Back in December, Elliott Abrams published a fascinating denunciation in The Weekly Standard of two of America's most virulent anti-Semites. (As you read this, keep in mind that Mr. Abrams is a long-time diplomat. His biography at the Council of Foreign Relations where, among numerous other institutions, he now hangs his hat, says: "Former senior director for democracy and human rights, senior director for the Near East, and deputy national security adviser handling Middle East affairs in the George W. Bush administration.")
Blaming the Jews—Again
If you were an anti-Semite dedicated to spreading your hatred of Jews, what charges exactly would you make in 21st century America?
Let's pause here, and you try to guess which two anti-Semites dedicated to spreading their hatred of Jews this long-time diplomat is thinking of ...
There are two charges you would make. First, the rich Jews control our government. Second, those Jews are trying to push America into war so your sons will have to fight for Israel.
In the last week that is exactly what we have seen. First came the Thomas Friedman column in the New York Times: “I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby.” Perhaps it was jealousy from seeing Walt and Mearsheimer sell all those books with this line, but Friedman here tips right into the swamps.
And now we have Joe Klein, in Time magazine, in a section accurately entitled “Swampland”: “Iowa Republicans are not neoconservatives. Ron Paul has gained ground after a debate in which his refusal to join the Iran warhawks was front and center. Indeed, in my travels around the country, I don’t meet many neoconservatives outside of Washington and New York. It’s one thing to just adore Israel, as the evangelical Christians do; it’s another thing entirely to send American kids off to war, yet again, to fight for Israel’s national security.”
Now, Klein has chosen his medium well: Time has a history of anti-Semitism, illustrated by its famous 1977 story about Israel’s prime minister that began “Menachem Begin (rhymes with Fagin).” But Klein’s thoughts are about as ugly as ever appear outside of Pat Buchanan’s publications. “There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East-the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States,” Buchanan said in 1990.
Okay, so now we know. The Real Anti-Semites are Joe Klein of Time and Tom Friedman of the New York Times.
These two recent statements are as vicious as it gets in the mainstream media, and here we have two Jews—Friedman and Klein—spreading the two major themes of contemporary American anti-Semitism. Why? Why now?
Why does it matter? Perhaps it is their hatred of Israel’s right of center government, or of modern Israel, or of the rise of Orthodoxy in Israel and in the American Jewish community. Let us not descend into such analyses when what matters is not abnormal psychology but the bounds of public discourse. Once upon a time, William F. Buckley banned Pat Buchanan from the pages of National Review and in essence drummed him out of the conservative movement for such accusations.
Obviously, famous old super-Establishment Jewish pundits like Friedman and Klein aren't in much danger from the constant playing of the Anti-Semitism Card. But the sheer dementedness of fulminating against Friedman and Klein for hating Jews has a chilling effect on all others with a lick of sense about their future career trajectories, especially if they are gentiles.
One of the big changes in my lifetime has been the attitude of Jews toward "the bounds of public discourse." When I was young, Lenny Bruce, say, was a famous martyr in the cause of enlarging the bounds of public discourse. Now, more energy is devoted toward policing the limits.
Once again, let me point out that much of what seems vastly important to the neocons strikes me as being roughly as important as college football. Jews will still do fine if the "bounds of public discourse" are less constricted. As you may have noticed, Jews tend to be good at public discourse: tending to be funny, logical, well-informed, articulate, and so forth. Bullying people into self-censoring like this is just plain overkill driven by hyper-competitiveness and being shielded from criticism. On the whole, criticism makes people behave better. So, if nobody is allowed to notice your faults, your faults are likely to get worse.
Personally, I kind of care about college football, and thus I find it perfectly understandable that lots of influential people in the U.S. want their team to be the BCS champion of the Middle East, just like American Catholics used to get a huge kick out of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish beating the rich Protestants of USC.
But what I really care about is the quality of public discourse in the U.S. And the most obvious way to undermine that quality is to narrow the bounds of public discourse. Is this really that complicated?
Personally, I kind of care about college football, and thus I find it perfectly understandable that lots of influential people in the U.S. want their team to be the BCS champion of the Middle East, just like American Catholics used to get a huge kick out of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish beating the rich Protestants of USC.
But what I really care about is the quality of public discourse in the U.S. And the most obvious way to undermine that quality is to narrow the bounds of public discourse. Is this really that complicated?
Posts
109 comments:
One question, why should I care about Eliot Abrams or the Weekly Standard?
Or Israel for that matter? If Semites want to endlessly debate 'wither Israel?' OK with me, just don't ask me to care.
Your free speech concern is interesting though.
"When I was young, Lenny Bruce, say, was a famous martyr in the cause of enlarging the bounds of public discourse. Now, more energy is devoted toward policing the limits. "
It was never really about ideals, but about who/whom; about victor and vanquished. The leftists of the 60s wanted the freedom to express their extremists views, not for the right of you and I to express our perfectly valid conservative ones. They were fighting for a different dogma, a different pope, and a different Galileo.
If you were an anti-Semite dedicated to spreading your hatred of Jews, what charges exactly would you make in 21st century America?
There are two charges you would make. First, the rich Jews control our government. Second, those Jews are trying to push America into war so your sons will have to fight for Israel.
He is right, you know. This is exactly what the anti-Semites say; in fact, they will say this right here in the comments.
Do you think they are right? If you do, then come out and say so. Instead of this passive-aggressive concern trolling.
Isn't Elliot Abrams the guy who advocates open borders for the US but opposes mixed marriages for Jews? That was a hypothetical question. He IS that guy.
"Do you think they are right? If you do, then come out and say so. Instead of this passive-aggressive concern trolling."
Thanks for standing up for your principles Anonymous.
Anonydroid at 8:08 pm said:
He is right, you know. This is exactly what the anti-Semites say; in fact, they will say this right here in the comments.
Do you think they are right? If you do, then come out and say so. Instead of this passive-aggressive concern trolling.
Hunsdon replied:
You rang, sir?
Anonydroid at 7:49 pm said:
One question, why should I care about Eliot Abrams or the Weekly Standard?
Or Israel for that matter? If Semites want to endlessly debate 'wither Israel?' OK with me, just don't ask me to care.
Hunsdon replied:
To paraphrase Trotsky, "You may not care about Israel, but Israel cares about you."
In truth, I shouldn't say "Israel" so much as "American Jews who enforce a Likud-like policy which is far more restrictive than that which exists in Israel" except, you know that is somewhat cumbersome.
...and the boy cried "wolf!" yet again.
[Of course, the wolf does actually come in the end. So how did all that crying "wolf!" work out for you, boy?]
"Robert Holmgren said...
"Do you think they are right? If you do, then come out and say so. Instead of this passive-aggressive concern trolling."
Thanks for standing up for your principles Anonymous."
Whereas, if I google your name "Robert Holmgren", I get 34,000 hits, and when I click on your Blogger Profile, I get this message:
"Profile Not Available
The Blogger Profile you requested cannot be displayed. Many Blogger users have not yet elected to publicly share their Profile."
So, exactly in what sense are you not anonymous too?
There oughtta be a meme. Oh wait, there is!
The Jews policed the boundaries of public discourse in the Soviet Union as well. After the Bolshevik Revolution (in which Jews played an enormously disproportionate role), anti-Semitism was made a capital offense (you read that right). Christianity (not Judaism, not Islam) was mocked and subjected to withering critique in the public schools. Vicious anti-Christian atheist propaganda was put out under the direction of one Yemlyan Yaroslavsky -- born Minei Izraelevich Gubelman -- in an outfit called the League of the Militant Godless. During the Second World War, there was the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, an all-Jewish propaganda machine created by Stalin (who, contrary to Jewish lies, was not an anti-Semite) whose purpose was to drum up support for the war effort among Jewish diaspora communities.
And let's not even get into all the Jewish Communists who served in secret polices in the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations, arresting, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering people who expressed crimethink.
"He is right, you know. This is exactly what the anti-Semites say; in fact, they will say this right here in the comments."
Well you could make campaign contributions secret then people could only speculate about it rather than pointing at lists that show beyond any doubt that the political process is owned by people who want
- bankster rule
- open door immigration
- israel first foreign policy
1. This is an argument between Liberal Zionists and neoconservative Zionists. But it's about soft Zionism vs hard Zionism. In the end, it's just the same. Abrams may be nuts, but he's honest about what Jews want. Liberal Zionists try to have it both ways: security/power for Israel but also the moral high-ground as people who 'care' and 'see all sides'.
It's like rich liberal Jews and rich conservative Jews are both out for money and power. But whereas conservative Jews are more honest about their goals--as was Ayn Rand--, rich liberal Jews try to have it both ways(be stinking rich but also act like they 'care'.)
2. Though Friedman and Klein said what they did, they would not have tolerated white gentiles saying it. It's like blacks can say n-word but you can't.
"When I was young, Lenny Bruce, say, was a famous martyr in the cause of enlarging the bounds of public discourse. Now, more energy is devoted toward policing the limits."
"It was never really about ideals, but about who/whom; about victor and vanquished. The leftists of the 60s wanted the freedom to express their extremists views, not for the right of you and I to express our perfectly valid conservative ones."
Some really thought like you said but there were genuine free speech advocates in the 60s who fought for free speech for all. Nat Hentoff is still of that breed.
I've said it and I'll say it again. Eskimos really control America.
The thing about the likes of Eliot Abrams and his fellow neocons is this: you seem to think that we must be anti-Semitic to oppose what the Israel lobby seeks for Israel in US politics.
But the problem is that most of us don't CARE about Israel and its fate. We just don't think that Israel is worthy of our blood and treasure -- what country other than our own is? We are perfectly happy to let Israel fight its own battles. What we don't get is why anyone else should be expected to fight its battles along with it.
If we are fundamentally indifferent to the fate of Israel, and therefore reject the demands that we support it, how does that even possibly make us anti-Semitic? Isn't your argument really that we must LOVE Israel, and support it as you do, or otherwise, in your opinion, we must be anti-Semitic? How much sense does that argument conceivably make? What's wrong with advocating for an indifferent America?
Perhaps Friedman and Klein will read this and make the logical extrapolation: 'this makes me suspect that most accusations of anti-semitism are probably baseless'.
Then again, probably not.
Well, based on all available evidence of the last few years, I'd have to say that Jewish IQ must be *tremendously* lower than is endlessly claimed throughout the media and the Internet...
Or perhaps it's indeed quite high, but the Jewish CQ---"Craziness Quotient"---is just enormously higher...
Whereas, if I google your name "Robert Holmgren", I get 34,000 hits, and when I click on your Blogger Profile, I get this message:
"Profile Not Available
Pick the first one and you're good to go.
Meanwhile we still don't know if Anonymous is your first or last name. Might want to avoid those glass houses.
So let me understand this. The guy no on ever heard of, who published a screed in a magazine no one ever heard of, is "controlling the bounds of public discourse"? Okay then.
This seems to call for an "I am Spatacus" response.
I'm an anti-Semite. You're an anti-Semite. We're all anti-Semites now.
Steve -- The Who/Whom applies here. Friedman and Klein ARE objectively anti-Semitic, no question, in that they want Israel obliterated along with America. This attitude is also hand in hand with the desire to remake America into Mexico Norte. Its the same thing.
And it is driven by the Davos Men hatred of: nationalism, the West, ordinary Western people (having nearly as nice things as rich important guys).
And yeah, you DO have anti-Semites making the same argument, that rich Jews control everything; and that they want to send off American boys to die for Israel.
That's obviously false, most Rich Jews are so thoroughly Davos Men that they'd applaud Iran nuking Israel off the face of the map as the newest initiative in Multiculturalism. It is a religion and way of life for them, as such whatever weak form of Israeli nationalism the Netanyahu government musters, or American conservatives (who hold traditional allies such as Britain and Israel in affection, and Muslims/Arabs in contempt) creates horror among the Davos Men. Of whom Friedman and Klein are charter members.
Walt and Mearshimer, and Klein and Friedman, all argue essentially that all Muslims are really nice people, and if they are cutting heads off, flying planes into buildings, or otherwise blowing up embassies, taking people hostage in embassies, murdering your diplomats, and such like, well ... you made them MAD! And its all your fault. Just grovel to the nice Third World person and they'll have mercy on you. Meanwhile you "revolting peasants" don't understand the Wisdom of Davos, after all Friedman once spent a whole day in Pock-E-stan at a Five Star Hotel, and the staff were all incredibly nice. If the Ayatollah's want to nuke Israel off the map (and oh boy DO THEY) well a mere bagatelle. "The Wrong Sort of Jewish Person" will get killed just as Michael Moore begged Muslims to stop killing cool New Yorkers and kill the "wrong sort of White person."
Same thing. It boggles my mind to see Steve come so close, and yet retreat back to Davos-man-ism. It is who/whom.
One one side: Davos Men, Muslims, unbridled Third Worldism including mass immigration, endless apologies for being White and Western, groveling, enthusiastic globalism, hatred of Western nationalism and celebration of non-Western nationalism; and on the other side: Israel, the US, WESTERN nationalism, WESTERN exceptionalism (the Third World is basically a cess-pit of humanity sadly with no hope of bettering themselves), peace through intimidation (not useless treaties ignored before the ink is dry) and the proven principles of power.
This is not about patrolling the bounds of public discourse -- it is about who/whom. Davos Men or ordinary Westerners?
That Friedman and Klein are Jews, who would obviously be happy to see "the wrong sort of Jew" be annihilated because it will get them back-claps at Davos ought to be an illustrating moment on the power of Davos-ism: nothing less than the construction ad-hoc of a new Global Aristocracy with hostility to Western Nationalism.
Let's be honest: the ordinary working Israeli in Tel Aviv is my ally, the ordinary working guy in Lahore is my enemy. The Israeli won't undercut my wages, the guy in Lahore will. The Israeli doesn't want to move here, and the guy from Lahore does. The Israeli if he DID move here and bring all his relatives would not be too much trouble, nor would he and his take over my country and make it a no-go area for non-Jews, the guy from Lahore WILL take everything over and has made substantial parts of Europe no-go for the natives.
Lastly: this just in, Muslims flew planes into the Towers, not Jews.
I can't imagine a genuine Scotch-Irishman writing long, hyper defensive responses every time Steve has a post like this. Just drop the charade, Whiskey. People will like you more for being honest.
Israel is a dead-end and a trap for Ashkenazi Jews. Mizrahi Jews have produced very little of cultural note over the past 2000 years (unless they moved to France). Over the long run Jews and Europe/America have simply been a good match. Israeli Jews are quickly descending to the level of the lowest common denominator. Israel is a cultural wasteland compared to the Jewish community in the US today, or the pre-war Jewish communities in Vienna and Berlin. It is not anti-Semitic to love the Yiddish traditions of East European Jews but find Israel a rather awful Middle Eastern state where everything that was attractive about Judaism - the love of learning, the curiosity, the ambition, the sharp humor, even the food and music - has been stripped away. There will never be an Israeli Sholom Aleichem, Albert Einstein, Franz Kafka, Gustav Mahler, Jonas Salk, Woody Allen or Saul Bellow. Israel is just what Hitler wanted - a Europe empty of Jews, and Jews with no European culture.
Israel is slowly turning into the kind of normal country that the founders of Zionism said they wanted: one where people go to the disco and the beach a lot and enjoy life. It's becoming kind of a Jersey Shore culture, which isn't all that bad of a thing. There will long remain a smart minority that will love classical music and chemistry, but, overall, it's turning from a Teutonic to a Mediterranean culture.
"The guy no on ever heard of"
I guess you haven't been paying much attention for the last quarter of a century:Iran-Contra, Abrams' conviction for lying to Congress, the elder Bush's presidential pardon of Abrams, etc.
"Some really thought like you said but there were genuine free speech advocates in the 60s who fought for free speech for all. Nat Hentoff is still of that breed."
Sorry, but you are wrong. I was saddened when Nat Hentoff spoke out against free speech (at Columbia, I believe) in one of the recent (last 5 years?) NYC hoo-hahs about "anti-Semites" speaking on campus.
As best I remember, Nat used the old "students shouldn't feel uncomfortable on campus" argument.
Having viewed Hentoff as a free speech absolutist for so long, it was discombobulating seeing him line up with the Dershowitz on the question of Arabs speaking on campus and making Jews uncomfortable.
Dersh and Hentoff are both old, and both are understandably worried about the survival of their race and tribe. A lot has changed since their 1960s civil rights heyday. As their wealth and power increase, so does the precariousness of their position.
As Ginsberg explained in his book, whenever Jews follow this well-worn path, get too close to The Prince and too far from the people, their position in goy countries gets precarious.
Hentoff's shift toward censorship and suppression of speech in parallel with rising Jewish power is in complete concordance with Ginsberg's thesis.
Israel is a cultural wasteland compared to the Jewish community in the US today, or the pre-war Jewish communities in Vienna and Berlin
Well, if you put it that way, I'll get right on to founding the new Frankfurt School here in the Jewish homeland. We can call it the Tel-Aviv School.
Steve: "As you may have noticed, Jews tend to be good at public discourse: tending to be funny, logical, well-informed, articulate, and so forth."
Eliot's argument boils down to
1. If "A" (you are an Evil anti-Semite) then "B" (you say Israeli Jews are pushing America into war with Iran )
2. "B" (Friedman says Israelis are pushing America into war with Iran)
3. Therefore "A" (Friedman is an Evil anti-Semite)
This logical fallacy has some fancy name, but I can't remember it.
Of course, Eliot is "logical" if he actually means: "ONLY Evil anti-Semites say Israeli Jews are pushing us into war with Iran".
If that is Eliot's thesis statement, then I would agree that Eliot is "logical".
Wrong, of course, but "logical".
You know, supporting Israel wouldn't be a high burden if it wasn't for the genocidal aspects of PC. Stop inviting the world and brainwashing our children to breed with everyone but their own race (i.e. exercise a benevolent control) and they'd have a lot more supporters.
It's funny Steve, I feel the same way about the discourse. I hate lies and I hate the way that correct decisions can't be made because no one is allowed to think unpalatable truths. I guess on the positive, knowing all the HBD crimethink stuff does allow one to make smarter decisions and give one a competitive advantage in life.
Whiskers said: Friedman and Klein ARE objectively anti-Semitic, no question, in that they want Israel obliterated along with America.
Hunsdon replied: Whiskers, this isn't even good propaganda. I do appreciate the Orwell reference, of course, but really now. Generally I don't like the "diagnosis at a distance" thing, which seems mean-spirited if not downright Soviet, but when I read your screeds, I seriously suspect that you need medication.
Do you remember Tom Friedman on the Charlie Rose show, talking about the "terrorism bubble" of the 90s?
Hey, Anonymous at 10:46 pm:
The Weekly Standard was owned by Rupert Murdoch for most of its existence. Ever heard of Rupert Murdoch? That ownership interest is one reason that Weekly Standard editors and writers have been among the most common talking heads on the Fox News Channel, also owned by Rupert Murdoch. And the Fox News Channel is the highest rated cable news network in America.
Elliott Abrams has played an important role in American foreign policy in and out of government for over a quarter of a century. He is the son in law of the longest serving editor of Commentary, the most important Jewish Neocon magazine in the world (and is the brother in law of the current editor of Commentary). If you don’t know who Elliot Abrams is you shouldn’t be posting comments on a blog about him.
Long story short: I'm done with these fucking people. That's it.
"Robert Holmgren said...
Pick the first one and you're good to go. Meanwhile we still don't know if Anonymous is your first or last name. Might want to avoid those glass houses."
1.) I am not the "anonymous" whom you answered.
2.) Of the (likely) thousands of Richard Holmgren's in the world, that link still does not reveal which one you are. You are still - to all intents and purposes - anonymous.
3.) And you honestly don't think there is a real, tangible reason for remaining anonymous when posting on a site such as this?
Unfortunately the Jewish IQ is incredibly high in comparison to our fellow white gentiles IQ.
It's not. And I get tired of seeing this nonsense endlessly repeated.
Okay, Steve, since you didn't publish my other comment, I'll rephrase: I just wish Iran and Israel would love each other to death and leave the US out of it.
OT, but I read recently that nearly a million Israelis live outside Israel and half a million carry US passports. What percentage of these are Ashkenazi? Probably most. In which case it is a significant fraction of the total Israeli Ashkenazi population. Combined with the demographic trends in Israel and the West Bank, the average IQ inside Israel (96?), and the rise of the Orthodox -- well, the future of Israel starts to seem pretty iffy over the long haul.
I wonder if this colors the attitudes of people like Abrams? I'd be pretty paranoid if I were in their shoes.
"OT, but I read recently that nearly a million Israelis live outside Israel and half a million carry US passports. ...Combined with the demographic trends in Israel and the West Bank, the average IQ inside Israel (96?), and the rise of the Orthodox -- well, the future of Israel starts to seem pretty iffy over the long haul."
No, the fact that there are so many overseas Israelis is a boon to Israel. Israel's advantage lies not in its isolation but its relations to Jewish and gentile communities all over the world, especially US, France, UK, and etc. These overseas Israelis go back and forth between Israel and West. Haim Saban is typical. And even in the West, they work as agents of Israel. Overseas Israelis are essentially missionaries of Zionism. If Christian missionaries sought to convert others and save souls, Zionist missionaries seek to control others to serve their own kind.
"Israel is a 'dead end for the Ashkenazim'. Of course, most Ashkenazim never bought into th Zionist dream of Israel. European and American Jews have never been sold on moving to a camel-jockey country like Israel and getting their hands dirty on some kibbutz."
Most Jews don't intend to move or settle there, especially in the new globalist era of cheap airfare. Why permanently move to Israel when you can go back and forth with ease, like Haim Saban and Rahm Emanuel? It's like a Roman didn't have to live in Rome to feel as a Roman and feel connected to Rome; but no matter what part of the empire he was in, he still felt as part of a great Roman civilization because he knew there was a place called Rome.
So, the ideal of Israel is not 'Jews should move there' but 'Jews possess and control the most precious religious, cultural, and historical symbol of Western civilization--and even Islamic civilization since Islam grew out of Judaism and Christianity.' Similarly, there are lots of Irish-Americans who don't intend to move permanently back to Ireland, but they are still glad to know there is a nation called Ireland for the Irish.
Initially, there were some zealous Jews who wished most Jews would move to Israel and create a new nation. But over time, most Jews came to value the dualistic possibilities opened by Israel: A Jew could be a French Jew and a Zionist Jew, an American Jew and a Zionist Jew, a Russian Jew and a Zionist Jew. Thus, Jews of different nationalities all over the world are united by the symbol of Israel, the Jewish state, even if many of them never went to Israel. Zionism make possible the sense of Jewish nationalism of the heart. But then, many Irish-Americans never visited Ireland but still connected to Irishness by the existence of Ireland.
In a way, there is a kind of tag-team match shtick going on here between Friedman/Klein and Abrams. No, I don't mean they got together behind closed doors to hatch some conspiracy, but Friedman/Klein and Abrams actually complement one another.
On the surface, it seems like they are at each other's throats, but in a deeper sense, their tag-team shtick serves Jewish interest.
Friedman/Klein, like many Jews, may well be aware that many Americans are waking up to the fact of Jewish power and Israeli influence on American politics, not least because of Bush's neocon wars and completely pro-Zionist policies and because Obama too is just a shill of American/Israeli Jewish power.
Also, on many college campuses, there's outspoken anger against Israel, even among some Jews. So, Friedman/Klein want us to think that not all Jews are mindless Zionists with the blunt/rude manners of Netanhayu and some neocons. They want us to believe that most Jews are thoughtful, fair-minded, and troubled by certain events in Israel. They also get to stoke their own egos as 'good Jews' than bullying Jews.
But they fear that if criticism of Jewish power is allowed, the dam might burst and real anti-semites might come out of the closet and hurl all sorts of abuse on Jews. Once something is allowed, it can run wild and free.
So, Friedman/Klein need Abrams of the world who play the Zionist cop who sees antisemitism everywhere. Thus, the message is Jews can criticize Jewish power but goyim cannot.
Abrams' rant also has the purpose of keeping white conservatives on the side of Israel. Many white conservatives are wondering why they should be pro-Jewish when most Jews are anti-white. But if, as Abrams says, liberal Jews are anti-Semites, then white conservatives can be made to believe that Jewish support for Obama isn't really JEWISH support for Obama since liberal Jews are self-loathing Jewish anti-semites, thus having lost the mantle of Jewishism.
Thus, white conservatives can almost feel like they are the real, albeit honorary, Jews in their 100% support for Israel.
Let's pause here, and you try to guess which two anti-Semites dedicated to spreading their hatred of Jews this long-time diplomat is thinking of ...
My first guess was Larry David and Woody Allen.
Larry David acts Jewish
Anonymous said...
He is right, you know. This is exactly what the anti-Semites say; in fact, they will say this right here in the comments.
No, that's what many reasonable people say at least in modified form. Obviously Abrams exaggerates in order to reinforce his prejudices.
The problem is that Jewish bigots routinely label reasonable people as "anti semites" for the purposes of controlling the discussion when they think it is "Good for the Jews".
That's Steve's point.
Abrams is recently known as a loud ethnocentrist, to the point he is criticizing Jews marrying outside of the tribe. In the other corner, Sailer loudly, repetitively insists how anti-ethnocentrist he is, with highly selective inspiration from world events.
The top link this moment at NewYorker.com is the well flogged tale of a Rutgers student suicide from 2010, a Gay-American incidentally. To some people THAT is like college football.
It can't be repeated often enough: "Anti-Semitism" has been redefined as the belief that Jews are a group like any other that can be criticized like any other. Therefore any skepticism about what American interest is served by war with Iran is clearly a sign of vicious, bloodthirsty "abnormal psychology"
Unfortunately the Jewish IQ is incredibly high in comparison to our fellow white gentiles IQ.
And even if that was 100% true high IQ white gentiles hugely outnumber the high IQ Jewish contingent. Which kind of undermines the cognative elite meme used to justify Jewish dominance in the control of discourse.
The Israeli doesn't want to move here, and the guy from Lahore does.
Really, Whiskey? Come to Boston or New York - I can introduce you to any number of Israelis who have moved here.
If you really look at it, the pre-1970 concern with "free speech" turned out to be mostly about sex. Apparently it was hard to get laid in the '50's, and permissible speech had to be broadened to make it easier. One of the chroniclers of campus war protests (Todd Gitlin?) quoted one of the prominent organizers of the era as saying, "it was an easy way to get next to chicks." Once that objective was secured, we got onto the real business of insulating minorities from criticism.
And let's not even get into all the Jewish Communists who served in secret polices in the USSR and Warsaw Pact nations, arresting, imprisoning, torturing, and murdering people who expressed crimethink.
that reminds me of another new form of anti semitism - east european countries memorializing victims of communist oppression.
gumster is right even though only gumster will know.
Whiskey as usual shows up with his patented paranoid psychotic bigotries.
what is scary about whiskey is not much - he's a armchair pundit like us.. what's scary is that his paranoid, neurotic, hyper hypocritical attitudes are embraced by a considerable portion of the jewish elite who do have a lot power.
Really, it seems the askanazi are bent on a an all or nothing game, setting they seem to go picking fights and trying to bully anyone and everyone, like a paranoid whimp in a bar who thinks everyone is out to get him to he shoves, curses, insults hits...
one day he's going a bloody nose.
Abrams is recently known as a loud ethnocentrist, to the point he is criticizing Jews marrying outside of the tribe. In the other corner, Sailer loudly, repetitively insists how anti-ethnocentrist he is, with highly selective inspiration from world events
I'm not sure if the "he" in all that is supposed to be Sailer or Abrams, but it makes no sense either way. Sailer does not insist that he is anti-ethnocentrist, nor does he insist that Abrams is anti-ethnocentrist.
“Menachem Begin (rhymes with Fagin).”
It's too bad goy not only rhymes with toy but acts like one.
They have too much money/status/prestige to lose by moving to Israel.
That's true. Just think of the daily volume of trade that funnels through American financial markets. It's huge. If they moved to Israel, and especially if there were significant border and capital controls put in place, then they'd be missing out on being able to trade this vast wealth.
Armenians are sharp traders, but back in Armenia they can't create or produce anything but rugs, so for all their trading acumen, they can't really make big fortunes trading a relatively worthless product like rugs. But when they're in the US, they can trade the valuable goods, assets, financial products and make huge fortunes.
Anonymous at 2/3 12:38, in my response to my comment at 2/2 9:08, wrote:
that reminds me of another new form of anti semitism - east european countries memorializing victims of communist oppression.
There you go, folks: Jews can talk ad infinitum and ad nauseum about the Holocaust and other atrocities in Jewish history, but woe to the goyim who have the temerity to talk about Jews who participated in persecutions and genocides! "Never again!" is only for the Shoah; the slogan for the Holodomor and the many, many heinous acts of Communism should be, from the POV of bigots like this Anonymous, "More, please!"
I have said it before but where is Mario Savio when you need him? Ou sont le Mario Savio d'antan? Where are the Mario Savios of yesteryear?
Mario Savio led the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in 1965. That was when the Jewish Elite were beginning their takeover of the Elite Status Rung on the American Hierarchy Ladder. They wanted all the Free Speech America could stomach in order to point out the foibles and hypocrisies of the (now former) Wasp elite.
However, now it is 'Free speech for me but not for Thee.' I think that is called Chutzpah.
A Jewish conservative, Paul Gottfried, over at VDare has a five pager on Jewish disregard for free speech.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-jewish-conservative-wonders-is-free-speech-really-a-jewish-tradition
check it out.
that reminds me of another new form of anti semitism - east european countries memorializing victims of communist oppression.
Jewish group objects to ‘Great Famine’ case
KIEV, Ukraine (JTA) -- A Jewish group in Ukraine is objecting to a criminal case brought over the "Great Famine" committed in the 1930s.
The nation's security service is pressing the case against a list of former Soviet officials accused of committing the Holodomor, which caused the deaths of millions in Ukraine in 1932-33. Most of the names on the list were Jewish.
Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksandr Feldman, leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said last week that it was "a farce" to press the case.
“All organizers of the Great Famine are dead," he said.
Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials -- as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia -- that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.
The Ukrainian Jewish Committee called on the secret service to revise the list, which incited interethnic hatred, in order to clear up the “inaccuracy.”
After the Bolshevik Revolution (in which Jews played an enormously disproportionate role), anti-Semitism was made a capital offense (you read that right).
Are you going to be the one to actually document a source on this one? So far, after doing this for 10 years or so, it has not graduated beyond "WN urban myth."
To say calling American Jews out as being more interested in Israel’s interests than America’s in wanting the US to lead a war against Iran’s nuclear program, constitutes shameful anti-Semitism, is absolutely outrageous. It’s hardly irrational hatred and stereotyping of Jews. It’s taking a different position than the neo cons and the Israel lobby in the US. Which is perfectly, entirely legitimate.
What, we have to give the neo-cons and Israel lobby everything they want, and not point out where the push to strike Iran is primarily coming from, to not be shameful anti-Semites?? Ridiculous.
Abrams has always been an extremist neo-con.
This seems to call for an "I am Spatacus" response.
I'm an anti-Semite. You're an anti-Semite. We're all anti-Semites now.
Yep. Thanks for naming it. I've been doing and advocating this for a long time but you've put the name to it.
I do a lot of stuff just for "I am Spartacus" reasons.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/a-jewish-conservative-wonders-is-free-speech-really-a-jewish-tradition
This part of Gottfried's article brings to mind something he said in an interview : "Someone once asked me if I sell razor blades with my books":
I believe two converging circumstances help explain this disintegration of a traditional Western bourgeois identity.
·Firstly, the emergence of a post-communal and largely post-Christian collection of consumers, who receive their view of reality from the Main Stream Media, the entertainment industry, and public education.
This agglomeration has no real sense of the past (as I learned first-hand from teaching Western Civilization in college) but they have memorized the prescribed tags about prejudice and the need to celebrate diversity. The intellectuals who instruct these cultural illiterates have even less interest in the Western past, except as a fever swamp of prejudice that we are expected to dredge as an “unfinished revolution”.
Not all these consumers/ ignoramuses feel really guilty about what is alleged to have happened in the past. But they simply repeat, even if they don’t internalize, what they pick up from prepackaged news reporting, entertainers, and public educators. Authorized “conservatives” do not entirely break from this official version but they mix references to a prejudiced past with tributes to the US as a global democracy that wages wars for “human rights”. Here national (really post-national) identity is seen to flow from universal abstractions and from being a showcase “pluralist” society that is slowly surmounting the burden of its past.
·Secondly, these problems are complicated by the Jewish intelligentsia and mediacrats, who try to sensitize the Gentile population to an alternative reality in which the sensitizers feel safe from Gentile prejudice.
i see a poster by the name of gumster pulled the "Jews critical of Israel are really just deviously advancing Zionist power in a sneaky reverse psychology way, those crafty bastards!" you know, where Jews with opposing views are alleged to be involved in a tacit alliance toward the same Jewish Power (tm) goal on everything, cuz they're all Jews after all.
now i could call this classic conspiratorial anti-Semitism, but that'd just be mean and PC of me, by the rules of this blog where there's apparently no line between un-PC and paranoid fantasy. so we'll just be nice and say "paranoid and delusional."
it's OK though, Sailer can keep selecting the most overblown anti-anti-Semites like Abrams and act all "why i never!" when people point out the opposite among a bunch of his regulars, and the paleo Right in general.
now i could call this classic conspiratorial anti-Semitism, but that'd just be mean and PC of me, by the rules of this blog where there's apparently no line between un-PC and paranoid fantasy. so we'll just be nice and say "paranoid and delusional."
No conscious "conspiracy" need be involved here. It's simply about calculating different strategies in the pursuit of an end. Different parts of your body and brain will often arrive at different decisions or strategies in a given situation.
Evolution produces things like creatures that can fly or live miles under water, and you think something like this is preposterous?
Svigor,
William Korey, Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat, and the Demonology of Zionism, published under the auspices of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism (i.e., not a "WN" or paleocon source), Chapter 1 (emphasis added):
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, vigorously fought pogromist attitudes. While seeking to make antisemitism and pogroms a capital offense, he publicly denounced Judeophobia.
Joseph Stalin, Collected Works, Volume 13, "Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States," January 12, 1931 (published later in Pravda in 1936)(emphasis added):
In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty.
Kevin Macdonald, "Stalin's Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR," review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century (I don't have the book in front of me or would quote it directly) (emphasis added):
Such widespread public perceptions about the role of Jews in the new government led to aggressive surveillance and repression of anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior, including the execution of Russian nationalists who expressed anti-Jewish attitudes... From 1927 to 1932 Stalin established an ambitious public campaign to combat anti-Semitism that included fifty-six books published by the government and an onslaught of speeches, mass rallies, newspaper articles, and show trials “aimed at eradicating the evil” (p.249).
it's OK though, Sailer can keep selecting the most overblown anti-anti-Semites like Abrams and act all "why i never!" when people point out the opposite among a bunch of his regulars, and the paleo Right in general.
What's "the opposite"?Are you saying that there are significant numbers of Jews among the paleo Right in general, or that there are a significant number of anti-Semites?
If it's the latter we wind up back at the usual problem - what's an "anti-Semite" anyway? It's an even more meaningless term than "racist" these days.
Anonymous: One question, why should I care about Eliot Abrams or the Weekly Standard?...The guy no on ever heard of...
Actually, during the mid-2000s Abrams became Bush's Deputy National Security Advisor and the top Middle East policy person on Bush's National Security Council, and ended up quickly purging any "Realists" whose views conflicted.
I do suppose you've heard of something called the president's National Security Council or at least someone named George W. Bush? No? Okay, sorry for asking...
I agree that no conscious conspiracy is necessary to explain the Jewish Group Mind. Jews share a common mindset--a sort of "Is it good for the Jews" mindset tinged with a little paranoia. Jewish pundits who tap into this mindset very quickly find their ideas taken up by other Jewish pundits and Jewish public opinion coalesces around these ideas. It is very similar to what happens in the larger world of intellectual discourse. Because there is no organized conspiracy and no set program, Jews can change their minds about things. They changed their minds about Communism. Perhaps they will change their minds about immigration. Some influential Jewish spokesperson needs to say, "Gee whiz, whites are getting very angry about seeing their country taken away from them. Maybe this is not going to be good for the Jews after all."
If Abrams thinks that's bad he should read Haaretz they are pretty frank about both of those anti-semitic subjects.
They changed their minds about Communism.
Poor example.
Jews hardly have, or ever had, a "common mindset" about communism. Communism is one thing that polarizes Jews as much as anyone else.
There are pro-communist Jews such as true believers, Frankfurt Schoolers, liberal reformists. There are anti-communist Jews such as religious fundamentalists, zionists, and libertarians.
And there is such as thing as being pro- or anti- communist on certain issues. Even the most anti-commie Jew is likely to side with Stalin against Hitler.
tinged with a little paranoia
A little? I would hate to see " a lot".
It seems to me that the only way that the abrams and his ilk can 'win' a debate is by stacking the odds in their favor - any open, objective environment would expose their hypocrisy and ridiculous paranoia.
As would an objective view of atrocities in East Europe under communism.
Question is how long can they keep a lid on it and what steps will they take to do it? will we see Isteve's blog deleted (steve I sincerely hope you're backing up your posts )
"I guess you haven't been paying much attention for the last quarter of a century:Iran-Contra, Abrams' conviction for lying to Congress, the elder Bush's presidential pardon of Abrams, etc."
Fine, so Abrams is someone known for being convicted and pardoned. 25 years ago. Yep, just a guy with a power to control public discourse.
What I find puzzling is that the people like Friedman and Klein, who actually do control public discourse, appear to share your views on Jews (or neocons, or Likudniks, or however you like to call it.) Shouldn't you celebrate? Or at least acknowledge it a little? Instead you rail against some old has been who published a rant in a magazine.
Steve, interesting essay as usual.
My initial take was slightly different.
When I first read the articles by Friedman and Klein I thought WTF? Why are Friedman and Klein so aggressivley attacking the Neocons? Friedman and Klein are Jewish and supporters of Israel aren't they?
Then I thought of an article I read years ago discussing the rise of Hitler during the Weimar Republic. The author of the article had interviewed various prominent German social conservatives who had been opposed to Hitler before his rise in 1932.
They told the author that a number of them had approached various Jewish leaders and asked them to publicly criticize Jews who were doing bad things (such as white collar crime, mortgage fraud, pornography, white slavery, communist agitation, etc....) because they felt that this behavior was poisoning the German people toward law abiding Jews and giving impetus to Hitler's increasing popularity. Unfortunately, no prominent Jewish leaders took them up on this suggestion according to these German social conservatives.
I don't particularly blame them, because when a gentile does something wrong I don’t feel the need to stand up and criticize him or her just because I am a gentile. However, because of the clannishness of the Jews many gentiles seem to believe that Jews act as a group and that therefore the failure of a Jew to speak out against another Jew who has done wrong, or who is behaving badly, is perceived by gentiles as a tacit approval by all Jews of that behavior.
Jewish attitudes are not monolithic and in fact I know several U.S. Jews who absolutely hate, hate, hate (sorry Whiskey) the war mongering by the U.S. Jewish Neocons (unfortunately these Jews are not particularly wealthy or influential).
The situation is complicated by the fact that criticism of any Jew by a gentile is made difficult because of the possibility of the charge of anti-Semitism. It reaches absurd levels when prominent U.S. Jews advocate a U.S. war in Iran, and people (gentiles or Jews) are unwilling to publicly allege that the motivations of the person is a fondness for the idea of a greater Israel and not out of concern for their fellow U.S. citizens to which Iran poses absolutely no threat (and not to Israel either considering they have over 200 hundred nuclear weapons).
My impression of Friedman and Klein is that at some level they are aware of a possibly increasingly jaundiced view of Jews and Judaism by gentiles and trying to act as the canary in the coal mind ... sort of an early warning system for their co-religionists such as Abrams who have less finely attuned social radar.
It's no secret that some prominent U.S. Jews are pushing for the U.S. to go to war with Iran. More and more gentiles are aware of this fact. By way of anecdotal evidence, the other day my brother's neighbor, a 70 year old retired plumber who has never even been on the internet, out of the blue said to us at a barbecue "It looks like the Jews really want a war with Iran." This out of the blue statement surprised us, and we took it as sign of a growing lack of sympathy for Jews and awareness by your average citizen of the machinations of some prominent U.S. Jews in fomenting wars by the U.S. on behalf of Israel.
.
Perhaps Friedman and Klein are just concerned that war with Iran and the possible disastrous consequences may serve as a tipping point that causes white gentiles en masse to reevaluate their attitudes toward Jews and their status and role in the U.S.
Unfortunately for Abrams (and perhaps all Americans gentile and Jew alike) he and others like him have a tin ear and cannot recognize the melody they are playing.
Jews hardly have, or ever had, a "common mindset" about communism. Communism is one thing that polarizes Jews as much as anyone else.
But the disagreements are whether its good for the jews, not a more general, objective disagreement.
"Whiskey said...
Let's be honest:"
Yes. Why don't you try it sometime.
"......the ordinary working Israeli in Tel Aviv is my ally, the ordinary working guy in Lahore is my enemy."
Really? The average working guy in Lahore probably wouldn't give a second though to Americans, if we weren't f**king around in his part of the world. And the average Israeli in Tel Aviv is your ally? Have they fought alongside you in America's wars? Oh, that's right.....you haven't fought in those wars either.
"The Israeli won't undercut my wages, the guy in Lahore will. The Israeli doesn't want to move here, and the guy from Lahore does."
http://www.sourcingline.com/outsourcing-location/pakistan
http://www.sourcingline.com/outsourcing-location/israel
Outsourcing ranks: Pakistan - 21, Israel - 25
Also, the number of H1-B visas issued to Israelis seems to be about the same (about 80-90% of) the number issued to Pakistanis.
"The Israeli if he DID move here and bring all his relatives would not be too much trouble, nor would he and his take over my country and make it a no-go area for non-Jews, the guy from Lahore WILL take everything over and has made substantial parts of Europe no-go for the natives."
No-go areas? You mean like Kiryas Joel? Or Meat-packing plants in Postville, Iowa?
Let's be honest, Whiskey. You are not OUR ally.
Thomas "suck-on-this" Friedman is certainly not opposed to the neocons. He did not seem to be accusing Israel of having enormous influence in Congress, rather he seemed to be boasting of it. This seems to be what Abrams objected to - the publicizing of the fact.
"Anonymous" ... all of you, can you at least make up darn name? Even for just commenting on this post. How tough is that?
It can't be repeated often enough: "Anti-Semitism" has been redefined as the belief that Jews are a group like any other that can be criticized like any other.
That's not a re-definition. That's basically what it's meant since day one in the 1870's.
Steve's nailed it, with his posts a making the comparison to the Cubans. It's that we aren't allowed to notice, without some windbag yelling "holocaust!" That's the problem.
As someone who'd clearly be an "anti-Semite" according to Abrams ... i wish Israel well. (I'd suggest getting on with it--pick a border, build the wall, and kick out the gentiles inside it and accept you won't be loved.) But I wish it well, simply because i believe it's fine for various peoples to have their nations.
What pisses me off is not the Jews mau-mauing everyone on Israel--done upfront like the Cubans without yelling "holocaust", American politics can accommodate that.
Rather the problem is that the Jews--not all but 75%, and 20% rabidly so--are simply and deeply hostile to gentile America. They can not accept that Anglo-Saxon\Northern European traditions (that come out of dry land farming) have created the best societies on earth … without them. Self-reliance, productive labor, cooperation, public spiritedness, fair-play, rule of law, majority rule, limited republican government, free inquiry, empiricism, practicality. This contrasts with a tradition that while very “sharp”, is prone to tribalism, rent-seeking, theoretical flights of fancy (ex. “the blank slate”), utopian dream spinning and political policing. The very best aspects of America—freedom and limited government are items they, as verbally skilled and champion rent-seekers and a minority … just don’t have any use for. And they—again I’m talking the 75% and the rabid 20%—promote the cultural and ethnic destruction of America.
And I’m reasonably cosmopolitan in outlook. I love middle America, but my bride is an immigrant of the non-Christian, brown, cow-loving-but-not-steak-loving variety. I’ve got friends of variety of hues. I enjoy visiting other countries. But I’m cosmopolitan enough to observe that not all people and cultures are the same. They don’t have the same capabilities. They don’t value the same things. They don’t produce the same societies. And I don’t want my country flooded with aliens—especially low IQ aliens from disparate cultures—in order to crush, to bury, the remaining remnants of Northern European cultural dominance that’s created such a comfortable and prosperous country—my country.
I don’t just blame “the Jews”. It’s obvious there’s a lot of strands here, including the long morphing of a considerable portion of the now non-religious—and always volatile—Purtian strain from more realistic religious public spiritedness to silly love-the-world Unitarianism and Davos Man style internationalism. And there’s obviously an honest tension between core ideas of Christian charity and universalism and preserving Western and American civilization. And too many “serious Christians” are silly and insufficiently thoughtful about resolving this sanely. (Christianity is not a suicide pact … at least it’s not supposed to be! Hint: the Kingdom is not of this world.) But yeah, I’m not stupid and I can see who the leading ideologues, propagandists and policemen for the new order are.
I don’t want to live is some souped up version of the Ottoman empire, rule diktat from the smartest tribe. I want my country back! You’d think a atavistic tribalist like Elliot Abrams would get that.
@AnotherDad
I am the anonymous at 6:49
I have commented at other blogs using a "handle." I find that when I show up at the same site--or another site on the same blog roll--the site recognizes my URL address and helpfully supplies the appropriate "handle" for whatever comment I might wish to post. I don't like this. I suspect that even anonymous comments can be traced by anyone willing to expend the necessary effort, but I don't wish to make it easier for them.
@AnotherDad
Well said!
Jews hardly have, or ever had, a "common mindset" about communism. Communism is one thing that polarizes Jews as much as anyone else.
But the disagreements are whether its good for the jews, not a more general, objective disagreement.
Jews like Ayn Rand,and Frank Meyer, Frank Chodorov and Max Eastman (part of the founding group at National Review) were ideological libertarians who, as far as I can tell, spurned any personal connection to Jewishness. Same for Murray Rothbard.
.
It's true,in the formative years, that Rand's Objectivist Cult was entirely (or almost entirely) composed of Jews, but it was never close to being overtly or explicitly Jewish when Rand was alive. The extraordinarily rigid Rand was famously contemptuous of any sort of tribalism.
Oh the issue is far more serious than football.
If you suppress freedom of discourse regarding power, genuine hatred can build among individuals opposed to tyranny. If it goes on long enough, it can build up explosive potential. Defusing it become VERY tricky.
So how long as this suppression of discourse regarding power been going on?
Quoting Henry Ford from 1919:
"The chief difficulty in writing about the Jewish Question is the supersensitiveness of Jews and non-Jews concerning the whole matter."
Depending on interpretation of ancient records, one might even date this "supersensitiveness" back in to the Roman Empire. Quoting Cicero:
""Softly! Softly! I want none but the judges to hear me. The Jews have already gotten me into a fine mess, as they have many other gentleman. I have no desire to furnish further grist for their mills."
AnotherDad: "I want my country back! You’d think a atavistic tribalist like Elliot Abrams would get that."
He does. Hence the need to control the bounds of public discourse.
And there’s obviously an honest tension between core ideas of Christian charity and universalism and preserving Western and American civilization.
didn't seem to get in the way of Ferdinand and Isabel, or the Knights of Malta, sweetheart.
Jews are not like Cubans. Cubans never had half their world population slaughtered in the most inhumane, grotesque fashion. Cubans were never marched off to ovens, women, children, everyone starved and cooked like meat.
Anybody who does not understand that our protection of Israel is as much a moral imperative as a strategic one has no soul or conscience.
I personally think many Jews have advocated destructive politics - radical feminism and low-skill immigration among them. But I think Jews are turning on the immigration issue. Watch many Jews to vote for Romney this year. And remember, whatever liberal Jewish advocated causes had many, many white gentiles with them. Do we hate Irish becaue Ted Kennedy's immigration bill ruined our culture? Do we hate Wasps like Nixon because of Title IX? Or are we ready to realize that although Jews are overrepresented in anti-American liberalism, they are far outnumbered by others?
Jack at 2/4 11:11 wrote:
Jews are not like Cubans. Cubans never had half their world population slaughtered in the most inhumane, grotesque fashion. Cubans were never marched off to ovens, women, children, everyone starved and cooked like meat.
Anybody who does not understand that our protection of Israel is as much a moral imperative as a strategic one has no soul or conscience.
Ever hear of the Armenian Genocide? Does the word "Holodomor" ring a bell? Are aware of the quarter (or third, or half -- nobody really knows) of Europe's Gypsies who were killed in the very same Holocaust as the Jews? What of Mao's Cultural Revolution? Perhaps the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Soviet-occupied eastern Europe? What about the Cambodian Genocide under the Khmer Rouge? Rwanda 1994 mean anything to you?
There have been many, many genocides throughout history (the ones I name above all occurred within a mere 75-year period). Some of these genocides have been comparable to the Holocaust in both scale and brutality. AFAICT, guilty feelings over any of them, save the slaughter of Jews, do not have any appreciable influence on US foreign policy -- nor should that be the case. Why don't we subsidize Ukraine's military, or Armenia's, and fight Ukraine's enemies, or Armenia's? Why aren't we funding a Gypsy militia, or invading eastern Europe to carve out a Romani republic?
What makes Jews and Israel so d*mn special? Your overpowering tribalism have submerged your soul and conscience?
While still a teenager, I remember seeing Richard Perle being interviewed on television. I had no idea who he was but I was awestruck by his demeanor. His eloquence, reserve, and slow but fluid delivery, was mesmerizing. I thought of a Jewish founding father.
I didn't know then that he willed only one thing: to convince anyone with power that Israel's and the United States' interests are identical. He must relish his success.
Years ago, Jon Stewart did interview him on the Daily Show. Jon, who thinks anyone to the right of Angela Davis, is a Nazi, really took off the gloves- and put on the yarmulke. How did this contrarian satirist treat the evil brain behind the Evil Bush War Policy?
He turned back into little Jonathan Leibowitz, at his uncle Rabbi Perle's knee, never contradicting - injecting only a few comments designed to amuse this elder relative. They did touch on the influence of foreign money in politics. That foreign money coming from .............Saudi Arabia???
Congratulations Jon, good job keeping up your "fight the power" image.
Was it the hidden hand that led to such deference, or is blood thicker than politics?
but it was never close to being overtly or explicitly Jewish when Rand was alive.
Not true. See rothbard = it was all jewish and viciously anti-christian and pro israel.
Go to the objectvists website now- they call for nuking Afghanistan, there are dozens of articles supporting israel, and one titled "take the christ out of christmas'.
Don't recall that-only that Rothbard provided the particulars on what a crazy cult Rand had formed. But I do recall that Raimondo wrote that Rand stood with America First before Pearl Harbor. Also,it's well known that she was a star "red baiter" after the war. Those two items don't fit in well with Jewish ethnocentrism.
And you can't blame her for what the loons in charge of the cult these days are doing long after her death.
Jack: Jews...had half their world population slaughtered in the most inhumane, grotesque fashion...marched off to ovens, women, children, everyone starved and cooked like meat.
Ha, ha! You forgot to mention that they were also baked into pies and eaten for dessert at festive holiday parties...
Still, the events you describe do clearly represent one of the most horrifying coincidences in all of modern world history. During the 1930s, a heavily Jewish-dominated regime exterminated 20 or 30 million Christians. Shortly thereafter a neighboring Christian regime developed a strange dislike for Jews and later killed a whole big bunch of them, for some totally inexplicable reason.
Yet another perfect example of the bizarre characteristics of "anti-Semitism," surely one of the deepest and most mysterious maladies afflicting the human psyche...
you can't blame her for what the loons
the 'loon' in charge is leonard peokiof , appointed by her.
her entire innner circle was Jewish- she married a gentile, yes, but became increasingly alienated from him as she got older.
Her universalist views are the neocon version of communism.
and btw, she was a loon.
she also was an atheist. For a more rational free market female writer, see isbel patterson - whom rand owes a LOT to - they had a falling out of her atheism.
Atheism is always a sign of fantacism (french revolution, bolshiviks, alan dershowitz, richard dawkins)
"i see a poster by the name of gumster pulled the "Jews critical of Israel are really just deviously advancing Zionist power in a sneaky reverse psychology way, those crafty bastards!" you know, where Jews with opposing views are alleged to be involved in a tacit alliance toward the same Jewish Power (tm) goal on everything, cuz they're all Jews after all."
I learned a lot about how Jews think from real life and David Mamet movies.
The mode of Jews is to 'think' than to 'believe'. Most white conservatives BELIEVE in things: this is right, that is wrong, this is us, that is them, etc.
While Jews have convictions, on political matters they are always operating in the mode of thinking than believing. Believing is for children who think the world is this one unchanging thing. In fact, the world is always changing like a poker or chess game. One has to look at all the angles.
So, when I say Jews understand it like a tag team match, it is really a compliment of sorts. They know power is a game.
Some really thought like you said but there were genuine free speech advocates in the 60s who fought for free speech for all. Nat Hentoff is still of that breed.
I admire Hentoff enormously, but he is the outlier of outliers - e.g., a self-described Jewish atheist who opposes abortion on civil-liberties grounds.
Cennbeorc
"Ha, ha! You forgot to mention that they were also baked into pies and eaten for dessert at festive holiday parties...
Still, the events you describe do clearly represent one of the most horrifying coincidences in all of modern world history. During the 1930s, a heavily Jewish-dominated regime exterminated 20 or 30 million Christians. Shortly thereafter a neighboring Christian regime developed a strange dislike for Jews and later killed a whole big bunch of them, for some totally inexplicable reason.
Yet another perfect example of the bizarre characteristics of "anti-Semitism," surely one of the deepest and most mysterious maladies afflicting the human psyche..."
RKU - jokes about the Holocaust. You must be a big hit at the white supremacist parties.
What "Jewish-dominated regime" exterminated Christians? Do you seriously believe this shit? Stalin wasn't a Jew, retard. It's amazing people like you actually exist in 2012, believing the "Jew" is the cause of all the world's problems. Have you ever even met a Jew? We have lower rates of almost every social problem than almost every other group. We're productive and intelligent and commit little crime.
More importantly, whether you and your fellow bigots like it or not, Israel IS our only ally in the Middle East, and we will continue to treat them as such. If you don't like that, feel free to get the fuck out of MY country.
It's quite obvious that those who profess love for the "troops" and concern for the wars overseas most don't care about our military. I'm guessing RKU and his dull ilk don't have any relatives actually serving in the Middle East. Instead, because of their low IQ's, they blame our nations problems not on the feminists, gay activists, and minorities that cause them, but on one of the best groups we have.
israeli women are hot. That should mean something.
No Ashkenazi IQ is very high, as indeed it would have to be for such a tiny unpopular minority to acquire the wealth, media, and verbal skill to manipulate and overpower the world's sole superpower into sacrificing so much blood, treasure, national security, and global popularity, into defending Israel from the likes of Iraq and Iran, while getting this superpower to praise Israel as its great friend.
Kinda circular, innit?
That aside, it still doesn't make sense. It's like saying 5 bullies would have to be geniuses to team up and shake down 95 individualist kids for their lunch money.
IQ's the sole explanation for people who refuse to believe in Jewish ethnocentrism, but the numbers don't really add up, on either end (IQ testing does not reflect it (worldwide mean Ashkenazi IQ, about 106), and neither does high-IQ-per-capita). How about the smell test? Are Jews really beating anyone in the debate? Or are they brow-beating them? Are smart gentiles willing to even engage in debate, but losing? Or are they terrified into silence by the consequences?
Which kind of undermines the cognative elite meme used to justify Jewish dominance in the control of discourse.
The biggest problem with so-called "cognitive elitism" is that so-called "cognitively elite" populations don't practice it; they practice its opposite; Israel is not inviting in China's brightest minds to "enrich" their culture. (P.S., all the smart Jews live in America, not Israel, undermining the idea that Jews are the special sauce in their own Big Mac, never mind anyone else's).
"Cognitive elitism" is a serve-serving scam on the part of supposedly "cognitively elite" populations. Want to practice real cognitive elitism? Watch what supposedly "cognitively elite" populations do, and do likewise; you'll find yourself doing the opposite of what they tell you to do.
Jack: You'd be surprised to know who and what RKU actually is.
"More importantly, whether you and your fellow bigots like it or not, Israel IS our only ally in the Middle East, and we will continue to treat them as such. If you don't like that, feel free to get the fuck out of MY country."
You mean your "countries", don't you? There were times when an Irani American could have said Iran is our ally. Alliances change, and I presume if Israel becomes our enemy tomorrow, you'll stand by the good old USA like the good German immigrants did during WWII.
Jack,
That is some pushy attitude you're showing in this thread -- and WASP America has graciously granted you the liberty to express that attitude; don't you forget that.
Care to respond to my point (2/4 1:46) about other 20th-century genocides and their non-influence on US foreign policy? Or are facts your kryptonite?
Stalin wasn't a Jew, retard.
No, he was not, but many, many, many of his henchmen were. There was his brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich (that surname means "son of Cohen"), overseer of the Holodomor. There was Genrikh Yagoda (that surname is Russified "Judah"), head of the NKVD. There was Matyas Rakosi (born Matthias Rosenfeld), whom Stalin appointed dictator of Hungary after the war. I could go on and on and on....
Israel IS our only ally in the Middle East
The US has no treaty of alliance with Israel. The US does have a treaty ally in the Near East, however: Turkey, NATO member since 1952, whose troops fought alongside Americans in Korea.
If you don't like that, feel free to get the @#!*% out of MY country.
How is this your country and not ours? Sounds like the same attitude your fanatical coethnics show toward the Palestinians (whose ancestors lived in Palestine for millenia).
It's quite obvious that those who profess love for the "troops" and concern for the wars overseas most don't care about our military. I'm guessing RKU and his dull ilk don't have any relatives actually serving in the Middle East.
Speaking for myself, I have served in the military, including a combat tour in Iraq. The political candidate receiving the most donations from active and retired servicemen is Ron Paul, opponent of subsidizing Zionism and fighting Israel's enemies. Meanwhile, less than one half of one percent of our servicemen are Jewish: that is not my opinion (although my personal experience roughly matches that stat), as the DoD counts noses on religious affiliation.
IQ's the sole explanation for people who refuse to believe in Jewish ethnocentrism, but the numbers don't really add up...Are Jews really beating anyone in the debate? Or are they brow-beating them? Are smart gentiles willing to even engage in debate, but losing? Or are they terrified into silence by the consequences?
Over the last few years, I've gradually come to somewhat similar conclusions, even regarding verbal IQ, toward which Jewish ability is strongly skewed...
My data sample is hardly huge, but does seem fairly indicative. Over a decade or so of browsing the comments on various political-discussion sites, I've regularly noted which commenters seem sharp in their analysis and effective in their presentation, whether or not I happen to agree with them. Meanwhile, a reasonable fraction of the more significant commenters eventually tend to reveal their ethnicity, at least whether or not they're Jewish. Strangely enough, it's been quite, quite rare for me to find a highly intelligent and effective commenter who happens to be Jewish, which is completely contrary to what I would have originally expected.
Now one obvious response would be that there's a strong non-Jewish skew to the sort of people who regularly comment on rightwing/HBD blogsites, hence also a non-Jewish skew to the smarter ones. Except my sample also includes exactly the sort of mainstream liberal/leftist websites which would one would think likely to attract the greatest number of active Jewish participants. Admittedly, I don't waste my time reading neocon websites, but from the little I've seen, the quality there is so absymal, it would hardly tend to alter my conclusion.
Maybe the unfolding events of the last decade have made the smarter Jews so depressed, they've cut their Internet connection, and left only the dumbest ones to actively participate in political discussion...
"Jack said...
What "Jewish-dominated regime" exterminated Christians? Do you seriously believe this shit? Stalin wasn't a Jew, retard."
No, but there were a lot of prominent bolsheviks who were - Trotsky, Zinoviev, Yagoda, Kaganovich - and many less well known ones as well. The Soviet Union was not jewish dominated, especially after Stalin cemented his hegemony over the party, but a lot of the leading bolsheviks in the first twenty years after the revolution were jews - Trotsky, Zinoviev, Yagoda, Kaganovich, for example. And they played a prominent role in the Red Terror, the forced mass starvation in the Ukraine, and the destruction of churches. This is something about which Hollywood, for example, is strangely silent.
"More importantly, whether you and your fellow bigots like it or not, Israel IS our only ally in the Middle East, and we will continue to treat them as such."
What treaty is it that makes them an ally?
"If you don't like that, feel free to get the fuck out of MY country."
You mean MY country?
"rick said...
israeli women are hot. That should mean something."
Persian women aren't?
"What treaty is it that makes them an ally?"
Good point. If we were to document the terms of the existing unwritten agreement, wouldn't we be exposed as a gang of saps?
"No Ashkenazi IQ is very high, as indeed it would have to be for such a tiny unpopular minority to acquire the wealth, media, and verbal skill to manipulate and overpower the world's sole superpower into sacrificing so much blood, treasure, national security, and global popularity, into defending Israel from the likes of Iraq and Iran, while getting this superpower to praise Israel as its great friend."
Or Americans are really, really, REALLY DUMB.
If you go travel the world you will see there is much understanding of this fact in every other country other than America.
"Jack said...
I'm guessing RKU and his dull ilk don't have any relatives actually serving in the Middle East."
Do you?
This reminds me of the Jon Lovitz/Charles Grodin meltdown. Lovitz comes on Grodin's show. On the show, Lovitz is fat and munching on donuts. Grodin remarks that Lovitz is fat and munching on donuts, and Lovitz goes crazy and throws the donut at the camera.
Similarly, Abrams rants about 'antisemitic' stereotypes about Jewish controlling foreign policy, having dual loyalty, and etc, ALL THE WHILE having done just that all his life--and continuing to do so.
Call it the Lovitz-Donut-Complex. It's like Lovitz can be a fat pig munching on donuts, but you better not notice, cuz you'd be an anti-Lovitzite.
Or Americans are really, really, REALLY DUMB.
If you go travel the world you will see there is much understanding of this fact in every other country other than America.
Well the media is not as controlled by Ashkenazi in other countries, so other countries have an advantage in understanding this.
Similarly, suppose 'racistic' means for blacks to act in ways that confirm what 'racists' say of them. Thus, if blacks acted less racistic, there would be fewer 'racists'.
"israeli women are hot. That should mean something."
Persian women aren't?"
Have you Race Traitors no shame at all?
"In a 2008 lecture, she is reported as identifying two motivations of Israeli traffickers as "greed" and "Revenge, restitution—reparation for the Holocaust." She is reported as describing speaking with Israeli brokers who told her "it’s kind of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We’re going to get every single kidney and liver and heart that we can. The world owes it to us.’"
Look up Nancy Scheper-Hughes in Wikipedia. I was doing a little research on Irish Catholic culture, (she wrote a book Saints, Scholars and Schizophrenics) and came upon this other interest- organ trafficking- this Berkeley professor. Who really knows what motivates the actions of even a model minority?
She seems to have very Saileresque curiosity.
Post a Comment