A Jew-Firster Spat About Israel-Firsters

Jeffrey Goldberg writes in Is the Term 'Israel-Firster' Anti-Semitic?, at The Atlantic, on 19 Jan 2012:

There's been a controversy raging over the past month or so that I've avoided writing about mainly because it has a Groundhog Day quality to it. It began with this very interesting Ben Smith piece, but lately it has become tiresome. Apparently, it is not tiresome to other pepole, because it just keeps going. The seemingly most urgent question to emerge from this controversy is whether or not the term "Israel-firster" is anti-Semitic. The term is used by Media Matters, the left-wing advocacy group, to describe American Jews with whom it disagrees on American Middle East policy, and it was also used by staffers of the Center for American Progress, the important liberal think tank, to describe same. CAP has disavowed the language, and apologized on behalf of the staffer who used the term; Media Matters doesn't seem to care.

So, is "Israel-firster" anti-Semitic? Its origins are certainly anti-Semitic, and the idea that Jews are incapable of being loyal to the country of their citizenship and are only loyal to world Jewry, or the Jewish state, is an age-old anti-Semitic trope.

For non-jews the "controversy" has been tiresome all along - it's just the latest episode of jews debating jews about what's best for jews. The obsession with arguing about whether this or that is "anti-semitic" is symptomatic of a jew-first attitude. The trope here is the jewish conceit that they may freely exhibit such attitudes while everyone else must act as if they're incapable of noticing.

The next day Goldberg had more to say. A Question From Glenn Greenwald, 20 Jan 2012:

I don't think CAP is anti-Semitic (it's pretty hostile to Israel, but it's not as if it has called for the Jewish state's destruction), but the term "Israel-Firster" is originally a neo-Nazi term (Willis Carto's fascist Liberty Lobby was a big proponent of its use, as is David Duke), and it is meant to raise questions about a Jewish person's willingness to be loyal to America (this is merely the local variant of an ancient anti-Semitic trope). CAP, to its credit, acknowledged the anti-Semitic nature of the term, and apologized. (I wrote about the controversy here.)

Obviously, use of the term "Israel-Firster" to describe someone with whom you disagree is not meant to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize your opponent. When Jews use it, as Joe Klein does, it is particularly unfortunate, because it is a term specifically designed to marginalize Jews in the American political discourse, and people like Joe Klein will eventually reap the whirlwind, in one form or another. The mainstreaming of hostility toward any group of Jews leads inevitably to the mainstreaming of hostility to Jews generally. And of course it's probably a sound idea for Jews to avoid using neo-Nazi-derived slurs to describe other Jews.

This is why I'm taking the time to write about this latest tiresome episode of jew-firstiness. Did you catch what Goldberg did right there? Did you notice how he used the terms "neo-Nazi", "fascist", and "anti-semitic" to describe someone with whom he disagrees? How he indirectly explained that he doesn't mean for it to open a discussion, or advance an argument, but to demonize his opponent?

Words are not the problem, it's facing what they mean that Goldberg can't handle. "Israel-firster" is literally more descriptive than any of the terms he uses to demonize his opponents. To the extent "neo-Nazi", "fascist", and "anti-semitic" mean anything it amounts to "anti-jew" - which is exactly the kind of thing a jew-firster would be concerned about. Jefferey Goldberg is both a jew-firster and an Israel-firster. Israel and jews literally come first in his mind.

A few days later Goldberg was happy to quote someone else regurgitating his jew-first views. A Straight Line From Lindbergh to 'Israel-Firster', 23 Jan 2012:

[C]urious minds want to know whether the Gingrich campaign will continue to reap the largesse of Las Vegas billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who seems an unlikely Gingrichian. To explain it, some critics have taken to calling Adelson an "Israel-firster." That ugly term has been applied, not just to Adelson, but to other supporters of current U.S. policies regarding Israel, as Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg describes.

Bashing Jews for their supposed disloyalty to their nation is a crude maneuver that has been employed long before Israel existed. It has been a tactic of both the far-left and far-right, almost as though haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon.

Demonizing people in this way is always a nasty form of argumentation, but in our country it is particularly disquieting when this kind of discourse seeps into the mainstream of our major political parties. Lately, that seems to have happened within certain Democratic circles, as Ben Smith reported in Politico. In Charles Lindberg's time, the intolerance on display by the "America-First" crowd was mostly (but not exclusively) Republican.

Yes, it is a crude maneuver to demonize people in this way, for example, as "haters from both extremes come together on the dark side of the moon".

The difference is that the America First "crowd", including Charles Lindbergh, openly identified themselves and their interests, whereas jew- and Israel-firsters pretend they aren't and intolerantly demonize anyone who calls them on their pretense.

Fjordman Fallout

Chechar calls my attention to Unser Abschied von Fjordman (Our Departure from Fjordman) at As der Schwerter (Ace of Swords).

Mein Deutsch ist schlecht, and the Google Translate version is not much better, but the gist I get is that the efforts Chechar and I have made to engage Fjordman, part of a more general challenge to counter-jihadists to face the facts of jewish influence, has borne fruit in Germany.

The bloggers at Ace of Swords - Deep Roots, Osimandia, and Kairos (Cairo) - recently moved their blog from fjordman.wordpress.com to schwertasblog.wordpress.com, in part because visitors were sometimes confused about whether they were Fjordman, and in part because Fjordman requested it, apparently because he didn't like that they had indeed chosen to face the facts about the jews.

While all three of these bloggers credit Fjordman with helping to awaken them, they all specifically cite the incident discussed in White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad for causing them to reevalute their opinion of the counter-jihad. They have actually made the move I was hoping Fjordman would. They have rejected the deracinated counter-jihad and embraced ethno-racial nationalism.

Their Departure from Fjordman post concludes with an unequivocal White nationalist sentiment:

Europe belongs to Europeans. Not the Jews, not Muslims, the Europeans. (And, by the way, Germany is the Germans. Not the French, not the Americans, the Germans.)

For some reason the Google Translate version of the whole page reverts to German right at the point where the comments get interesting. Translating comments piecemeal we find signs that the AoS bloggers have come very quickly up to speed. Here are some samples.

Comment 19, by Osimandia:

It is very important to recognize that it is not "the Englishman" and "French" and "Americans" are driving the adverse developments. Instead, there are Judaised British, French and Americans. And I can not even make a whole lot Judaised German, commonly referred to as "poilitisch correct".

Among the species of this sort of people are stubborn and deluded "serious critic of Islam," the hufescharrend wait to finally be recognized as a subspecies accepted - which in my soon to be the case.

Comment 20, by Pit:

Yep:
politically correct = Semitic correctly.

I've even made it clear that "politically correct" means serving certain interests, promoting. Namely: Jewish interests.

Always in our understanding, Jews are an ethnic competitors. This competitor has defined its Jewish ethnic interests to general interests: so it is now: politically correct. Indeed, but it must read: correctly Semitic. So the whole agenda that we all have equal rights, whether orignial people relative or any intruder ... all the same, no matter if the people belonging to or not, is this view of Jewish ethnicity, because they want to live in other peoples as a minority, but just how much influence and rights to their ancestral people (which is possible only if the incumbent People's delegitimized and his identity is dissolved in).

We speak of: ETHNIC CORRECT. And since there was just one: Germanic correctly.
And we should all, the entire public life, align it, what is GERMANISCH-CORRECT! For these are OUR interests.

Comment 26, by Pit:

McDonald's position is immediately obvious to me: Jews are a rival ethnic group. They live in our white Gesellschften, but work only for their own benefit (to § 130s: "Is it good for the Jews" is the default position). From this approach follows pretty much everything else.

Comment 58, by Deep Roots:

Judaism is indeed the main enemy in this struggle for the survival of the white peoples, and to the realize this, one need only imagine what would happen if tomorrow would start all the white peoples, the Jews from their positions of power in the West remove and expel them from their countries.

Fjordman, Baron Bodissey and other long-time semitically-correct true believers may indeed be a lost cause. But here we have a reminder that there are other people - good and honest people - who are initially attracted to the counter-jihad by natural, patriotic instincts. Many are simply lurking and listening, more or less literally misguided. With help, if necessary, some of them can and will come to see the counter-jihad for what it is - a crypto-jewish movement, concerned mainly with serving jewish interests. Seeing this frees them to take the next logical and emotional step: directing their concerns toward serving the interests of their own kind rather than others.

An Interview with Robert Stark

I spoke with Robert Stark on The Stark Truth Wednesday and Thursday evening this week. The first segment should stream on Voice of Reason Broadcast Network at 8PM ET Friday. The second segment will stream sometime next week. I'll link the program archive pages here when they appear, which is usually a few days after a show streams.

The topics Robert and I touched on included A Personal Disclosure, Iowa's Critics, Roth and Weiss on What's Best for The Jews, and Gamer Excuses "The Jews", Blames "Whitey".

Robert was curious about the suicide meme but as I began to describe it we ran out of time. Robert invited me back to wrap up and we ended up spending another hour discussing the suicide meme and the counter-jihad (see White Nationalism and the Counter-Jihad and Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree).

The last time I did an interview was in November 2008 with Dietrich and Mishko. Back then Voice of Reason was just those two pioneers and their two-hour show once a week. Since then VoR has grown to nearly a dozen hosts and programs - all focused on history, politics, culture, and current events from a pro-White point of view. What they produce is a breath of fresh air compared to the degenerate, relentlessly anti-White propaganda issued by the thoroughly judaized "mainstream" media.

My thanks to Robert Stark for inviting me on, and to Mike Conner, who toils hard behind to scenes to make VoR work.

UPDATE, 23 Jan 2012: The Stark Truth: Interview with Tanstaafl, Part 1 (mp3).

UPDATE, 31 Jan 2012: The Stark Truth: Interview with Tanstaafl, Part 2 (mp3).

Path to National Suicide Discussion at Mangan's

Path to National Suicide

A long discussion was triggered when Mangan contrasted GOI's immigration and naturalization policy with USG's. That discussion recently bumped into a Blogger limit, so consider this one place to comment on or continue that discussion.

Iowa's Critics

On the 1 Jan 2012 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News Andrea Mitchell said: "The rap on Iowa: it doesn't represent the rest of the country -- too White, too evangelical, too rural."

The next day an NBC spokeswoman explained: "she was referencing critics who argue that the state shouldn't carry so much weight because it doesn't proportionally represent the rest of the country".

Who are these critics?

On 18 December 2011, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wrote about Iowa in the New York Times. A.G. is the son of publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. Their extended family owns a controlling stake in the paper.

Tucked inside Sulzberger's article is a version of Mitchell's complaint:

As the first state to take part in the Republican nominating contest, Iowa has long been criticized as too much of an outlier to be permanently endowed such an outsize influence in shaping the presidential field. Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.

Who are these critics?

On 9 December 2011, The Atlantic published a lengthly hit piece on Iowa by Stephen Bloom, Observations From 20 Years of Iowa Life.

While this may not be the source of Mitchell and Sulzberger's complaint, it appears to be the most recent, most complete expression of it. It is in fact a very thorough deconstruction of Iowans and their culture.

Bloom introduces himself as an expert Iowanologist:

For almost 20 years I've lived in Iowa, where as a professor at the University of Iowa I've taught thousands of university students. I've written a couple of books on rural Iowa, traveling to all 99 counties, and have spent much of my time when not teaching, visiting with and interviewing Iowans from across the state.

The article is long and well-padded with local trivia. This might create an impression Bloom not only knows Iowa but perhaps even sympathizes with Iowans. It would be a false impression.

At one point Bloom offers this blunt evaluation, clearly intended as a put-down:

I've lived in many places, lots of them foreign countries, but none has been more foreign to me than Iowa.

In subsequent paragraphs Bloom cites an overabundance of Germanic surnames and Christian beliefs as a particular source of irritation.

The article is larded from beginning to end with evidence of Bloom's distaste, which makes it a consistently unsympathetic, negative, and in places even gratuitously derogatory portrayal of White Iowans.

As it turns out, Bloom strongly identifies as a jew. This is clearly the main source of his alienation.

Here's how Bloom sums up his gripe:

Whether a schizophrenic, economically-depressed, and some say, culturally-challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn't at issue. It's been this way since 1972, and there are no signs that it's going to change. In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa's not representative of much. There are few minorities, no sizable cities, and the state's about to lose one of its five seats in the U.S. House because its population is shifting; any growth is negligible. Still, thanks to a host of nonsensical political precedents, whoever wins the Iowa Caucuses in January will very likely have a 50 percent chance of being elected president 11 months later. Go figure.

Bloom's description of the mores of what he calls "insular Iowa" a few paragraphs earlier actually fit most of White America. Bloom's perfect world, however, is more like the one tribemates Sulzberger and Mitchell live in: More cities, less Whites.

The "rap" that White Iowans aren't representative is a rationalization offered by people who simply don't like Whites. They don't lay proportion guilt-trips on anyone but Whites. In fact they would rage hysterically in condemnation of anyone who aimed such a critique at their own kind.

This is our problem. To solve it we need our own pundits, our own media, our own politics, and ultimately our own countries. What we don't need is these critics. They're not representative of us.

Roth and Weiss on What's Best for The Jews

Two years ago I wrote about jewish influence on Christmas music. Sometime later I ran across a passage from Philip Roth's Operation Shylock praising Irving Berlin for de-Christing Christmas (and Easter). What I didn't realize until today was that Roth's book frames jewish hostility toward Christmas in a much broader context of jewish hostility toward Christianity, Christians, and Whites in general.

Roth, like Berlin, is not some marginal, inconsequential jew. Roth is considered "one of the most honored authors of his generation":

His fiction, set frequently in Newark, New Jersey, is known for its intensely autobiographical character, for philosophically and formally blurring the distinction between reality and fiction, for its "supple, ingenious style," and for its provocative explorations of Jewish and American identity.

Actually, it's more accurate to describe Roth's work and it's fans as reflecting an all-consuming obsession with jewish identity. Roth is concerned about what it means to be a jew and how that contrasts with being Christian, American, or European. In Operation Shylock Roth weighs the differences between zionism and diasporism, two complementary jewish identities.

The portion excerpted here was not easy to find. In the end I transcribed it from Moshe Waldoks' The Best American Humor 1994. Though Roth's book is in Google Books, and precise searches will display snippets, I have not been able to find a link to freely viewable content.

Without further ado, here is Philip Roth, speaking through a character he named Philip Roth:

I heard myself next praising the greatest Diasporist of all, the father of the new Diasporist movement, Irving Berlin. "People ask where I got the idea. Well, I got it listening to the radio. The radio was playing 'Easter Parade' and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin 'Easter Parade' and 'White Christmas.' The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus. People always tell me Jesus is Jewish. I never believe them. It’s like when people used to tell me Cary Grant was Jewish. Bullshit. Jews don’t want to hear about Jesus. And can you blame them? So—Bing Crosby replaces Jesus as the beloved Son of God, and the Jews, the Jews, go around whistling about Easter! And is that so disgraceful a means of defusing the enmity of centuries? Is anyone really dishonored by this? If schlockified Christianity is Christianity cleansed of Jew hatred, then three cheers for schlock. If supplanting Jesus Christ with snow can enable my people to cozy up to Christmas, then let it snow, let it snow, let it snow. Do you see my point?" I took more pride, I told them, in "Easter Parade" then in the victory of the Six Day War, found more security in "White Christmas" than in the Israeli nuclear reactor. I told them that if the Israelis ever reached a point where they believed their survival depended not merely on breaking hands but on dropping a nuclear bomb, that would be the end of Judaism, even if the state of Israel should survive. "Jews as Jews will simply disappear. A generation after Jews use nuclear weapons to save themselves from their enemies, there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews. The Israelis will have saved their state by destroying their people. They will never survive morally after that; and if they don't, why survive as Jews at all? They barely have the wherewithal to survive morally now. To put all these Jews in this tiny place, surrounded on all sides by tremendous hostility—how can you survive morally? Better to be marginal neurotics, anxious assimilationists, and everything else that the Zionists despise, better to lose the state than to lose your moral being by unleashing a nuclear war. Better Irving Berlin than the Wailing Wall. Better Irving Berlin than Holy Jerusalem! What does owning Jerusalem, of all places, have to do with being Jews in 1988? Jerusalem is by now the worst thing that could possibly have happened to us. Last year in Jerusalem! Next year in Warsaw! Next year in Bucharest! Next year in Vilna and Cracow! Look, I know people call Diasporism a revolutionary idea, but it's not a revolution that I'm proposing, it's a retroversion, a turning back, the very thing Zionism itself once was. You go back to the crossing point and cross back the other way. Zionism went back too far, that's what went wrong with Zionism. Zionism went back to the crossing point of the dispersion—Diasporism goes back to the crossing point of Zionism."

Roth's argument isn't complicated. First, he takes as a given that jews are a group, his group, distinct from everyone else. Second, he's advocating in favor of that group's best interests, regardless of what it means for anyone else. Roth subtitled his book A Confession. It is a jewish confession though, which means it's more of an arrogant celebration of jewish victimology and supremacy than an expression of humility or contrition. Roth revels in his enmity toward "the goyim" even as he projects his hate into their minds. That the Other are so clueless, even about their supposed hatred for jews, serves as just another excuse for jews to hate them.

Talking directly to his own people, Roth first reminds them how easily and completely the goyim can and have been manipulated by jews. Then he shames them with the notion that jewish nationalism isn't good enough for the jews. Why constrain yourself to live in one small country when you can thrive everywhere by manipulating the goyim? Then, finally, as a sort of trump card, Roth invokes morality. As with confession, morality means something different to jews than Christians. Christian morality is universalist - it refers to principles that apply equally to everyone, even their enemies. Jewish morality is particularist - "Is it good for the jews?" Working with this definition of morality Roth doesn't see anything wrong with jews manipulating the goyim to further jewish interests. If it's good for the jews then it's good. When Roth describes zionist jews nuking their enemies as immoral, it's not because of the harm it might cause those enemies. It's because he thinks it would cause "the end of Judaism", which to him means "there will no longer be people to identify themselves as Jews".

Scrolling back to the top of the page in the book where the quote above begins we find Roth elaborating on who the enemy is, and what he wants from them:

... call on Europe to purge itself of a thousand years of anti-Semitism and to make room in its midst for a vital Jewish presence to multiply and flourish there and, in anticipation of the third millenium of Christianity, to declare by proclamation in all its parliaments the right of the Jewish uprooted to resettle in their European homeland and to live as Jews there, free, secure, and welcome. But I have my doubts.

This is the jewish version of history, together with the jewish solution to their European problem. Roth makes it plain enough, and not nicely at all, that Europeans must be subordinated to jews so that jews can multiply and flourish. Roth wants Europeans (by which he means Whites everywhere) to admit collective guilt and abandon any collective identity or interests of our own. Meanwhile jews enjoy the opposite.

Roth is sometimes absurdly described as a "self-hating jew" because he clearly favors diasporism over zionism, rather than both. This "self-hating jew" bit also serves as a kind of cover - shoo away now goyim, this is private jew business being discussed here. The fact is that he's simply one particularly prominent example of the typical White-blaming, White-hating what's-good-for-the-jews jew. The less the goyim know about that the better for the jews.

The belief that zionism is somehow bad for the jews is not uncommon on the "liberal" side of the political spectrum - which is to say amongst the majority of jews outside Israel. Philip Weiss expressed a similar belief earlier this month in Israel isn't good for the Jews. Weiss, aiming non-fiction at a (slightly) more mixed audience than Roth, writes:

A feeling has taken root deep in the American Jewish community that Israel is hurting us, hurting our standing in the world and our future. The restrictions on democracy, the curbs on women, the intransigence vis-a-vis the Palestinians when Obama has demanded movement, the indifference to the Arab Spring-- Israel is a society we no longer recognize as Jewish like we're Jewish, and worst of all, its militarism is exposing American Jews to the accusation that we are dually loyal. And we don't like that: We're Americans.

The straw that broke the camel's back was clearly the oafish ad campaign that targeted Christmas and intermarriage-- the ad campaign that Netanyahu cancelled. Even rightwing Israel lobbyists were stunned by how clueless the ad campaign was. But it was an expression of genuine Israeli attitudes. And that is what's so scary: American Jews are waking up to the fact that Israeli society is nothing like ours. Hillary Clinton could only launch her criticism of religious restrictions on women in Israel because she knows that American Jews feel this way. Ambassador Howard Gutman was speaking for many sensible American Jews when he said that Israeli policies are hurting Jews by fostering anti-Semitism.

We are integrators. We live in America because we want to be Jews in a diverse society. That is the spirit of American Jewish life by and large. And now these Zionists--separatists whom we never completely trusted when we were arguing with them in Eastern Europe--are quietly understood to have hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place.

In conclusion Weiss writes:

Because more and more of us who care about Jewish life, as an integral part of western society, need to separate ourselves from an ethos of separation.

It's refreshing to hear a jew admit that powerful non-jews like Hillary Clinton are actually beholden to jewish will - able to do what they do only so long as jews approve. Howard Gutman is also only nominally a representative of American interests. What Gutman said was delivered at a conference of organized jewry that deserves a detailed examination and critique of its own. Suffice it here to say that Gutman drew a distinction between Whites and muslims vis-a-vis jews. Whites, he said, simply hate others, like jews, largely for the sake of hating, whereas muslims at least hate jews for somewhat more sensible reasons, namely jews in Israel acting like Whites. This was controversial to jews and non-jews seeking to serve them. They complained Gutman wasn't being fair to the jews.

Weiss, like Gutman, describes concerns that are clearly pinned to what he thinks best serves the interests of jews, or at least jews who live in the US. Not Americans. Not Palestinians. That's what the word integration means to him. He's so eager to defend his jews from exposure to (valid) accusations and yet so intellectually bankrupt that all he can do is spew blatant contradictions. We're jews AND we're Americans! That's NOT dual loyalty! We're integrators AND we continue separately as jews! We're not at all like those DARK, UGLY separatists over there! Oh, and by the way, THEY'RE NOT JEWS!

The bottom line is that Weiss, like Roth, thinks jewish interests are best served within subservient Western societies. Whereas Roth sees the jews in diaspora as living among hostile aliens and writes more or less frankly about defusing Christians, Weiss is more interested in playing the anti-"racist" liberal, defusing separatists and nationalists. Like Roth, Weiss seems confident that jews can and will continue to thrive, at least in diaspora. The problem, as Roth sees it, is that zionism is immoral. Weiss claims the problem is that "oafish" "clueless" zionists are making a mockery of his (jewish) moralizing.

Weiss says he's scared that jews are waking up and they're upset that zionists have "hijacked Jewishness and taken it to a dark ugly place". I couldn't care less, but I think what scares jews more, zionist and diasporist alike, is the fear that Whites will see through their double-talk. That enough of us will wake up and be upset to realize that jews, as a group, are only worried about the interests of jews. That we'll understand that they have always seen us as the Other, the enemy, regardless of how we regard them. That we'll see how diaspora jews, through calculated, coordinated, collective effort, have hijacked Western societies and taken us to a dark ugly place, turning our homelands into amusement parks in the interests of "minorities", first and foremost themselves. That we'll put together the various pieces of truth, left and right, and see how militarism (and corporatism and globalism) really figures into all this. How the lives and vitality of our people have been squandered stomping around, on ourselves as well as others, to keep the world safe for jews, diasporists AND zionists, while they take turns demonizing and exploiting us.

[The Philip Weiss image comes from Gilad Atzmon's Jews & Their Self Interest-An Interview with Philip Weiss.]

An Unamusing Mischling Meltdown

(Unamused's first comment on this blog was made back in July:

Warning: Unamused is a sneaky half-Jew and does not believe in conspiracy theories, Jew-related or otherwise. He thinks the problem is liberal Jews, and liberals in general; not liberal Jews, and Jews in general. He does however prefer Nazi neighbors to black neighbors.

In September he came up again in the comments at Svigor's.)

Svigor's Half Sigma: Female Jewish race-realist, Jewish Supremacy prompts Unamused to protest:

"Ashkenazis are born to Jewish Supremacy."

I'm half Ashkenazi, and therefore a "Jew" according to the WN types. I didn't know I was until I was a teenager, and I've never cared since. Was I born to Jewish supremacy or not?

"Ashkenazis aren't overrepresented among pro-White movements or organizations — they're totally absent."

This is, and always has been, nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter what a "Jew" does, as soon as the supposedly pro-White types find out about his "Jew blood," they reject him. Then they point to the lack of "Jews" as evidence of how bad the "Jews" are. The other "Jews" keep their mouths shut and so they, too, are not counted.

Again, my ban from Stormfront provides a clear example. When they were judging me by what I do and what I write, the Stormfronters believed I was thoroughly pro-White and therefore not a "Jew," joking that my flyer on race differences in intelligence could not have been written by a "Jew." Somehow my work magically become Jew propaganda when they found out I'm a "Jew."

That is not race realism, or realism of any other kind. It is irrational hatred of all "Jews," no matter what they do. That is why "Jew"-hating WNs are not taken seriously. It doesn't matter how much of Kevin MacDonald's research they cite; the unbiased observer notes that their hatred of "Jews" is actually independent of what "Jews" may or may not do.

Responding to Porter, Unamused continues:

"... your 'irrational hatred' of blacks..."

I harbor no irrational hatreds. I hate the people who deserve to be hated, and blacks are over-represented among them. This is quite different from hating every single black person. Do you see the difference? That's why I'm a race realist, and you're just a Jew-hater.

"Whites are suspect of jews as time immemorial has proven they are well advised to be. This is hardly irrational."

No, actually, it is irrational.

Go ahead, cite your God, Kevin MacDonald.

"Odd behavior for such irrational actors whose hatred exists independent of what jews actually say or do. Don’t you think?"

I've learned to expect odd behavior from Jew-haters.

"... both white and jewish interests..."

The fact that you have detected any "Jewish interests" on my part indicates, yet again, that you are indulging in irrational thinking. Basically, I'm an evil Jew with Jew interests because... I fail to be sufficiently genocidally anti-Semitic.

So Unamused's point is that he isn't a jew. If he hates you it's only because you're an indulgent, irrational hater of jews. His bugaboo about "jew"-hate has nothing to do with him. It's all your fault.

Two days later Unamused was still kvetching about the rejection and other indignities he and the jews he supposedly doesn't care about have suffered at the hands of "the WN types", "the supposedly pro-White types", "the Stormfronters" and that god of irrationality, Kevin MacDonald. Oh woe. Why? (A question for the reader):

Why would I keep doing this? What exactly is my motivation?

As context he cites a list of quotes he describes as "anti-jewish racism".

The first commenter makes a rather obvious observation:

Most Internet comments are pretty juvenile. Unamused, you do have something of a sardonic writing style that would come off as rather mean-spirited and hateful to those not in agreement with your world-view, so it would seem rather petty to complain about others being insensitive towards the Jews.

Sardonic Unamused goes hyperbolic where jewish interests are concerned:

“Insensitive towards the Jews,” in this case, means genocidal anti-Semitism.

Not being a frequent reader of his I would appreciate it if someone who is could point out where Unamused has expressed such concern about genocidal anti-Whitism. Or perhaps where he explains that it's actually suicidal.

Jewish conspiracy theories and anti-Jewish racism (basically, any time you make a claim about all Jews) are no longer permitted on Unamusement Park. An upcoming post will clarify our position.

This seems to have caught at least a few regular consumers of Unamused's black "conspiracy theories" and anti-black "racism" by surprise. Others are delighted. The bashing of Whites Unamused hates will continue unabated.

Svigor made a good point about the comments Unamused cited:

Personally, I consider arguing with your worst your opponents can offer, and ignoring the best, is a form of the straw man argument. It’s doubly bad when you pretend that’s what your best opponents are saying, as you do.

Unamused's response was more of his unamusing schtick:

Oh, don't think I'm arguing with the Jew-haters. I'm merely demonstrating how diseased are their minds.

The ideas I quoted can be dismissed out of hand. They do not qualify as race realism; they are in fact simply racism. You know anti-white racism? Well... see above for some anti-Jewish racism.

Someone who wants to exterminate the Jews, won't let any Jew "redeem" himself by participating in pro-white activities, or believes the Nazi genocide of Jews never happened, has disqualified himself from any serious, or even sane, discussion. I'm not interested in "the best" someone has to offer, when he's so obviously fucked in the head.

Responding to another comment from someone who pointed out that he had claimed he wasn't a "racist" at Svigor's, Unamused writes:

Don't make a fool of yourself by forgetting that just because liberals misuse the term, that doesn't mean actual racism doesn't exist. Have you not noticed my many posts addressing anti-white racism? Now, I am not a racist, as will be made clear in my next post. But attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews is racism.

This is all very Austeresque. The ambiguous jewish identity. The hostility to anyone put off by that ambiguity. The inability to accept Whites as distinct from jews even while taking for granted that jews are distinct from Whites. The self-righteous "white" advocacy. Hinging that advocacy on unfettered criticism of blacks while condemning Whites for criticizing jews. The histrionics. The hypocrisy. The projection. The rationalizations. The talmudic hairsplitting. The acceptance of jews and subordination of non-jewish interests as a moral litmus test. The irrational hatred of Kevin MacDonald. The dishonest "liberal" rhetoric. The control-freak need to edit and censor other people's comments. I could go on.

Having already picked through this kind of jew-first dissembling and dissimulation with Lawrence Auster (and to a similar but less thorough extent with Ian Jobling, Guy White, Fjordman, and several others) I see hardly anything new here. Yet I'm fascinated by the situation and dismayed by how Unamused faces it. On the surface I see a conflicted man I'm inclined at first blush to feel some sympathy for - a part-jew/part-White who wants to "redeem" his jewish half and prove himself pro-White. Unfortunately I can't help noticing his deception and duplicity. How he goes about trying to achieve his goal by attacking Whites. How he's not simply trying to redeem himself, or half-jews, but all jews because they are jews.

Attacking and excluding "racists" for "attacking or excluding Jews because they are Jews" is in fact the quintessential jewish conceit. It is the epitome of jewish privilege and supremacy that jews as a group feel free to attack or exclude whomever they wish, which just makes them good jews, and at the same time painting Whites who attack or exclude jews, or by "liberal" extension any other "minority", as the most stupid/crazy/evil people ever.

Svigor critiqued Unamused's post in Because it's good for the Whites. His conclusion:

No amount of arguing about tactics or "respectability" is going to convince me that Ashkenazis should have a right to ethno-states, and Whites should not. And this is the status quo we're facing. Ashkenazi Supremacy. "White Advocates" who are okay with this are wrong-headed. "White Advocates" who put this problem on the back burner are wrong-headed.

One final note, about the less-capable ANTI-SEMITES!!! Sure, they're a burden in the sense that the average person isn't bright enough to separate the wheat from the chaff and forgo the guilt by association fallacy, given enough reason (nobody seems to apply these standards to leftoid values like blank-slatism and equalitarianism; mouth-breathers supporting these things abound). But there are plenty of idiots who criticize Blacks. I don't see any HBD-ers, Race Realists, or White Advocates bemoaning the burden they create.

I'd rather share a foxhole with a mouth-breathing ANTI-SEMITE!!! than a philo-Semitic "White Advocate" any day. At least I know whose side he's on.

Well said. I agree.

In the comments Svigor referred indirectly to my A Personal Disclosure:

E.g., I love TAN and think the world of him, but I don't think he "came clean" for anyone's sake but his own; he felt like he'd be deceiving people if he didn't come out with it. The rest of us didn't give a damn either way.

He is correct. I disclosed it because it pained me not to. I realized that it was important and that it would only reflect more negatively on my character and motives the longer I put it off.

The relevance here is twofold. For one thing I have at least a second-hand appreciation for Unamused's situation. I understand that jewishness, like Whiteness, is part inborn and part mindset. The personality traits are more inborn, while the hostility toward Whites comes more from indoctrination - being taught that to be a jew is to be a victim, primarily of the supposedly senseless hate and oppression of Whites. Second, I recognize that Unamused exaggerates his case, and that he consistently does so in favor of his jewish half and at the expense of his White half. He's obsessed with putting down Whites who in his own estimation have no real power or importance. He makes a self-righteous stink about "racist" Whites rejecting him, while the jews who reject him, or would if he tried to pass himself off as an advocate for jews, get a pass. The jews who hate him for being a "racist" also get a pass. You see, he's not really a "racist", he's a "race realist", and they're not really jews, they're "liberals". Finally, I think what Unamused sees as genocidal jew-hate pales in comparison to the harsh, unrelenting criticism aimed at Whites because they are White. That Whites are born stupid/crazy/evil "racists" is a foregone conclusion broadcast by the MSM, taught in the schools, and codified in the law. The last thing Whites need are faux-"whites" who spout the same poisonous message.

By the way, a recent German translation of my personal disclosure post can be found at As der Schwerter - Tanstaafl: Eine persönliche Enthüllung (Google Translate). I'm sorry to have caused my comrades there, and here, any concern over my long break from writing.

Where Jihad and Counterjihad Agree

Farha Khaled's Caroline Glick Cited As One of Israeli American Tipsters By Gates of Vienna Where Fjordman Appears To Be Back surveys and connects a good portion of counterjihadist dots, linking names with pseudonyms, blogs and photos.

Khaled describes herself as:

Freelance writer. Columnist for the Saudi based Arab News. My op eds focus on exposing Islamophobia.

Khaled begins her article by asserting that Gates of Vienna is a "white supremacist blog which published 'Fjordman'", "regularly publishing essays promoting white supremacism". The bulk of the article goes on to associate various counterjihadist ideologues with GoV.

Here is one of the more meaty, lucid portions (links preserved):

Far right Islamophobic activists have forged alliances of convenience with radical Zionists and regard Israel as an ally, not least because they see Israel's treatment of Palestinians as a role model for how Muslims should be treated. Hard line Zionists see it as an opportunity to lessen the growing Muslim influence in the USA or Europe which they see as detrimental to a greater Israel. Stooges like Geert Wilders are funded in the hope they can halt Muslim immigration and influence. Marginalised as they are, some European nationalist groups are willing to shed their traditional Jew hatred in an attempt to find allies, but as often happens in marriages of convenience, it doesn't take much for cracks to appear.

Pamela Geller's association with the EDL caused waves when Roberta Moore claimed they had Jew hating members and were not sufficiently pro Israel. In Europe, German newspaper Der Spiegel probed this alliance in 'The Likud Connection' showing how some marginalized right wing populists are going the Geert Wilders way. This bizarre coupling has split the far right movement in Europe which has traditionally been anti-semitic.

The counterjihadist network Khaled analyzes is a jewish movement. It is dressed up as Westerners concerned with a defense of the West, but it is in fact dominated by jews and others whose first and foremost concerns are for the best interests of Israel and jews. There are no prominent counterjihadists who defend the best interests of Whites as a people, separate and apart from jews. While they readily distinguish jews and muslims for special consideration, positive and negative, they regard other distinctions between people as wrong, especially if race or "white" is involved. They regard any distinction of Whites from jews as roughly comparable to the threat to jews they see coming from islamization - unthinkably evil.

Khaled engages in similar doublethink, but to a different end. She blithely conflates counterjihadist bigotry in favor of jews with "white supremacism". She carries on about "islamophobia" as if fearing or resenting being colonized and ruled by aliens is a mental disorder. Khaled has adopted and adapted characteristically jewish rhetoric. She paints her muslim Us as the helpless, blameless victims of a "hate"-filled Them, ascribing bizarre, pathological motives to Them, smearing Them collectively using guilt-by-association.

This rhetoric is fundamentally dishonest as well as bigoted. Counterjihadists see Us and Them as jews and their enemies, while Khaled sees the Us/Them divide being between muslims and their enemies. Both agree that Whites are not entitled to an identity of our own, much less to decide for ourselves who our enemies are.

Just as jews living amongst Europeans have done for centuries now, muslim intellectuals today excuse and direct attention away from their own group's transgressions by finding fault instead in someone else. As with the apologists for jews, apologists for muslims zealously defend their own group identity and interests while moralizing against "hate" and "racism", trying to guilt-trip Whites for expressing any kind of identity that excludes them.

Khaled finds it scandalous that Anders Breivik commented at Gates of Vienna. As it happens, Breivik took issue with Diana West's "anti-sharia" strategy and more generally with the unwillingness of counterjihadists to face the demographic threat posed by immigration:

Why havent you or any of the other current authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe (Fjordman, Spencer, Ye`or, Bostom etc.) brought up the “D” word? I assume because it is considered a fascist method in nature, which would undermine your/their work? Why would it undermine their efforts when it is the only rational conclusion, based on the above argument? As far as I know, it’s not illegal in Europe to suggest deportation as a future method when discussing future hypothetical World Orders (correct me if im wrong though, Im not 100% sure, lol)!?

The answer, as unwilling as Breivik was to face it himself, is that counterjihadism is about serving the best interests of jews. Thus the concern to not appear "fascist", meaning "nazi", meaning anti-jew, takes priority over the identification with or concern for the best interests of Europeans as a people. Should Europe be lost, oh well, the struggle against islamic jihad (in defense of jews) will continue elsewhere.

When Baron Bodissey republished Breivik's comments he also linked Daniel Pipe's apologia, Norway's Terrorism in Context. To distinguish his position from Breivik's Pipes quotes a similar statement from Breivik's book:

The reason why authors on the Eurabia related issues/Islamisation of Europe — Fjordman, Spencer, [Bat] Ye'or, Bostom etc. aren't actively discussing deportation is because the method is considered too extreme (and thus would damage their reputational shields). . . . If these authors are to [sic] scared to propagate a conservative revolution and armed resistance then other authors will have to.

The portion omitted by Pipes is telling:

This would un-doubtfully undermine their work and probably disallowing them to publish any future books. However, the warning about Islam has been repeated for more than two decades and it is apparent that 40 more years of dialogue, without action, would have a devastating effect on Europe.

Indeed. Like the other leading lights of counterjihadism, Pipes doesn't care as much about the devastating effect on Europeans as he does about what's best for jews.

(Thanks to Flanders for the link.)

Trashtalking the Boss

Report: Sarkozy calls Netanyahu 'liar' - Israel News, Ynetnews:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not "stand" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier "is a liar."

. . .

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!"

Buchanan on the Passing of the White Race

Plugging his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?, Pat Buchanan concludes his 17 October column, A.D. 2041 – end of white America?, with this:

Can Western civilization survive the passing of the European peoples whose ancestors created it and their replacement by Third World immigrants? Probably not, for the new arrivals seem uninterested in preserving the old culture they have found.

Those who hold the white race responsible for the mortal sins of mankind – slavery, racism, imperialism, genocide – may welcome its departure from history. Those who believe that the civilization that came out of Jerusalem, Athens, Rome and London to be the crowning achievement of mankind will mourn its passing.

Buchanan clearly sees the malevolent, external forces at work here - the "replacement by Third World immigrants" and "those who hold the White race responsible for the mortals sins of mankind". He may as well drop the rhetorical tone and detached posture and clearly identify it as genocide. What we need are advocates, not mourners.

Of course he would be mocked and hated all the more for crying foul play. But that's exactly the point. If it were suicide there wouldn't be such venom and force directed against those who speak in favor of Whites. The hostility comes from those who discount our concerns or see them conflicting with their own. Many imagine their anti-"racism" only harms stupid/crazy/evil White "racists", not themselves.

Joan Walsh's review of Buchanan's book provides a good example. Walsh ridicules Buchanan's thesis as "silly, a crazy mashup of stereotypes and paranoia", "he sees anti-white racism everywhere". She makes it quite clear she doesn't share his concerns:

The book mourns the decline not only of white Christian America, but of Europe, since we share a common white European heritage. But then he runs down the history of European wars and ethnic nationalism, which makes me wonder what constitutes a “European” heritage or identity, other than (some comparative shade of) white skin — and why it matters anyway, if Europeans fight so much.

Walsh claims to identify with Buchanan as a fellow political pundit, especially because they are fellow Irish Catholics, though she married out. Even in her criticism of Buchanan she clearly expresses a more sober concern for the well-being of jews than Whites:

In Buchanan’s dim view of civilization, it’s not only white Christian countries, or cultures, that are on the decline. “American Jews seem to be an endangered species,” he declares (a little comically, since he’s never been a particular friend of American Jews). In fact, the U.S. Jewish population is declining, in part because of intermarriage, and each younger generation getting progressively less observant in our overall less tribalist society. But Buchanan doesn’t mention any of that: he blames birth control and abortion, which is a form of karmic payback in his telling, since Jews tend to support reproductive rights. “How many of the 50 million abortions since 1973 were performed on Jewish girls or women?” Buchanan asks. “How many Jewish children were never conceived because of birth control?” It would be funny if it weren’t so creepy.

No, not funny at all. Walsh criticizes Buchanan for having and defending a European identity that she could share but does not value, and she does it while defending a jewish identity that she cannot share despite her own creepy "intermarriage". Walsh isn't suicidal. She just fancies herself on the other team.

O'Meara: The Anti-Semites Are Our Misfortune

Michael O'Meara sums up his latest essay, White Nationalism is Not Anti-Semitism, with this telling comment:

The anti-Semites, though, are totally out of control and need a wake-up call; I think their ignorance, reductionism, and resentment are a disgrace to everything associated with nationalism. Without them we may be fewer (for a while), but we will certainly be better — and better able to convince others that we’re not just a bunch of Jew-obsessed crackpots.

William Buckley, Lawrence Auster, Peder Jensen (Fjordman), Guy White, and Ian Jobling have made similar calls in similar terms.

O'Meara projects his own ignorance, reductionism, and resentment onto the objects of his frustration. And who wouldn't be frustrated with the low, hateful group of losers he imagines; so obscure and crazy that he cannot name even one, and yet so critically important that he feels compelled to confront and vanquish them.

For my part I try to stay focused on real people who wield real power. If so many of them were eskimos or serving eskimo interests then naturally their regime (and O'Meara) would be scapegoating eskimo-obsessed crackpots. C'est la guerre.

Rick Perry's Jewish Problem

Gov Perry Dancing with Orthodox Jews

What a humiliating performance.

Our Jewish Problem

Here's a mainstream media article that makes no bones about the jewish hegemony over US politics. The central point of debate is whether jews think Obama is good or bad for the jews. That they have the power to decide his fortune, one way or the other, is taken for granted.

The tone for this exposition of particularist jewish concerns is set right in the title. Tsuris is yiddish slang meaning "trouble or woe; aggravation". The masters of finance, politics and media are displeased, and they intend for us to know it.

The Tsuris - Why Barack Obama Is the Best Thing Israel Has Going for It Right Now, John Heilemann, New York Magazine, 18 Sept 2011:

Barack Obama is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand?

How, exactly, did Obama come to be portrayed, and perceived by many American Jews, as the most ardently anti-Israel president since Jimmy Carter?

This meme, of course, has been gathering steam for some time, peddled mainly by right-wing Likudophiles here and in the Holy Land. But last week, it took center stage in the special election in New York’s Ninth Congressional District, maybe the most Jewish district in the nation and one held by Democrats since 1923. When the smoke cleared, the Republican had won—and Matt Drudge was up with a headline blaring REVENGE OF THE JEWS.

Obama’s people deny up and down that the loss of a seat last occupied by Anthony Weiner portends, well, pretty much anything for 2012. But the truth is that they are worried, and worried they should be, for the signs of Obama’s slippage among Jewish voters are unmistakable. Last week, a new Gallup poll found that his approval rating in that cohort had fallen to 55 percent—a whopping 28-point drop since his inauguration. And among the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine last time around, stories of dismay and disaffection are legion. “There’s no question,” says one of the president’s most prolific fund-raisers. “We have a big-time Jewish problem.”

Obama’s team has made its share of errors in the conduct of its diplomacy and in allowing misperceptions to take hold: that its tough-love approach to Israel has been all the former and none of the latter; that its demands on the Palestinians have been either negligible or nonexistent. And many Jewish voters, like those Wall Street financiers (and, to be sure, the overlap between those groups isn’t trivial) who flocked to Obama and were then chagrined when he called them out as “fat cats,” have all too often focused more on the president’s words than his deeds—and come away with the impression that he doesn’t seem to “feel Israel” in his bones.

For Obama, such assessments would be funny if they weren’t so frustrating and absurd; and for the Jews who know him best, they are simply mystifying. In the last days of the 2008 campaign, the former federal judge, White House counsel, and Obama mentor Abner Mikva quipped, “When this all is over, people are going to say that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.” And while that prediction has so far proved to be wildly over-optimistic, there is more truth in it than meets the eye.

The suspicions regarding the bone-deepness of Obama’s bond with Israel were present from the start, and always rooted in a reading of his background that was as superficial as it was misguided. Yes, he was black. Yes, his middle name was Hussein. And yes, in his time in Hyde Park, his friends included Palestinian scholars and activists, notably the historian Rashid Khalidi. But far more crucial to Obama’s makeup and rise to prominence were his ties to Chicago’s Jewish milieu, whose players, from real-estate powerhouse Penny Pritzker to billionaire investor Lester Crown, were among his chief supporters and financial patrons. In 2008—after herculean efforts by his campaign to reassure the Jewish Establishment that he was, er, kosher and stamp out the sub-rosa proliferation of the lie that he is a Muslim—he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote, four points higher than John Kerry’s total four years earlier.

This background meant that, although Obama was hardly an old hand on Israel when he became president, he was well attuned to the Jewish community and its views. “With the kind of exposure he had to Jewish backers, Jewish thinkers, in Illinois,” says deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes, “he came into office with a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and Jewish thought than, I would argue, any president in recent memory.”

The American push for a settlement freeze would be the first flash point in Obama’s relations with Israel and also a turning point in his standing with Jewish voters at home. With Netanyahu having just reassumed the prime-ministership in a coalition government that included several ultraconservative parties, he resisted Obama’s call for a freeze. American Jews, meanwhile, saw the administration as aggressively pressuring Israel but treading softly on the Palestinians. In combination with its policy of engagement with Iran, this fostered the impression that Obama’s stance amounted to punishing America’s truest friend in the region while rewarding its—and Israel’s—most lethal foe.

And then there was Netanyahu’s surpassingly volatile governing coalition, which was held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements (cf. Avigdor Lieberman).

Omitted: paragraphs detailing yet another Netanyahu snub.

But Netanyahu knew he could get away with it—so staunch and absolute is the bipartisan support he commands in the U.S. Garishly illuminating the point, on the night before his speech to Congress, the prime minister attended the annual AIPAC policy conference in Washington, where he was the headline speaker at the event’s gala banquet. Before he took the stage, three announcers, amid flashing spotlights and in the style of the introductions at an NBA All-Star game, read the names of every prominent person in the room, including 67 senators, 286 House members, and dozens of administration and Israeli officials, foreign dignitaries, and student leaders. (The roll call took half an hour.) When Harry Reid spoke, he obliquely but unambiguously chastised Obama for endorsing the use of the 1967 lines as the basis for a peace deal: “No one should set premature parameters about borders, about building, or about anything else.” The ensuing ovation was deafening—but a mere whisper compared with the thunderous waves of applause that poured over Netanyahu.

The next day came his speech to Congress, in which he spelled out demands that were maximal by any measure: recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations, a refusal to talk if Hamas is part of the Palestinian side, an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and absolutely no right of return for Palestinian refugees.

Exactly one month after his Oval Office awkwardfest with Netanyahu, Obama made the mile-and-a-half trip from the White House to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel to have dinner with several dozen wealthy Jews. His appearance had twin objectives: to rake in more than $1 million and to calm their jangled nerves. Unlike many conservative Jews, the big-ticket Democrats in the room, who had paid $25,000 to $35,800 a head to be there, didn’t believe that Obama was hostile to Israel. Yet it’s fair to say they had their share of qualms and a ton of questions.

In addition to deploying Axelrod and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, his campaign has hired an official outreach director to try to fix its Jewish problem: Ira Forman, the former head of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Forman is known for an encyclopedic knowledge of Jewish politics and a history in waging trench warfare against Republican Jewish groups. But none of that will prepare him for the job he is taking on. “A lot of what he’ll be doing is coaxing and persuading,” says a Jewish Obama megabundler. “A lot of people who raised a ton of money for the president last time are very short on enthusiasm for doing it again.”

The hiring of Forman is a tacit acknowledgment that the White House has badly handled the continual care and feeding required to keep major donors sweet—and all the more so in this case. The first White House liaison to the community was Susan Sher, who at the time was chief of staff to Michelle Obama. “Lovely woman, but she knew nothing about Israel,” says an Obama bundler, who some time ago attended a dinner with Sher and a clutch of A-list tribesmen: Mort Zuckerman, HBO co-chief Richard Plepler, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. “It was kind of insulting to have this woman talking to these people who know this issue backward and forwards. And then there was no follow-up. Nothing.”

Both the nature and scale of Obama’s Jewish problem—at least where donors are concerned—are tough to pin down. A recent poll by the Republican firm McLaughlin & Associates found that among Jewish donors who gave to Obama in 2008, just 64 percent have already donated or plan to donate to him this time. Complicating the picture is the fact that Jewish buckrakers cite a variety of complaints with Obama: Some object to his rhetoric on Wall Street, some to his economic policies, and some to his handling of Israel.

Omitted: paragraphs explaining why the jewish vote in NY-9 (Anthony Weiner's vacacted seat) doesn't matter.

On the other hand, thanks in large part to the indefatigable Ed Koch, who endorsed Obama in 2008 but has now become one of his loudest (and loopiest) critics on Israel, the NY-9 election was framed to an unusual extent as a referendum not just on Obama but on his supposed betrayal of the chosen people. All over TV and the web was Koch, doing a squawky imitation of Romney, saying that the “Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Muslim nations.”

Even in the face of the most pessimistic (for Obama) reading of NY-9, Democrats will comfort themselves with two facts. The first is that, for all the outsize attention they command—and the earsplitting volume of the collective megaphone they wield—Jews make up about 2 percent of the national electorate. Too small a proportion, that is to say, to matter much to the overall popular vote.

The second ostensibly comforting fact for Democrats has to do with the trend lines of recent presidential-election history: Obama’s 78 percent of the Jewish vote, Kerry’s 74 percent, Al Gore’s 79 percent, Clinton’s 78 and 80 percent in 1996 and 1992, respectively. The implication here is that, in the end, the Jews will come home to Obama—mainly because they are overwhelmingly liberal and have nowhere else to go.

The trouble for Republicans is that, in the extant crop of candidates, there is no one who bears even a passing resemblance to Dutch. Though Rick Perry is as avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive—“If you’re our friend, we are with you,” he says. “I’m talking about Israel. Come hell or high water, we will be standing with you!”—his positions on almost every other issue are anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor. And Perry’s theocratish tendencies have been criticized even by some who are pretty far right; the Christian rally he held in Houston not long before jumping into the race, “The Response,” was derided by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League as a “conscious disregard of law and authority” because of the way it traversed the spheres of church and state.

Mitt Romney is an entirely different case. Within the Republican donor class, Romney is the strong favorite. He has actively courted the AIPAC crowd, staking out hawkish positions on Iran and pillorying Obama on Israel. The day before he opened his Florida headquarters earlier this month, Romney dropped in on a local AIPAC meeting in Tampa and was greeted with a standing O. But when it comes to winning over independent Jews or queasy Democratic ones, Romney may have done too effective a job in transforming himself from a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights moderate into a more conventionally conservative candidate. “He’s a phony,” a cheeky Democratic operative notes. “But for a lot of Jews, he may turn out to be just a little too convincing.”

The premise of Obama’s approach to Israel all along has been straightforward. Given the demographic realities it faces—the growth of the Palestinian population in the territories and also of the Arab population in Israel itself—our ally confronts a fundamental and fateful choice: It can remain democratic and lose its Jewish character; it can retain its Jewish character but become an apartheid state; or it can remain both Jewish and democratic, satisfy Palestinian national aspirations, facilitate efforts to contain Iran, alleviate the international opprobrium directed at it, and reap the enormous security and economic benefits of ending the conflict by taking up the task of the creation of a viable Palestinian state—one based, yes, on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed upon land swaps, with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.

The irony is that Obama—along with countless Israelis, members of the Jewish diaspora, and friends of Israel around the world—seems to grasp these realities and this choice more readily than Netanyahu does. “The first Jewish president?” Maybe not. But certainly a president every bit as pro-Israel as the country’s own prime minister—and, if you look from the proper angle, maybe even more so.

Heilemann proceeds from an explicit recognition that jewish financial power ("the non-trivial overlap between jewish voters and Wall Street financiers") and jewish political contributions ("the high-dollar Jewish donors who were essential to fueling the great Obama money machine") drive US politics. Clearly this drive extends beyond their current focus on Obama and Israel.

Heilemann idolizes jews and their ethnocentrism. Whether as "the Jewish vote", "the Jewish Establishment", "the Jewish community", "the Jewish diaspora" or just plain old "the Jews", jews and jewish interests are presented in a purely positive light. This is in stark contrast to the cynical, sinister regard for Whites and White political interests found in most of the mainstream media. Jews are not pathologized for having a group identity, nor are they portrayed negatively for openly arguing about and pursuing their own group interests, independent of the rest of us.

Heilemann and US media pundits and politicians in general treat jewish nationalism with the utmost deference and respect. Though Israel is a jewish ethnostate, ruled by a coalition "held together by far-right nationalist, fundamentalist, and even proto-fascistic elements", it enjoys the obsequious fealty of Obama and other top US politicians. This may cause consternation for some jews who don't think it is good for the jews, but their grumbling pales in comparison to the pitiless condemnation and vilification routinely aimed at any form of White nationalism.

Heilemann confides that even the most powerful non-jewish politicians in the US are expected to "feel Israel in their bones". This is really just one facet of the more general requirement to placate jews, doing whatever they deem best for themselves. But the jews often can't agree on what they think is best, and so what results is a humiliating, circus-like environment in which US presidents and their challengers regularly profess their love for the jews, only to get kicked in the teeth by one subset of jews or another who don't find the performance pleasing enough.

Here Heilemann describes Rick Perry as "avidly pro-Israel as any politician alive" and yet "anathema to virtually every Jew to the left of Eric Cantor". In other words, anathema to virtually every jew. Heilemann's point is that Obama and every contender for his job each have their own jewish problems, though different in degree. As Heilemann relates the dances these clowns perform to please the jews, what comes through loud and clear is the presumption that the rest of us are immaterial. How this impacts our lives if of no concern. In this way Heilemann indirectly informs us that we all have a jewish problem.

The Jew Cries Out in Pain as He Strikes You

Canada Gets Tough on Anti-Semitsim, Avi Benlolo, President and CEO, Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, Canada, Huffington Post, 21 Sept 2011:

The government of Canada took an historic step yesterday by signing the Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism. By doing so, it recognized anti-Semitism as a pernicious evil and a global threat against the Jewish people, the State of Israel and free, democratic countries everywhere. As Prime Minister Stephen Harper has noted, "Those who would hate and destroy the Jewish people would ultimately hate and destroy the rest of us as well."

The protocol is a declaration that hatred of this nature will not be tolerated in this country. It sets out an action plan for supporting initiatives that combat anti-Semitism and provides a framework for other nations to follow.

It also sets out a vibrant definition of anti-Semitism which, for the first time in history, links anti-Semitism to the denial of the right Jewish people have to their ancestral home land -- the State of Israel. This, in fact, is what sets post-World War Two anti-Semitism apart from its historic roots. Today's anti-Semitism is all about denial: denial of the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish movement to reclaim the land of Israel; denial of a Jewish history in connection to the holy land and, in particular, the centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people; denial of the Holocaust (while at the same time accusing Jews of Nazism); and denial of Jews to live free of anti-Semitism, hate and intolerance.

Unquestionably, the Government of Canada's stance on Israel is based on the principle of standing by your friends -- especially when they are democracies and advocates for human rights. Most Jewish leaders would agree that Israel is indeed Canada's greatest ally in the fight against hate and intolerance.

But the fight against hatred and anti-Semitism must be won here in Canada as well. The Ottawa Protocol is mostly the result of a report published this summer by a Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism which was comprised of leading Canadian politicians who volunteered their time to probe the increasing and alarming tide of anti-Semitism in Canada.

The Ottawa Protocol to Combat Anti-Semitism is a template for every Canadian to consider. But it is especially a document of significance for universities that have allowed themselves to become vehicles of hatred and complicit in its promotion. As my friend, Professor Irwin Cotler said last night at the Ottawa signing ceremony, anti-Semitism is not only the longest known form of hatred in the history of humanity -- it is the only form of hatred that is truly global.

Every person of conscience should take note of the Ottawa Protocols and never forget the lessons of the Holocaust when the world was silent.

The full text of the Ottawa Protocol:

We remain alarmed by ongoing state-sanctioned genocidal antisemitism and related extremist ideologies. If antisemitism is the most enduring of hatreds, and genocide is the most horrific of crimes, then the convergence of the genocidal intent embodied in antisemitic ideology is the most toxic of combinations.

We are appalled by the resurgence of the classic anti-Jewish libels, including:

+ The Blood Libel (that Jews use the blood of children for ritual sacrifice)
+ The Jews as "Poisoners of the Wells" - responsible for all evils in the world
+ The myth of the "new Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - the tsarist forgery that proclaimed an international Jewish conspiracy bent on world domination - and accuses the Jews of controlling government, the economy, media and public institutions.
+ The double entendre of denying the Holocaust - accusing the Jews of fabricating the Holocaust as a hoax - and the nazification of the Jew and the Jewish people.