pretty sure it was Steve Sailer who quipped that electing a gay black president was this generations moon landing.

Today from Paul Kersey at SBPDL:

http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2012/09/like-step-on-moon-how-dwl-explains.html

Newman said he's proud of how America has progressed, though, but adds that "there's a long way to go."

"No European country would have elected a black man," he said. "I can't believe it happened. I think it's fantastic, like a step on the moon."

Turns out they really think that way

Anonymous said...

Okay Steve, here's the problem.

Your big theme here is that Jewish neocons are responsible for all sorts of evils. Point taken! I agree, and there is plenty of evidence to support that.

But you ignore the other side of the coin, which is that Jews are also responsible for much of the OPPOSITION to the neocons as well. In fact, polls show that Jews are the most opposed to the wars.

The Jews opposed to the war, of course, make it all about putting down white America's imperialist evil. Which actually provokes whites into defending the neocons because they seem less anti-white. This is also why you see leftist Jews trashing Israel, it would detract from their anti-white message if they praised Israel's behavior and set a dangerous precedent among leftists.

So it's not a matter of one side being Jewish and the other side being anti-Jewish, it's about Jews manipulating BOTH sides of the debate. You can't be in a position to complain about the neocon side if you don't equally condemn the "hate Bush/America" side as well.

countenance said...

I'm no Maureen Down fan, but I read the "offensive" column of hers. She used "Jew(ish)" not once, she only used "Israel" four times, one of them quoting Paul Ryan and the other three in neutral contexts, and "Netanyahu" twice, the latter derogatory but NOT b/c he's Jewish, but b/c she, like the Israeli left, thinks that Net's line in the sand toward Iran is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

OT, but on the last thread a lot of people were falling for the whole "99% vs. 1%" charade.

The whole point of Occupy Wall Street was to protect the banks by shifting the conversation from demonizing Wall Street to demonizing job producers. If the job producers and the masses reached some sort of an agreement it would be disastrous to the parasitical financial community, so a class war had to be manufactured.

Not to say that Republicans don't play into the 1% stereotype, but that's mainly a result of flawed ideology and a culture of selfishness (in part generated by the left) than anything inherently wrong with the 1%.

sunbeam said...

I'm curious. What happens if you pay no attention to critics when you publish something like this?

I guess you have to care about the world they are going to "shun" you from, for things like this to have power.

I mean, will this affect circulation (what's left of it) of the Times one iota?

And who really gives a flying rip if some guy at the Atlantic is angry?

On a similar note, we've all seen elected and appointed officials do something or say something that eventually causes them to resign.

What happens if you don't, and just let the voters decide?

I mean David Vitter had one of the lamest scandals of all time, and his constituents reelected him.

I kind of wonder if the Wiener might not have won re-election if he had stayed the course.

A lot of anglophiles here, but wasn't there a Prime Minister who once said "Publish and be damned!"

Just seems to me that modern life and politics have an awful lot to high school and the politics of popularity.

One day a person, hey it might even be a woman, will run for President. And they absolutely won't give a damn what pundits say on talk shows or write in Tiger Beat, sorry .

And I will love that candidate.

You know it could be done. The internet gives you the medium to deliver any message you want, anyway you want. Only thing you have to do is give them a reason to pay attention to you.

It's kind of a joke, but kind of not: Johnny Depp could be elected President any election he chose to run in. I don't know his politics but he would have steamrolled the Republican primaries. Just use my key lesson: ignore the media, they are there to deliver your message, nothing more.

A lot of others could do it too. In a lot of ways TV and film stars are tailor made for modern elections. I'd point out the obvious example, but no one needs me to.

As far as actually governing? Hell, no one does that anyway, so what does it matter?

Anonymous said...

RE: What lessons should republicans learn from this election:

"No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd's column supports the allegations you and others are making. She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone's religion."

fredyetagain said...

You are correct Steve that we should be allowed to freely debate and discuss these matters, but so long as one side is "all-in" this little poker game 24/7/365 (think Abe Foxman or Alan Dershowitz), to actually do so will always be perilous, especially when (as you point out) the debater/discusser is perceived as being on the right side of the political spectrum.

Steve Sailer said...

"What happens if you pay no attention to critics when you publish something like this?"

How's ex-CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez's career doing these days?

http://ricksancheztv.tumblr.com/

dearieme said...


Is it true that GW was the richest American of his era, once independence had added value to his landholdings in the Ohio valley?

Anonymous said...

Didn't some study show that most stereotypes hold a lot of truth?

Anonymous said...

So the puppetmasters of our two political parties made their fortunes on either dubbing Japanese kids' TV shows into English or on gambling. F this gay country.

Anonymous said...

"(Obama spent age 18-24 socializing predominantly with anti-Israel Pakistanis, so he's less naive than insular Republicans about what the rest of the world thinks of Israel.)"

Obama hung around guys with lots of money until he found others with even more money: Jews.

Btw, Republicans know all about how the world feels about Israel, and THAT is the reason why they try to appeal so much to Jews. Republicans go to Jews and say, "Look, the whole world hates you Jews. The world wants to destroy Israel. The world is full of anti-Semites. Israel is a tiny helpless country surrounded by evil 'muzzie' nations that wanna kill all Jews. But we conservatives love you. We love you soooooooo much, soooo soooo sooo very much. So, please come over to our party, and please use your control over the media and wall street to help us win. Please oh please, we are praying for the political conversion of the Jews, the bestestest people on Earth..."

Grumpy Old Man said...

She's usually a goof, but she's right on here. Jews are now part of the Establishment. Live with it.

anony-mouse said...

'But anybody on the right who did this would be toast career-wise'.

Pat Buchanan did this for decades (at high pay) and only got fired in the past year.

I suppose the Amconmag crew will have to all fire themselves?

Anonymous said...

I wonder if she actually chose the headline ("Neocons Slither Back") for the column. Don't the editors usually come up with the titles?

Anonymous said...

"How's ex-CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez's career doing these days?

http://ricksancheztv.tumblr.com/ "

How's Sailer's career doing these days?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/

If Sailer had played it safe, he'd be a regular on Fox News, be a regular talking head on news channels, and writing for big media publications.

Anonymous said...

"How's ex-CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez's career doing these days?

http://ricksancheztv.tumblr.com/"

That's just humiliating.

Anonymous said...

How's ex-CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez's career doing these days?

Hey, he's trying:

http://ricksancheztv.com/2012/02/12/personal/my-remarks-to-the-adls-national-executive-committee/

"I’d like to thank the ADL for inviting me here today. It’s both an honor and a pleasure to speak to all of you.

I’m here to share my observations about my recent trip to Israel with a group of Latino journalists on a trip sponsored by the ADL. I’ve covered wars, floods, plane crashes, interviewed presidents and heads of state during my career. I was even able to go to Cuba, a trip that was, for me as an exile, so important that it stays with me to this day. So it is with my trip to Israel.

But before I share some of what I learned during that trip, I’d like to tell all of you about another trip: the long and unexpected voyage that has brought me here today. It is a very personal journey that led me to a man I now call a friend: Abe Foxman who has led me to know myself and led me to grow in unexpected ways.

Nearly a year and a half ago, in late 2010, I said some things that I shouldn’t have. When talking about my personal experience as the only weekday Hispanic anchor on a major TV network, I comparatively scoffed at the notion that Jews were an oppressed minority in media. It was wrong of me to do so. I apologized for my words, and I do so again to each of you here today.

At the time, I didn’t fully grasp what was wrong with what I said. I think that’s because we all come from different backgrounds and personal histories that sometimes prevent us from being able to fully understand the other groups’ feelings.

For example, I can tell you that as a Cuban-American, if someone said to me that Cubans aren’t an oppressed minority in Miami, I’d probably agree. In fact, when it comes to South Florida politics, l’d likely be the first to say so.

But here’s the difference–here’s the problem with the comparison: My experience, and the experience of every other ethnic or religious group, is not the same as that of the Jewish people."

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoLVwE9D_Fc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If war with Iran happens, it will be a trap for Romney. Obama, in typical fashion, will play it cool. He will support it but also try to come across as aloof.
Romney will be TOTALLY FOR THE WAR AND CALL FOR EVEN MORE ACTION, and that will piss off war-weary Americans.

So, if Obama goes for war, he'll give Jews what they want but also come across as someone who's just doing it reluctantly because it has to be done.
In contrast, Romney will act like we need to go all out and invade the country. Dumney is stupid enough to fall into this trap.

Anonymous said...

How's ex-CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez's career doing these days?

http://ricksancheztv.tumblr.com/


That's pathetic. Especially since Tumblr is a trashy porn and spam site:

http://gawker.com/5843915/the-porn-and-spam-behind-tumblrs-meteoric-rise

Anonymous said...

"Is it true that GW was the richest American of his era, once independence had added value to his landholdings in the Ohio valley?"

I don't know if that's true, but I was very surprised when I saw his family's coat of arms for the first time. It tends to remind one of something.

Anonymous said...

"Pat Buchanan did this for decades (at high pay) and only got fired in the past year."

Buchanan lasted a long time because of his credentials: having worked in government, having worked for whole bunch of media outlets, having run for office. That gave him cover.
But even that was useless in the new media totally run by liberal Zionists and neocons.

Steve Sailer said...

Actually, George Washington's Farewell Address was quoted in the New York Times in regard to Israel on August 23, 2012. In Google News, I see:

"America Has Shown Which Side It's On
New York Times-Aug 23, 2012
This has reached the point that today blindly siding with Israel, beyond ... of George Washington's farewell address: “A passionate attachment of ..."

Unfortunately, when I click on the link in Google News, I get:

"502 Bad Gateway"

"The server returned an invalid or incomplete response."

Those crazy Google kids sure don't know how to program a computer! What else other than sheer random incompetence on Google's part could explain stuff like this bad link, the non-existence of Pat Buchanan in the prompts, and Google Maps misplacing the locations of Glenn Beck's rally at the Lincoln Memorial. Accidents, accidents, accidents.

Anyway, when I go to Bing I get a link that takes me to Room for Debate and an entry by Obama's old buddy:

"Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, is the author of the forthcoming “Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East.”

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/23/has-support-for-israel-hurt-us-credibility/when-it-comes-to-israel-america-has-shown-which-side-its-on

sunbeam said...

I was kind of referring to the media enterprise itself. Who employed Rick Sanchez? What would have happened to them if they didn't fire him? Loss of advertisers I guess? Plus you would have to have the kind of advertisers who cared.

Look, for years I've only gotten my news from the internet. I do not watch network television, not even the new channels. Well when they have a hurricane or a really big story. But to be honest absolutely any news channel works for me on the very rare occasions I want to watch an actual tv. They essentially all have the same coverage when something big is up, so they are all interchangeable.

For the most part, I don't know the names of these pundits, and don't pay any attention to them. I certainly don't sit through their analysis of anything.

The only thing they have is the fact that a lot of people are used to watching them. For an increasing number of people, and a sizeable fraction of younger people that is no longer the case.

Maybe it is smaller and less noticeable than the loss of newspaper readers, but it is happening.

In regards to what you wrote about Sanchez, I really hadn't paid any attention to the situation. If your income doesn't directly depend what some guy in New York thinks, and you don't care what the guy in New York thinks, it's easy to forget why anyone else cares.

Anonymous said...

So the puppetmasters of our two political parties made their fortunes on either dubbing Japanese kids' TV shows into English or on gambling. F this gay country.

LOL. I just realized that. It's pathetic.

Anonymous said...

("Neocons Slither Back")

Where Dowd is wrong is the notion that neocons had ever been away!

Tea Party was immediately overtaken by neocons. Instead of being against both Wall Street and government, it was just against government.

GOP's mindless support of Israel never flagged since 2008.
Ron Paul was about as effective in 2012 as in 2008. Neocons kept him out, and Zionist media shut him out.
No, neocons never lost control over GOP. Despite their Iraq debacle, the fact is GOP will never criticize Jews or Israel. If anything, neocons are more powerful today than in 2004 and 2008. And even though many neocons voted for Obama in 2008, GOP dorks are still in the 'we luuuuuve Jews' mode. Sickening.

http://takimag.com/article/how_bill_kristol_purged_the_arabists_patrick_buchanan/print#axzz26rp8hcp1

Just look at the 2008 and 2012 GOP lineup. Other than Ron Paul, all whores of Israel. So, when were the neocons ever away?

Anonymous said...

Steve,

Saw this article cited below on Yahoo the other day, posted by Yahoo editors on September 14th to be exact, and was wondering what was going on. The editors are fairly liberal and usually select left leaning articles for posting. The essay below was from a publication called “The Weeks.”

“Is Israel's Netanyahu trying to get Romney elected? - Yahoo! News
news.yahoo.com/israels-netanyahu-trying-romney-elected-09200033...”

Around the same day there was another editorial "Is Romney too close to Israel" or something like that was also posted which has disappeared.

I am not particularly fond of the Tribe, and in particular the Neo-Cons, but the article has similar hints of Anti-Semitism to the Dowd article and goes so far as alleging that BiBi is trying to interfere in the U.S. election.

I was wondering, if liberal Dems many of whom are Jewish, are trying to paint Romney as in the thrall of Israel (I was even thinking of doing an OT remark on one of the threads to alert you to this essay).

The Dowd article makes me realize it’s a coordinated effort to paint Mitt as an Israeli lapdog.

Ironically, among the comments from readers to the post on Yahoo are your typical left wing Israeli bashers mixed in with some comments that appear to be coming from White Nationalist members of the Stormfront crowd.

Are the Dems and O inadvertently trying to broaden their base by appealing to White Nationalists?

Ironic and interesting (the enemy of my enemy is my friend type thing I guess).

To me , articles like these are a sign of growing awareness by those in the media that many people in the U.S. are unhappy with the Scotch-Irish and U.S. foreign policy and that this unhappiness can be harnessed for political gain (even if it is only help a candidate supported by a different group of Scotch-Irish).

I wonder where this will lead … at least it is putting the Scotch-Irish influence on foreign policy on the table for discussion I suppose.

stari_momak said...

C'mon Steve, you are just trying to distract us from the spot of bother that Romney got in while addressing those Scots-Irish at a country club in Boca Raton.

[Notice the discrepancy between the link title and the headline -- memory hole at work!]

Steve Sailer said...

As outlined in his leaked speech to Jewish donors, Romney's strategy on Palestine -- procrastinate and ignore it -- is not unreasonable. To my mind, the ideal solution is that Palestine becomes a sovereign Palestinian nation-state, a small country whose military would be as terrified of Israel coming and breaking its shiny war toys as Jordan's is. Thus, Jordan's government doesn't let Jordanians shoot rockets at Israel. Israel doesn't need to occupy Jordan because the Jordanian government renders Jordanians' largely harmless to Israel.

Ultimately, that's the solution for Palestine, too. But as Romney points out in his secret speech, in the meantime, an unoccupied Palestine would see a lot of Palestinians shoot rockets at Tel Aviv. So, there would be a difficult transition, just as their has been with Gaza after Israel's end of occupation. Maybe if the Israeli's perfect their Iron Dome anti-missile system, this transition can be sped up ...

Anonymous said...

The problem with the blatant condemnation of Israel here is that most of the right has been sold on the idea that Israel is an outpost of Western Civilization under attack.

Indeed, much of the criticism of Israel is based on the same ideas of the anti-white left, namely it's inherently evil for any ethnonationalism to exist and "oppress" virtuous third worlders. So it shouldn't be surprising that the right feels it needs to defend Israel.

Anonymous said...

"Is it true that GW was the richest American of his era, once independence had added value to his landholdings in the Ohio valley?"


I don't know if that's true, but I was very surprised when I saw his family's coat of arms for the first time. It tends to remind one of something.


What?

Anonymous said...

Queer pressure is the new peer pressure.

We must all bend over to their demands. Do you wanna be bendovered?

Anonymous said...

How come Democrats can say GOP is party of 'angry white males' but we can't say Democratic Party is the party of 'nasty globalist Jews'?

Besides, GOP is now the party of 'angry neocon Jews'.

Anonymous said...

Wow, since when could anyone who wrote for the Times be called antisemitic? I thought that was impossible. So what does a gentile have to do to be free of being called antisemitic? Write for the Forward or something?

Actually it is Dowd's editor that is antisemitic.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you're feeling a bit too paranoid today. The "502 Bad Gateway" you got must have been from the New York Times server having a glitch. Also "Pat Buchanan" is now the #4 Google Sugggest suggestion for "pat b" after Pat Benatar, Pat Burrell and Pat Boone, which seems reasonable. Though I don't know if you meant that that was an ongoing problem or an old wound to be worried.

pointlesscommentator said...

This NYT editorial about the Shatila massacre in '82 ends with a recommendation that perfectly echoes Washington's warning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html

Dennis Dale said...

Has she ever "fairly observed" that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are experts in the field of foreign policy?

Biden did in fact bring foreign policy experience. Another joke we didn't get to tell: Joe Biden was brought in to lend gravitas to the ticket!

Luke Lea said...

In Washington's Farewell Address do I detect the prose style of the man who penned most of the Federalist Papers?

Steve Sailer said...

Luke:

Right, Washington's Farewell Address involved all three Federalist Papers' authors taking a crack at it over a four year period. That's one reason it was so revered for so long in the U.S.: Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay all worked on it.

The Declaration of Independence is great, of course, but Jefferson pulled two all-nighters to write it.

bluegrass said...

"Look, Dowd's not twelve, she's sixty. Of course she knows she's peddling an old stereotype. She just happens to think the old stereotype is true, at least when it comes to Republicans."

Hmmmmmm, I don't know Steve. This could be an honest to God slip-up. Jews are just really, really good at finding anti-semitism, even when its not necessarily there. Or, maybe it has finally taken 67 years for the non-Jewish intelligentsia to grow some balls and just call it as it is.

This whole "Jewish Elite" thing: I'm not really flabbergasted by this idea that my Elite doesn't posses the same racial identity as myself. A small alien ethnic minority running a country of racial-inferior peons is a fairly common historical phenomenon. If you know anything about Indo-European history, you know Whites have been at this for a long, long time.

My problem is that the Jews are doing just a crap job being the elite.

Use ethnocentrism to put your tribe to the top? Fine, lots of groups have done that: meritocracy goes out the door the second you get power. Its just that..... do you really have to DESPSISE us while you rule and brainwash us?

All these Jews have been convinced their controlling a bunch of nazis-in-the-waiting. Exemplified by books like Focus (Arthur Miller,1945), "Anti-Semitism" is perceived as practically genetic in Whites,or all non-gentiles for that matter, so the only course of action is to guilt it out of our conscious and racially mix it out of our genes.

Run the banks? Fine! But you could a least take a college economics class and learn that "Quantitative easing" makes things really, really crappy for future White children. Or, since you probably already know what it does to a country, shame on you for living in the fast lane just so you can bankroll a few good years with your buddies in Federal Reserve addicted industries.

Wars for Israel? Okay, there are worse reasons to go to war. Except, could we at least call a spade a spade? I mean, those WMD's that weren't there? Its like your just trying to see what you could get away with. Just say we're fighting for the Jewish nation to atone for the crimes of Nazism....... the goyum won't complain that much as long as you keep playing that movie Schindler's List on T.V.

And Hollywood...... don't let me get started on Hollywood. Just 50% less numinous negros in every movie I have to watch would be appreciated enough.

I mean, Christ, its clear Jews never had a Nation of their own in history since the first one that got control of shows they have no idea what they're doing. In 1000 years, when the American empire will be judged by cyborg Japanese historians, they'll come to the conclusion that our W.A.S.P. elite gave the keys of the Nation to a five year old with some serious sensitivity issues and a bad taste in hats.

Beecher Asbury said...

Is the following paragraph anti-semitic?

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history. They believe that the right political idea entails a fusion of morality and force, human rights and grit.

Where was the outrage when this was written? Why is this type of dialogue allowed in Israel, but not here?

Dennis Dale said...

What happens if you pay no attention to critics when you publish something like this?

I'm reminded of a line from Dante: "...and these God forgets."

Pat Hannagan said...

What else other than sheer random incompetence on Google's part could explain stuff like ... the non-existence of Pat Buchanan in the prompts...

Google has an official answer:

"All of the queries shown in auto-complete have been typed previously by other Google users," Kay Oberbeck, a spokesman for the company, said in a statement that suggested that it was the curiosity of the many, and not the assessment of the company, that was causing the offending terms to pop up."

(http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/bettina-wulff-prostitute-autocomplete-puts-google-in-hot-water-20120919-265i4.html)

It's official then. Google auto-completes the name Bettina Wulff with "bettina wulff prostituierte" because that is what the users most commonly type. Pat Buchanan went missing because nobody cared anymore.

Dennis Dale said...

Pat Buchanan went missing because nobody cared anymore.

God help us. Google is to become the Memory Hole.

Pat Hannagan said...

Interestingly, "A few months ago, French anti-discrimination group sued Google for symbolizing the phrase “Jew” or “Jewish” after the names of popular celebrities, like “Mad Men” star Jon Hamm.

(http://www.wall-street.com/2012/09/germanys-former-first-lady-sues-google/)

I'd never heard of this Jon Hamm so did a google search with auto-complete. In order of suggestion: Jon Hamm, Jon Jones, Jon Snow, Jon Stewart. Never heard of any of them except Jon Stewart.

Jon Hamm returns 33,700,000 results. Jon Jones 92,200,000, Jon Snow 26,600,000, Jon Stewart 103,000,000.

Ah, so google's auto-complete doesn't simply return the most popular phrases, but puts them in non-popular alphabetical order.

Wait a minute, just googled Naomi Wolf to see if a star of david would be retruned (which it wasn't. Maybe the lawsuit was successful) to find in order: Naomi Watts, Campbell, Flood, Robson. No Wolf at all.

These must be Ozzie hits seeing as 3 out of the 4 are Ozzies, and have very little relevance to Yanks. The Campbell return has me perplexed.

Starting W gets me in order Wolf then Watts. Wolf has 25,500,000 hits, Watts 36,000,000. Is Naomi Wolf more popular in Oz than our own Naomi Watts?

I give up. The algorithm is something that only Shinichi Mochizuki could resolve.

Anonymous said...

Dennis Dale, Pat Hannagan: what are you talking about? The Pat Buchanan thing has been fixed! Sheesh, you aren't helping the cause with your paranoia. Yes, no doubt some busybody in Google axed Pat, but then people like Steve noticed, told Google, and it got fixed.

Pat Hannagan said...

My mistake. The "symbolizing the phrase “Jew” or “Jewish” " wasn't a star of david but those actual words.

(http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120501/03501218725/google-sued-because-some-people-wonder-if-jon-hamm-is-jewish.shtml)

"Apparently Google is being sued because autocomplete sometimes shows the name of famous people with the keyword "jew" after them. This includes such non-Jews as Rupert Murdoch and Jon Hamm. "

Well, it doesn't do that anymore unless you type a "j" after Rupert Murdoch.

I wonder if this my paranoia but, entering Abe Foxman returns salary, adl, rusell simmons (who the hell is russell simmons?), and wiki.

I was certain the first suggestion would be "c*nt".

Glaivester said...

Your big theme here is that Jewish neocons are responsible for all sorts of evils. Point taken! I agree, and there is plenty of evidence to support that.

But you ignore the other side of the coin, which is that Jews are also responsible for much of the OPPOSITION to the neocons as well. In fact, polls show that Jews are the most opposed to the wars.


Steve Sailer isn't trying to trash the Jews. He is criticizing the reluctance to criticize Jewish groups when they do something wrong. It's not "the Jews all got us into Iraq." No, there were plenty who were against the Iraq Attaq. He is just saying that it should not be beyond the pale to question the motivations of people who were supporting the Iraq invasion largely for ethnic reasons.

Anonymous said...

Maureen might be being smeared, but considering her past, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Maybe she can call up Pat Buchanan for some sympathy.

Anonymous said...

Steve, I'll take the bait: Nick Saban, head football coach of Alabama for President!

Norville Rogers said...

"[The] weirdest part of the anti-semitic tropes on the Dowd column is how lazy they are," Max Fisher, an editor at The Atlantic who is leaving to launch a foreign policy blog

This is like the current rote complaint that Cerritos Spielberg's Youtube video was not only blasphemous but, quelle horreur, rather aesthetically crude don't you know

Anonymous said...

Instead of accusing goyim of 'antisemitism', Jews should stop living up to antisemitic stereotypes.

I mean what kind of a world are we living in? William Kristol gets to openly gloat that his ilk purged the GOP of 'Arabists'--in other words, they totally run the show--, but gentiles are not allowed to say neocons control GOP policy?

It's like a snake biting you and then warning you that you better say you got bitten by a snake since such would play to stereotypes of snakes as biters.

Fellow Traveler in Berkeley said...

"Publish and be damned!" - the Duke of Wellington to courtesan Hariette Wilson, who gave her former lovers the chance to opt out (for a fee) of being mentioned in her serialized memoirs.

Ed said...

There is actually a weird dynamic going on with the "New York Times'. Historically it was owned by a Jewish family that was sceptical/ hostile to Zionism. Of course the current scion in terms of personality pays a passing resemblance to Dubya, but they used Dowd to extricate themselves from the Judith Miller affair and will probably not bring her down on over this. And as far as getting too old, she is far from late Russell Baker/ Scotty Reston/ Tony Lewis territory in terms of blathering on.

Honestly, if Dowd has to leave over this, in terms of the Kreminology its mainly a sign that someone other than the Sulzbergers are in charge of the paper.

Anonymous said...

Remember that Aaron Burr said George Washington was an idiot who couldn't write a sentence of common English.


So if you come across something particularly eloquent written in his name...

Anonymous said...

"What happens if you pay no attention to critics when you publish something like this?"

Funding if you're a politician, advertising otherwise. Beck's program was cancelled after an advertiser boycott.

Anonymous said...

"Especially since Tumblr is a trashy porn and spam site:"

dunno about trashy. some of the tumblr porn sites are the best.

dearieme said...

"... The Declaration of Independence is great, of course ...": oh come, it's a sleazy advertising brochure. It's your Constitution that's a fine thing. (It's proved too demanding to live up to, but that's a different matter.)

Anonymous said...

Ive been looking at examples of the (George) Washington family coat of arms. I dont know what the significance is, it really doesnt remind me of anything. No, that wasnt an ironic comment, it really doesnt.

Anonymous said...

If Sailer had played it safe, he'd be a regular on Fox News, be a regular talking head on news channels, and writing for big media publications.

But he isnt a corporate whore like Sanchez.

Gil Abramson said...

How's Sailer's career doing these days?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/


Ha. Ha. Ha.

What will be remembered 20 years from now, Sailer's wit or Goldkrughenstein's crap?

NOTA said...

I'll admit that at this point, when someone cries "anti-Semitism" or "racism," my first assumption is that it's just a tactic to win the argument by poisoning the well (the irony, it burns) and shut up the other side. Dowd is saying stuff that some folks would rather not hear said in public, so calling her an anti-Semite is a way to shut her up. It's probably easier than engaging with her argument.

A shocking amount of our political discussion is limited by what privileged groups will squawk when some discussion happens or starts going the wrong direction. In the 2008 election, any critical comment about Obama risked an accusation of racism, any critical comment about Hillary or Palin risked an accusation of sexism, and it was somewhat off-limits to talk much about McCain's advanced age, or ill health, and beyond the pale to talk about his possible age-related mental decline, or huge signs of PTSD. Previously, most criticism of the wars led to an accusation of being a traitor, and criticizing a serving US general who was effectively taking part in US politics was also a cause for outrage.

This makes us massively stupider, as a society. Most subjects that are actually important or interesting, like the war on terror, foreign policy, domestic surveillance, immigration, crime, gun control, education, financial regulation, foreign aid, etc., are hedged around with areas that get you called nasty names if you wander into them, and that often can get you fired from your journalism or think tank job.

Alongside this, think tanks have a really horrible effect on public discussion: Most of the people who get paid to think about policy questions, work for organizations with explicit and/or implicit ideological limits on what their conclusions may be, driven ultimately by the think tanks' funding sources. Change your position on aid to Israel, continuing the war on drugs, or the need for urgent action to address global warming, and you're on the street looking for a new job.

Anonymous said...

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4701&Itemid=201

Japanese hurt by groupthink.

White Americans hurt by guiltthink, and so Jews go uncriticized.

Anonymous said...

-- I don't know if that's true, but I was very surprised when I saw his family's coat of arms for the first time. It tends to remind one of something.


-- What?

Hmm, that's a tough one. Three stars and two stripes... something... something...

Anonymous said...

Comparing the conflict between Israel and the arabs and the coptic christians and muslims to a college football game. The survival of nations is no more important than the results of college football. An astonishing claim. Some people will never see beyond their materialist blinders.

Anonymous said...

"There is actually a weird dynamic going on with the "New York Times'. Historically it was owned by a Jewish family that was sceptical/ hostile to Zionism."

They thought it would never work and that the efforts to bring it about would only hurt Jews. But when it did work and won great support from Americans, Jews were for it.

Similarly, many American Jews were not for 'rocking the boat' in the past because they never thought they'd take full control of this country. But once they took full control, they were for rocking the boat ever so harder to toss white power entirely off the boat.

So, the NY Times of yesteryear didn't oppose Zionism on principle but out of practicality.
It's like a lot of gays remained in the closet in the past not out of principle but out of pragmatism. But now that they know they can come out and be queer as hell, they are doing it shamelessly and spitting at us with open contempt.

Similarly, neocons used to show a modicum of respect to other kinds of conservatives in the 80s as they were the newcomers. But this respect was not genuine but merely tactical. In fact, neocons were hatching a plan to take over the party, and when they realized they had the power, they've been showing open contempt for all paleo-cons.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, that's a tough one. Three stars and two stripes... something... something..


You're a stupid person who thinks he's intelligent. (A not uncommon combination, unfortunately)

What, pray tell, is "three stars and two stripes" supposed to signify? You think that the Washington family is still around and secretly controlling the General Assembly of Tennessee?

Anonymous said...

How come Democrats can say GOP is party of 'angry white males' but we can't say Democratic Party is the party of 'nasty globalist Jews'?


Or even that the Democrats are the party of angry brown people.

Anonymous said...

dunno about trashy

Porn sites are inherently trashy.

Svigor said...

Paging Svigor, paging Svigor to a White courtesy phone...

Heh.

Those fellows should come have a chat with me. I'll recalibrate their AUNTY-SEMITISM meters for free.

Maureen may not know this, but she is peddling an old stereotype, that gentile leaders are dolts unable to resist the machinations and manipulations of clever and snake-like Jews,"

You don't read a quote like that often. Usually the supposed stereotypes of Jews are distored caricatures of the stereotype at best. Or outright fabrications at worst. Goldberg added a lot of his own seasoning, but the dish is authentic.

the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake

More like, the jealousy of a free people IS constantly awake. And ours is obviously not. This is the essence of the problem. Apathy is going to steer us right into the iceberg.

Silver said...

Indeed, much of the criticism of Israel is based on the same ideas of the anti-white left, namely it's inherently evil for any ethnonationalism to exist and "oppress" virtuous third worlders. So it shouldn't be surprising that the right feels it needs to defend Israel.

The difference is Israel really is oppressing people, and in an outrageously unfair way. Western ethnonationalists are attack for merely thinkings thoughts that may lead to "oppression" of some sort (or then again may not).

Anonymous said...

I hate to tell you this Steve, but George Washington was an Anti-semite.

Anonymous said...

But you ignore the other side of the coin, which is that Jews are also responsible for much of the OPPOSITION to the neocons as well. In fact, polls show that Jews are the most opposed to the wars.

Certainly most Jews became opposed to the war in Iraq once the threat to Israel (Saddam Hussein) was removed, but I don't think Jews generally opposed the war before it began. A poll taken just before the war began found:

A majority of American Jews -- 59 percent -- approve of launching a military strike against Iraq to remove Sad, Those were among the results of the American Jewish Committee's Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/19322/most-u-s-jews-support-war-against-iraq-poll-shows/

Also, a lot of Americans supported the war out of ignorance (they believed Saddam Hussein was strongly linked to Al Qaeda or even responsible for 9/11). Jews have the highest ethnic IQ so were far less likely to be duped by such propaganda, however if you looked only at Americans with an informed thoughtful opinion about whether to go to war, Jews might have been significantly more pro-war than equally informed thoughtful Americans of non-Jewish descent.

But ultimately it doesn't matter all that much what the average Jew thinks; what matters are the opinions of Jewish elite, who have the wealth, power and genius to dominate the debate in the media, white house, and congress.

NOTA said...

This is more of the War On Noticing Stuff. The Neocons are overwhelmingly Jewish, right? That's a claim about reality. It can be true or false, but it can't be immoral to ask or know the answer. And anyone who tells you it's immoral, or that there's something wrong with you for asking the question or answering it, is trying to make you dumber.

This is common everywhere. From the black/white IQ difference to the history and treatment of the Palestinians by Israel to the way the US treats its captives, there are questions of fact which, when you ask or answer them, will get some people to call you nasty names. This is a useful signal--they're telling you I don't want you or other people thinking clearly about these questions of fact, so I need to shut you up with an accusation of racism or anti-Semitism or treason or something.

The really creepy thing about this is that people internalize it. They start feeling guilty about suspecting or knowing certain things about reality. It's like someone managed to install a censor in their brains, to keep them from thinking along certain lines. They mustn't notice that blacks are way more likely to commit violent crimes than whites, or that the more interaction with the US military and state department the locals have, the more they hate us, or that there are a whole lot of Jews among the punditocracy and not actually very many hispanics, or whatever, and so when they start thinking along those lines, they will (and do) look for ways out--reasons to stop thinking along those lines.

Anonymous said...

"...During the run-up to the war in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. Jews were divided in their views on whether to invade Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power (49% were in favor, 48% opposed). At that time, Americans overall favored an invasion by a 57% to 37% margin."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26677/among-religious-groups-jewish-americans-most-strongly-oppose-war.aspx

Anonymous said...

"The difference is Israel really is oppressing people."

Translation to English: "...is at war with and winning..."

Silver said...

Translation to English: "...is at war with and winning..."

No, they won the war. They refuse to win the peace, preferring instead to oppress. Pretty obvious to anyone who cares to look.

Anonymous said...

Jewish support for the war is analogous to Muslim support for 9/11. Most Muslims opposed 9/11, however 9/11 was caused by Muslims.

Analogously, many Jews opposed the Iraq war however the Iraq war was caused by Jews.

Anonymous said...

Egyptian imam:

Jew's and volcanoes are analogous Muslim support for 9/11. Jews caused 9/11; Jews caused volcanoes.