The Wages of Tantrum

In The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald Auster takes offense at MacDonald's statement:

the racial Zionist movement that dominates the politics of Israel today

Auster is so angered by this that he attacks MacDonald personally. The problem, beyond this childish tantrum, is that MacDonald, in terms of Western norms, is entirely correct. Read for example Weston's analysis in The Israeli Election. Auster, who willfully ignores the disparity between what is considered "racism" in the West and normal in israel, can't help but list "well-known facts" that indicate only one thing: that racial zionism (Jabotinskyism) does not dominate israel as completely as he would like.

In throwing his tantrum Auster at least brings attention to some excellent writing of MacDonald's, including his recent post at VDare Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left, and his December 2008 TOO essay Ben Stein's Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust? where he provides some idea how far today's racial zionism goes beyond what is considered acceptable for today's White Westerners.

Auster here demonstrates two common tactics of pro-jewish argument: 1) throw nasty, personal insults at someone who says something you don't like, and 2) answer a complaint about some jewish disparity by claiming jews aren't powerful enough.

Tactic 2 is related to a tactic even more frequently used in similar circumstances: 3) answer a complaint about some jewish disparity by claiming that the complainer is insanely suggesting jewish power is absolute. In both cases examples are usually offered to demonstrate that jews aren't doing everything they could to further their own interests, or are doing something that harms themselves.

What these tactics seek to avoid is any acknowledgement that the disparity in question is real, and that that in itself is harm and injustice enough to those of us who aren't jews.

For other recent examples of these tactics see Melanie Phillips' Obama prepares to throw Israel to the Wolves, or the comments made by Anonymous to Whose Country is This Anyway?

What makes this phenomena especially annoying is that jews are, as a group, incredibly sensitive to disparities everywhere around them concerning the rights, wealth, and power of everyone, including themselves, at least when they feel victimized. However, when asked to face disparities that reflect negatively on themselves they abruptly become deaf, dumb, blind, and exhibit ZERO intellectual honesty. What's more, they treat anyone who presses a complaint against them as a mortal enemy. It seems to me a good example of projection.

At this point some philo-semite inevitably shows up to say, "yeah, but that's perfectly understandable because <insert sob story here>, and after all we're allies!" To which I say, no. The intellectually and morally bankrupt tactics described above are not only alien and inscrutable to White Western minds. They are indefensible. Two wrongs don't make a right. These tactics don't reflect the attitude of an ally. They reflect at best a self-aware and self-absorbed Other, and at worst a mortal enemy. In either case we are not obligated, intellectually or morally, to tolerate these tactics or the people using them.

Cabal Theories

In JournoList: Inside the echo chamber, at Politico, Michael Calderone writes (my emphasis):

For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.

Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?

Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.”

But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond.

“I’m very lazy about writing when I’m not getting paid,” Alterman said. “So if I take the trouble to write something in any detail on the list, I tend to cannibalize it. It doesn’t surprise me when I see things on the list on people’s blogs.”

Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.

But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.

POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.In an e-mail, Klein said he understands that the JList’s off-the-record rule “makes it seems secretive.” But he insisted that JList discussions have to be off the record in order to “ensure that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.”

One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.

A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing. Slate’s Mickey Kaus, a nonmember, may be the only professional writer to have referred to it “in print” more than once — albeit dismissively, as the “Klein Klub.”

While members may talk freely about JList at, say, a Columbia Heights house party, there’s a “Fight Club”-style code of silence when it comes to discussing it for publication.

But a handful of JList members agreed to talk for this story — if only to push back against the perception that the group is some sort of secret, left-wing cabal.

Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.

“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin.

Toobin joined JList about a year ago, and he said that he had to get a new e-mail address just for JList in order to keep up with the sheer volume of commentary that appears there every day. The frequent disputes among members, he said, are “what’s most entertaining on the list.”

John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.

“There is probably general agreement on the stupidity of today’s GOP,” he said. “But beyond that, I would say there is wide disagreement on trade, Israel, how exactly we got into this recession/depression and how to get out of it, the brilliance of various punk bands that I have never heard of, and on whether, at any given moment, the Obama administration is doing the right thing.”

But aren’t there enough forums for arguing about domestic and foreign policy — or even for partaking in the more idiosyncratic JList debates about the merits of Bruce Springsteen and whether The New Republic is liberal enough? And do those debates really have to happen behind a veil of secrecy?

“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”

Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts.

Yglesias, who writes an eponymous blog hosted by the Center for American Progress, noted that “the combined membership has tentacles of knowledge that reach everywhere,” adding that “you can toss out a question about Japan or whatever and get some different points of view.”

Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.

“For me, it’s enormously useful because I don’t like to spend my time reading blogs and reading up-to-the-minute political minutia,” he said. “This list allows me to make sure I’m not missing anything important.”

POLITICO’s Mike Allen, Ben Smith and Lisa Lerer are on the list. “The roster includes some of the savviest authorities on everything from behavioral economics to Ben’s Chili Bowl,” Allen said. “It’s a window into a world of passionate experts — an hourly graduate education.”

Said another JLister: “I don’t know any other place where working journalists, policy wonks and academics who write about current politics and political history routinely communicate with one another.”

But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?

That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.

Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.

Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.

“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”

Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”

“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.

But Time’s Joe Klein, who acknowledged being on JList and several other listservs, said in an e-mail that “they’re valuable in the way that candid conversations with colleagues and experts always are.” Defending the off-the-record rule, Klein said that “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.”

And then Klein — speaking like the JLister he is — said there wasn’t “anything more that I can or want to say about the subject.”

Nearly every name in this article is jewish, even the outsiders, Kaus and Goldfarb. A preponderance of the signers of the aforementioned open letter to ABC are jewish as well.

Are the JournoList "liberals" embarassed with the lack of diversity in their cabal? Are they concerned how their ethnic networking appears to "liberal" anti-racists?

Not likely. Diversity is a weapon of ethnic warfare intended for use solely against Whites. Likewise anti-racism. If these jewish journalists were White, "liberals" would viciously attack their cabal as a form of racist "white privilege". Jews however are treated to a different standard.

Keep in mind now, the existence of this cabal in no way substantiates crazy conspiracy theories and old canards about jewish media influence. It is nothing special. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of cabals just like this one, all full of influential jews who disagree widely about what's best for jews, how to defend israel, whether Bernie Madoff deserves life in prison or death, who to pin the financial meltdown on, which holocaust movie deserves the Oscar, etc.

Whose Country Is This Anyway?

If the Israel Lobby is a myth, then why is obsequience to israel a bipartisan litmus test for US officials? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a critic of israel?"

On 5 March 2009 the Washington Times reported Foreign ties of nominee questioned:

The director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, last Thursday named Mr. [Chas W.] Freeman, a veteran former diplomat, to the chairmanship of the National Intelligence Council, known inside the government as the NIC. In that job, Mr. Freeman will have access to some of America's most closely guarded secrets and be charged with overseeing the drafting of the consensus view of all 16 intelligence agencies.

His selection was praised by some who noted his articulateness and experience as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a senior envoy to China and other nations. But it sparked concerns among some members of Congress from both parties, who asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's inspector general, Edward McGuire, to investigate Mr. Freeman's potential conflicts of interest.

Why didn't these kind of questions sink Rahm Emanuel? After all:

Mr. Emanuel is arguably the second most powerful man in the country and, just a few days into his tenure, already one of the highest-profile chiefs of staff in recent memory.

Renowned as a fierce partisan, he has been an ardent ambassador to Republicans, including Mr. Obama’s defeated rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. He has exerted influence on countless decisions; in meetings, administration officials say, Mr. Obama often allows him to speak first and last.

“You can see how he listens and reacts to Rahm,” said Ron Klain, the chief of staff to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “You can see that his opinion is being shaped.”

Emanuel has strong foreign ties. Haaretz writes U.S. Jews laud Obama pick of Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff:

"Rep. Emanuel is also a good friend of Israel, coming from good Irgun stock, davening at an Orthodox synagogue, and sending his children to Jewish day schools," Daroff concluded.

Ira N. Forman, Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC), echoed Daroff's approval, saying in a statement Thursday that "Obama made an outstanding selection. Emanuel has been a forceful and effective leader within the Democratic Party. His voting record and leadership in support of the U.S.-Israel relationship are outstanding."

"Emanuel has deep Jewish roots and strong ties to the Jewish community. Emanuel, the son of an Israeli immigrant, has a proven commitment to Israel's security and served as civilian volunteer on an Israeli military base during the Persian Gulf War of 1991," the statement continued.

"Good irgun stock" means his jewish "faith" is very strong. His middle name is Israel.

On 10 March 2009 Foreign Policy blog The Cable posted a letter from Freeman explaining his withdrawal from the position, Freeman speaks out on his exit (my emphasis):

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

Later that same day Ben Smith at Politico posted Freeman hits 'Israel lobby' on way out:

Charles W. Freeman Jr.'s abrupt withdrawal from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council came after he drew fire on a number of fronts - including questions about his financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia.

But the most heated opposition came from supporters of Israel - and Freeman's departure shows Obama's reluctance to signal a dramatic change to a U.S. policy in the Middle East that centers on standing beside Israel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama jettisoned aides and backed off statements that appeared to imply a change in the Bush Administration's firm support for hawkish Israeli governments.

On 12 March the Jerusalem Post, in Freeman blames 'Israel lobby' for ouster from NIC, wrote (my emphasis):

Critics of the selection of the former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia - among them members of Congress - cited statements he had made harshly criticizing Israel, praising Saudi Arabia and seeming to side with the Chinese government over democracy advocates, as well as business and financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia, in calling for Freeman to be denied the position overseeing the compilation of the US intelligence community's National Intelligence Estimates.

In his statement, Freeman also said, "The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues."

Those questions, which rebounded through the blogosphere Wednesday, have led some to argue that Israel advocates who believe they helped their cause by seeing Freeman shut out have only scored a Pyrrhic victory.

"The perception, almost universally held, that he was brought down because he is a strong and vocal opponent of Israel's West Bank and settlement policies, is not good for the Jewish community and the pro-Israel community in particular," M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, wrote on his blog, pointing out that criticism of Freeman first surfaced in the pro-Israel community.

He told The Jerusalem Post that the community has been trying to argue that its alleged power is a myth, yet it will now be perceived as "bringing down" a top government appointee.

Prominent blogger Andrew Sullivan, not known to be a harsh Israel critic, called Freeman's "cardinal sin" his willingness to blame Israel for the situation it finds itself in in the Middle East.

"This is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington," he wrote. "I find the hysterical bullying of this man to be repulsive."

Even some mainstream media outlets have picked up on this theme. Reuters called the controversy a "a test case for the strength of Washington's right-wing pro-Israel lobby" since remarks critical of Israel have previously been "virtually taboo in official Washington, whose elected leaders - or those running for office - tend to stress unflagging support for the Jewish state."

Still, pro-Israel groups who opposed Freeman's appointment openly welcomed the news that he would not be taking the post.

Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, said that Freeman's comments blaming the Israel lobby only proved that he was ill-suited for the job.

"I understand someone being upset if people oppose an appointment, but to lash out at what appeared to be a conspiracy in his mind was not the type of temperament one would hope for in someone in such a position," he said.

Obviously Freeman's foreign ties weren't the real problem, it was his criticism of israel. And this was true before he wrote this letter about the Israel Lobby. Rahm Emanuel wasn't subjected to a different standard. It was the same standard: "what's good for the jewish community?", as M.J. Rosenberg would put it.

Ira Forman, who was quoted praising Emanuel above, here gleefully spells out the fate of anyone who notices that what's good for the jewish community isn't necessarily good for their own. If you speak out, you'll be punished. If you object to that, you'll be smeared as "crazy". Jewish power is a myth. If you doubt that, an invisible, imaginary, non-existent jewish conspiracy will crush you.

In related news, on 11 March 2009 AP published Officials: Iran does not have key nuclear material (my emphasis):

Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium - which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred.

Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel's top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons.

The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015.

Maples said the United States and Israel are interpreting the same facts, but arriving at different conclusions.

"The Israelis are far more concerned about it," Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Blair also stood firm behind former U.S. Ambassador Charles Freeman, his pick for a top analysis job, despite strong congressional criticism.

Freeman, who was U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war, had harshly criticized the Israeli government, the Iraq war and the war on terrorism in general.

A policy council Freeman headed also has been criticized for some ties to foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia and China. Blair's inspector general is investigating those ties while Freeman works with ethics advisers to scrub his personal finances for potential conflicts of interest.

Blair and Maples will very soon be following Freeman. Then Rahm Emanuel can tap Ira Forman or someone else Ira Forman approves of as National Intelligence Director. Then Obomba will get the "correct" intel. Then he can bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb iran. And then jews everywhere will live happily ever after.

American Goy notes the relative silence of the media and other curious details in Irony overload- the strange case of Charles W. "Chas" Freeman.

UPDATE 12 March 2009: On 11 March 2009 American Jewish Committee Executive Director David A. Harris issued the following statement:

Apparently, Chas Freeman can dish it out but can't take it.

Like all appointments to key national security positions, Freeman's merited public scrutiny. His views on "Abdullah the Great," on Israel, on September 11, and on Tiananmen Square were a matter of public record, and respected officials on both sides of the aisle raised legitimate concerns about them.

Ambassador Freeman could have defended those beliefs in an open debate. Instead, he chose to fire off nasty emails scapegoating the "Israel Lobby" for his own decision to withdraw.

The only "libels" and "smears" here are Freeman's tired cliches about a nefarious "Israel Lobby" that stifles debate. In truth, it's Freeman, a charter member of the Saudi Fan Club, who wanted the debate to be silenced - since he found himself on the losing side once it started.

If Freeman's conspiratorial rant reflects the quality of his analysis and his temperament under pressure, it's just further evidence that he wasn't the right man for this critical job.

This statement, and especially the last sentence, sounds just like Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, already quoted above. It's as if they're conspiring or something. But that's just conspiratorial talk.

Scapegoating, in my dictionary, means blaming someone who isn't responsible. When criticism is aimed at any other powerful entity it's called "speaking truth to power". When jewish power is criticized many jews insinuate the critic is insane, others revel in crushing the critic's windpipe, and a few "self-hating jews" affirm his criticism.

On 6 March 2009 Richard Silverstein wrote Chas. Freeman: Aipac Smells Blood in the Water (links in original):

Admiral Dennis Blair’s appointment of Chas. Freeman as chair of the National Intelligence Council becomes more troubled by the day. Not because of any real taint on Ambassador Freeman’s record, but because Aipac and its Congressional water carriers are upping the ante day by day in a campaign to oust him due to his strongly critical views about the Israeli Occupation.

His critics veil their criticism in an attack on Freeman’s close ties to Chinese and Saudi business and government interests, but make no mistake–Freeman’s sin is his outspokenness on Israel and his sympathies for Palestinian suffering.

This coordinated attack fits Aipac’s modus operandi to a tee. First, you will probably not hear the group’s name directly associated with the assault. The phone calls go from Aipac headquarters to their mostly Republican minions on the Hill. But it’s entirely possible that unlike the Manchurian Candidate, Aipac doesn’t even need to activate their operatives. They’ve been so indoctrinated that the Congress members know what is expected of them and they start the campaign themselves.

And by the by, Jim Lobe notes notes that most of the seven Congress members who signed a letter asking for an investigation of Freeman were heavy recipients of pro-Israel campaign donations closely affiliated with Aipac.

Even Chuck Schumer, now New York’s leading pro-Israel political leader after Hillary’s promotion to State, is getting in on the act. He picked up the phone to call his good friend and fellow pro-Israel Dem., Rahm Emanuel, to rail about Freeman. What’s especially significant about Schumer’s involvement is that until now the opposition was led by straight neo-con Republican forces and the pro-Israel right: Steve Rosen, Michael Goldfarb, the Republican Jewish Coalition, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mark Kirk, Marty Peretz, Jonathan Tobin, etc. Schumer is the first Democratic leader to get into the tussle.

AJC, NJDC, AIPAC, Schumer, Emanuel, ... how many more nonentities of the mythical Israel Lobby are involved here?

Read more about AIPAC at Secrecy News. Among other things you might be interested to find out more about Steve Rosen, Freeman critic and alleged spy for israel:

AIPAC Case Lingers On | Secrecy News
AIPAC Appeals Court Rules Against Prosecutors | Secrecy News
The Jewish Chronicle - Classifieds, News, Business, and Events

American Goy sums up why spying for israel isn't considered wrong:

You see, the defense team can point out to the 2008 AIPAC meeting, and show a few short films showing Obama, Clinton, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Boehner all saying the same thing - that Israel is America's greatest friend.

Well then, since Israel is America's greatest friend, giving our greatest friend and ally, the best thing to happen to the world since sliced bread was invented, a few measly "top secret" documents stolen from the Pentagon, is not treason, nor can it be proven to cause injury to the United States.

Because Israel is our greatest friend and ally.

Because American and Israeli interests and goals are the same.

Steve Rosen's response posted 10 March 2009, Chas Freeman withdraws from NIC nomination:

Democratic Representative Steve Israel said that he spoke of his concerns last week to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and later sent him materials about the former ambassador's statements and associations. Israel, a member of the House Appropriations Committee's Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said in a phone interview, "As I was leaving the White House this afternoon, they told me of Blair's statement" of Freeman's withdrawal. "I think Blair's defense of Freeman was indefensible, and people in the White House realized that."

Freeman is indefensible in the sense that at this point anyone who defends him will just as surely be drummed out of government by the same mythical conspiracy.

A powerful US politician whose middle name is Israel, and another whose last name is Israel, join together with a collection of well-funded, well-organized pro-Israel organizations to snuff the appointment of a critic of Israel, while a gaggle of jews waves their hands, Jedi-style, saying "it was his conspiratorial temperament".

What can I say? This is absolutely mindnumbing. The scandal is already over-the-top and the ADL and SPLC haven't even piped up to claim that it's just another example of how the poor powerless jews get scapegoated by "old canards" of "the anti-semites".

Triangulating From the Right

During this past month has Lawrence Auster has expressed a considerable shift in rhetoric, fundamentally altering his depiction of "liberalism" by adopting, without explanation, ideas he had previously ignored, dismissed, or denounced.

In First thoughts on the PWC conference, posted on 8 Feb 2009, we see Auster was giving speeches "meticulously describing" non-discrimination and writing about "suicidal white guilt that results from ignorance of race differences".

In What is good discrimination?, posted on 24 Feb 2009, Auster wrote:

We need to distinguish between necessary/proper/good discrimination and unnecessary/improper/bad discrimination. This is something that liberalism never does, because liberalism considers all discrimination to be bad; moreover, it considers every type of discrimination to be equally bad.

At Oz Conservative, around 17 Feb 2009, something had changed. Suddenly Sailer's "competition between whiter people", which Auster had previously judged useless, was transformed into war and became his own idea. Auster wrote:

The signs are gathering that the Western societies are heading into an age of civil wars. Not between white and nonwhite, not between Christian and Muslim, but between liberal whites and non-liberal whites. That's shaping up as the major divide of our time.

Next he transformed "suicidal white guilt" into "murder". In The cause of the white race will not go away, posted on 5 Mar 2009, Auster wrote:

when I consider today's systematic campaign, organized and backed by all the ruling powers of society, to put down, demonize, disempower, and marginalize the white race, I think it is shaping up as the greatest crime in the history of mankind

Today, 10 Mar 2009, Auster posts The supposedly race-blind liberal media defines a "true American", finally realizing (or finally admitting) that non-discrimination isn't at all what "liberalism" is about. He writes:

Liberalism is not about making race unimportant. Liberalism is about elevating nonwhites, particularly blacks, over whites, and about turning whites into non-persons. Liberalism is pure racism under the guise of anti-racism. What "anti-racism" really means is simply anti-whiteness.

It is extraordinary watching Auster break so much new ground so quickly. Where on earth is he getting these insane ideas?

Here are three more major related pieces he has yet to cough up:

• Note that "liberalism" does not turn jews into non-persons. Quite the contrary, both jews and "liberalism" sees jews as non-White and elevates them over everyone else, including blacks.

• Note that "liberalism" has become more anti-White at the same time and in the same proportion as jewish influence over Western sociopolitical thought has increased.

• Note that even in his own shifty estimation all of the above is "anti-semitism", move to israel to find himself and repent his sins, blog exclusively in hebrew from this point on, and never again try to command "the majority" (to which he is alien) what to say or do.

Big Duplicity

I'd like to shine a light on Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood.

Hollywood’s Second Class Jewish Chicks & “Two Lovers”

Hollywood’s Second Class Jewish Chicks & “Two Lovers”
by Debbie Schlussel

Why is it that on the silver screen, the Jewish chick is always the undesirable one, the safe choice, the ugly/annoying one? Even women who are Jewish (or half) in real life play the “desirable gentile goddess” while the Jewish woman character is the second fiddle. It might have something to do with the self-hatred of many male Jews in Hollywood for whom the Jewish woman is exactly that stereotype; besides, many of them need to justify marrying outside of the faith. Or maybe it’s just the self-hatred.

I ask this because in “Two Lovers,” which hit nationwide release this week, Joaquin Phoenix plays a Jewish guy whose parents want him to date (and marry) the beautiful Jewish daughter (Vinessa Shaw), of the couple who are buying their business. But, instead, he prefers the hot blonde gentile woman (played by the half-Jewish Gwyneth Paltrow) who doesn’t want him. The Jewish woman as the safe, not-as-sexy-or-hot choice is nothing new in Hollywood. We’ve seen it in sooo many TV shows and flicks, like the 1972 incarnation of “The Heartbreak Kid” in which Elliott Gould Charles Grodin dumps the homely Jewish stereotype-ette for the hot (at that time) Cybill Shepherd.

Read my review of “Two Lovers” and note that this stereotype can also work if you reverse the roles of each sex. For example, in the far superior and much warmer “Crossing Delancey” (1988), Amy Irving (who was not Jewish, but reportedly converted to marry Steven Spielberg) plays a Jewish woman who was in love with the male version of the Gwyneth Paltrow character, an author who didn’t really love her back. At the urging of her grandmother, she dates (and falls in love with) the more nebbishe/geeky Peter Riegert.

“Delancey” was 21 years ago and I thought we’d advanced. But apparently, the same Jewish liberals who are embarrassed about the first of those two adjectives are still running the show. They just don’t like themselves any more. Plus, they’re still trying to get away from their mothers, apparently.

There are plenty of beautiful Jewish women (some even blonde) in Hollywood, including my cousin, actress Amelia Kingston (real name: Shannon Schlussel). Sad that Hollywood still wants you to think they’re the ugly, annoying caricatures in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

More sad that the ones doing the caricaturing are neither Muslims nor Nazis, but my own fellow co-religionists.

Note: This post has been updated. Both Vinessa Shaw and Joaquin Phoenix were incorrectly identified as not being Jewish. We regret the error and thank the readers who pointed this out.

Schlussel is an ugly/annoying jewish chick who cares deeply for the welfare of jews, so deeply that she dares to blame Hollywood jews for the promulgation of destructive values and negative stereotypes. Sad that she still wants you to think muslims, Nazis, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have anything to do with what she's complaining about. Her concern for purity and continuity is common amongst jews, as is the pretense that the basis for this concern is religious rather than genetic.

Of course when a White who cares deeply for the welfare of Whites dares to blame jews anywhere for anything we're accused of being delerious with jew-hate. It's almost as bad if we express even the slightest concern about marriage outside of "the faith", or object to Hollywood jews casting annoying "half-faith" or outright alien chicks as our desirable goddess ideal.

The comments from Schlussel's readers are mildly interesting. As usual we non-jews are to blame. America is suffused with a "nordic" female standard of beauty and we are simply not jewish enough to understand the romantic sub-genre in which jewish producers, directors, and actors change their surnames to better lust after hot button-nosed Aryan babes. What's worse, in spite of unwritten rules to the contrary, "they" keep recycling the same handful of White Anglo-Saxons to play jews!

As eager as Schlussel is to discriminate jews from non-jews she makes mistakes and underestimates jewish influence. Perhaps only someone delerious with hate could say that it might be because:

Hollywood is chock full of Jewish celebrities, although some fly under the radar more than others. For every proud and outspoken Jewish star like Adam Sandler or Jon Stewart, there's someone that you might not realize is Jewish, like Rachel Bilson or Harrison Ford.

Or Vinessa Shaw. Or Joaquin Phoenix. Schlussel should check with the Jewish United Fund before she complains about the black muslim actor that self-hating jews miscast as a jewish action hero in Tropic Thunder.

James Edwards takes issue with Rush Limbaugh's early praise for Breitbart and Big Hollywood:

No, it’s how conservatives are going to spin their wheels and do absolutely nothing about the problem. Breitbart’s site isn’t “crucial” to changing the Hollywood culture. It’s the exact opposite. Worse than being irrelevant, it’s going to enable the people who run Hollywood and the news media to keep doing what they’ve been doing for decades - destroying our culture.

Note to Limbaugh: “Liberals” don’t run Hollywood. Jews run Hollywood, and Jews are to culture what Muslims are to tall buildings. Jews promote conservatism and traditional moral values the same way Muslims promote wearing bikinis. Of course, Limbaugh knows this. So does Breitbart, and everyone writing for his site. So does just about every right wing or conservative commentator and writer. They all know it, which is why they never, ever discuss it. Does anyone doubt for a minute that if were Muslims putting out all this filth Limbaugh and Breitbart and everyone else would pretend not to notice?

Well, to be fair, at least Schlussel notices that Hollywood jews are motivated by hate and are harming someone. However, the larger BH deception remains - there is no About page that explains their cause, but plainly they are concerned more about what's good for jews than Hollywood or whoever else Hollywood might be harming. That would certainly seem to be the point of Confessions of a Recovering Anti-Semite (my emphasis):

But despite my aversion to them, and the harsh judgments I kept strictly to myself, I was jealous of Jews. I had been for a long time. Like Italians, Jews had all the attributes WASPs seemed to lack - namely passion, determination, and a fierce self-respect. They knew when to get mad, and they had no problem raising their voices - even yelling - when necessary.

They didn’t care what other people thought. Good behavior wasn’t the point. Anger and indignation were healthy emotions to express, to act on - the motivators for justice. And nobody recognizes injustice better than a Jew.

By comparison, the WASPs I knew were obliging doormats with no convictions about anything except pleasing the right people. Reformed people pleasers know what a dead end that is; ultimately, you please no one, least of all yourself. People who have been beaten understand this. That’s why they fight.

I spent most of my life in a people-pleasing coma. But since the attacks of 9/11, unWASPy waves of outrage wash over me more and more everyday. I have found my inner Jew. Meanwhile, the self-hatred that fueled my former mousy modesty seems to have caught on - and spread across an entire nation like some enervating cultural contagion.

Today, like it or not, we are all Jews. If you live in Israel, Great Britain or America, you are a Jew. If you are black, white, Latino, Asian, gay, straight, bi, questioning, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, married, single, divorced, male, female, rich, poor, young, old, if you love cats, dogs, monkeys, pigs, Britney Spears, Amy Winehouse or opera - you are a Jew.

Because without our even realizing it, right beneath our very feet, the playing field has been leveled. At long last, we really are all equal. (Hear that, Human Rights Campaign?) We’re as equal as expendable, interchangeable, nothing-special, mass targets can be.

The horrors of Auschwitz, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen didn’t die with Hitler; they’ve gone global in a new kind of war that’s largely subliminal, psychological. And we’re nodding off fast when we should be popping No-Doz.

Islamic supremacists, who daily beat the drum for their imperialistic vision of a Jew-free, Great Satan-free world, have passion to spare. They are fired up, and united by the ferocious clarity of their convictions - just the way it once seemed to me the Jews were.

The BH distain for WASPs appears just as poisonous as Hollywood's. Though it is more clumsily disguised by BH than "anti-liberal" jew Lawrence Auster, the common ulterior purpose is to recruit Whites to serve jewish interests.

I am not a jew. I see duplicity and disrespect directed toward myself and my people from a broad range of jews. Under no circumstances will I serve them.