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.Why didn't these kind of questions sink Rahm Emanuel? After all:
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.
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.Emanuel has strong foreign ties. Haaretz writes U.S. Jews laud Obama pick of Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff:
“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.”
"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."Good irgun stock" means his jewish "faith" is very strong. His middle name is Israel.
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.
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.Later that same day Ben Smith at Politico posted Freeman hits 'Israel lobby' on way out:
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.
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.On 12 March the Jerusalem Post, in Freeman blames 'Israel lobby' for ouster from NIC, wrote (my emphasis):
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.AJC, NJDC, AIPAC, Schumer, Emanuel, ... how many more nonentities of the mythical Israel Lobby are involved here?
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.
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.Steve Rosen's response posted 10 March 2009, Chas Freeman withdraws from NIC nomination:
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.
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".
Labels: barack obama, israel, jewish influence, rahm emanuel
posted by Tanstaafl at 3/12/2009 01:02:00 AM
48 Comments:
This is number two. Anthony Zinni was number one.
"Jones had called me before the inauguration and asked if I would be willing to serve as ambassador to Iraq or in one of the envoy jobs, on the Middle East peace process," Zinni told Foreign Policy. "I said yes."
"Then two weeks ago, Jones called," Zinni continued, "and said, ‘We talked to the secretary of state, and everybody would like to offer you the Iraq job.' I said yes.
"The [vice]* president called and congratulated me," Zinni said.
Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked for a meeting last Monday night, Zinni said. He said he went to the meeting in her office at the State Department, where Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Williams Burns were also in attendance.
"She thanks me, asked me my views on Iraq," Zinni recalled. "She said to Burns and Steinberg, ‘We've got to move quickly, Crocker is leaving, we've got to get someone in there and get the paperwork done and hearings... Lots to do to get ready to go."
Zinni said he expected a call from Burns the next day. Not hearing from him, he called him.
"To make a long story short, I kept getting blown off all week," Zinni said. "Meantime, I was rushing to put my personal things in order," to get ready to go.
"Finally, nobody was telling me anything," Zinni said. "I called Jones Monday several times. I finally got through late in evening. I asked Jones, ‘What's going on?' And Jones said, ‘We decided on Chris Hill.'"
"I said, 'Really,'" Zinni recalled. "That was news to me."
Jones asked him if he would like to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Zinni said. "I said, 'You can stick that with whatever other offers,'" Zinni recalled, saying he had used more colorful language with Jones. Asked Jones's response and if he was apologetic, Zinni said, "Jones was not too concerned. He laughed about it."
Phil Weiss speculated that an Israeli attack on Iran requires an Iraq flyover, and Zinni would nix it, so he got dumped.
Gentiles, Whites Will Take USA Back--When They Learn To Speak Truth Most Effectively--As In Concrete Terms
(Apollonian, 12 Mar 09)
Whose country?--it will belong to those who feel (not only think) strongest for their justification and rights--So what does that mean?
It means USA will belong to Jews unless Christians learn how to be properly Christian and quit sleeping, quit pretending, and quit LYING to themselves. Christians have to learn to stick up for TRUTH (as Gosp. JOHN)--and nothing but truth--cut the abstractions, and cut trying to be "intellectual."
Christians have to understand their Christianity is properly meant to be ANTI-SEMITIC (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13), and if there is no anti-semitism, there's no Christianity, no Christ--no TRUTH.
So let me give an example which has to do with present on-going economic melt-down. This melt-down is product/result of CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, that COUNTERFEITING fraud known as US Federal Reserve (Fed) Bank--see RealityZone.com for expo/ref.
So people have to quit calling it a "banking crisis," an abstraction, for example, and say WHAT IT REALLY IS (the TRUTH), a Criminal conspiracy--COUNTERFEITING, again.
KEEPING THINGS ABSTRACT and "intellectual" is merely a way of LYING TO ONESELF and one's people.
For when people merely say "banking crisis," it leaves out about, oh say, 95 percent of folks--WHO ARE NOT TOO TERRIBLY BRIGHT, in the first place, u must understand--stupefied in wonderment and confusion, WHICH THEN IS WHAT JUDEO-CONSPIRATORS (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy) WANT.
"Counterfeiting," on the other hand makes it CLEAR--so that even children understand what's going on, what's being discussed.
Christians have to quit pretending to mere INTELLECT and abstractions--and start speaking most POINTED truth, TRUTH expressed in CONCRETE terms.
Ron Paul (see CampaignForLiberty.com) may be the best Congressman--BUT HE'S STILL A COWARD as he won't call a spade a spade--he tries to sugar-coat the truth by keeping it all abstract and intellectual. Paul lies and says, "oh, they mean well, but...."
But how could they "mean well" when they know they're criminals conducting criminal fraud, COUNTERFEITING. Same goes for Peter Schiff, the economist, who says the powers "mean well."
CONCLUSION: After enough people have died, the survivors know, as they know their lives depend upon it, to speak the truth and only the truth, and nothing but the truth--THIS HASN'T HAPPENED YET IN USA, and that's why the Jews will continue to rule, and gentile people will continue to die, unfortunately. Then again, Greeks taught us "Life sucks" (Tragedy), didn't they? Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Tan,
Are you familiar with the USS Liberty saga? Some time ago, but that's probably the greatest whitewash in American history. All at the behest of our strongest ally and best friend, Israel.
On a side note, the influence of the Jew Lobby, to those who are to blind to grasp it without assistance, is evident in many parts of U.S. law. For example, I am almost positive it's forbidden for a dual citizen to serve in another country's army, with one exception. Guess who! Another is that the tax code penalizes taxpayers who deal with countries that boycott Israel. Another part of the tax Code exempts snivelling descendants of Holocaust victims from paying tax on the money they shook down varioius governments for.
And what's probably the best example of the fawning before the Jew Lobby is the annual AIPAC conference. Every politician with a thousand miles is drawn to it like a moth to light, and every onemakes sure to strap on his kneepads before going to the conference.
I was arguing about this stuff earlier tonight with a hook-nosed fellow and thought I was going to stroke out I got so angry. But when I got home a minute ago I read a story about Madoff's "victims," i.e., the peoople who knew he was a cheat but invested with him to get their Jewish interest at 12%. Ah, pure schadenfruede (sp?), like a soothing balm of sorts.
In ""Pay no attention to that Lobby behind the curtain!"", Sailer points to the editorial A Parting Shot That Maligns Obama, Too at WaPo and writes:
This is just a ploy by the Israel Lobby to show off their power, to make Obama dance to their tune, to humiliate the President by forcing him to make a big speech claiming he's not dancing to their tune, that there's not even a tune playing, that only Bad People hear any music.
Gosp. JOHN Must Give St. Paul Proper Perspective
(Apollonian, 14 Mar 09)
Comrade "Tanstaafl," note it's a CYCLIC process, according to "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler, also socio-biologically (see KevinMacDonald.net), as we observe stupid gentiles, over-populated, desperately striving to recover fm massive, gross lies and delusions foisted upon them by Judeo-conspirators (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy). Note we're dealing w. weak vessels, in so many cases, so we must act delicately. We can't be too careful.
So only question, task, for us is to consider how we can add to this inexorable CYCLIC process in most positive manner. And that "way," I continue to urge, is to emphasize the rational purpose of Christianity which is most practical anti-semitism, pointing out how present "Judeo-Christians" (JCs--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) have been deceived and misled by their traitorous leaders ("Sadduceans" of modern-day) in pay of Judeo-conspirators, these criminals working then, most practically by means of COUNTERFEITING (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. on US Federal Reserve Bank [Fed] fraud).
For Christ was NOT, not, not a "Jew" (Talmudist); on contrary, Christ was foremost anti-semite (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13). And note there is the perfectly integral and independent theology of that most magnificent and philosophic Gosp. JOHN which understands the opposed anti-theses, Christian TRUTH vs. Jew conspiratorial lies (8:32, 14:6, and 18:37)--which then boils down to objective vs. subjective, once again, also REASON VS. MYSTICISM.
Thus Gosp. JOHN is actually, presently, most useful theologic perspective (so much missing or under-emphasized) as against or contrasted with that of St. Paul who so much emphasizes "love" and "faith," these tending to be understood too often out of proper context, most often in quite mystic manner, I seem to observe. Thus Gosp. JOHN can put St. Paul in proper perspective, I most urgently submit.
For as ethical virtue, HONESTY must come before such "love," and "faith" properly means LOYALTY, not synonym for mysticism and rejection of reason (hence truth).
Thus I offer above observations as relief or alternative for agonizings regarding Jews--who should rather be simply understood as Talmudists (see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo) and creatures thereof, psychopaths, liars, criminals, etc.
Thus I submit again, we patriots and soldiers should rather take our case directly to gentiles by means of rationalism, hence rationalist Christian perspective, theology, etc. There are specific things we can do--like the good Pastor Carlson at Whtt.org, who goes out and actually demonstrates at "Judeo-Christian" places for more direct benefit of those poor, benighted folk, the JCs, most pathetic dupes and suckers who merely need that truth treatment.
CONCLUSION: For presently that's true, glaring, real WEAK-POINT of Judeo-conspiracy, the JCs; next come the various heresies, like Pelagianism, etc. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Taanstafl,
This is a little off topic, but a few weeks ago as part of the comments discussion on an article you posted, you asked if there actually were any Jews out there that were honest about the efforts of Jewry to subvert traditional European culture. I think that one possible candidate is Dr. Henry Makow (www.savethemales.ca). He discusses the Jewish role in feminism and Critical Theory (also the inventor of the board game "Scruples", currently being persecuted by Canadian Hate laws, he discusses the sometimes questionable subjects of the Illuminati and the NWO). Another might be Nathaniel Kapner, although he is kind of an oddball who converted to Orthodox Christianity, so I dont know if he counts (http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=288). Just in case this is useful.
In Obama former intelligence nominee reveals himself as anti-Israel crackpot Auster links the same WaPo editorial
as Sailer, and loves it:
Worth reading is the Washington Post's editorial on Charles Freeman, whose statement on why he stepped aside from a top intelligence post in the Obama administration reveals him to be the anti-Israel bigot his critics were saying he is. Better than I've ever seen done by a mainstream liberal publication, the Post takes apart the claim--constantly heard along the entire spectrum of anti-Israel opinion, ranging from the "respectables" to the outright anti-Semites--that Americans are not allowed to dissent from Israeli policies:
After which he quotes the crackpottiest portion of the screed, which amounts to smearing Freeman as a crackpot and offering some "facts" to show that the Israel Lobby doesn't control everything and doesn't always get what they want.
These are two of the most common tactics used against anyone who objects to disproportionate jewish influence. The third is the reality inversion represented by Auster's description of Freeman as "revealing himself", flying right in the face of the naked exercise of their influence that reveals them.
The WaPo writes:
no doubt Mr. Freeman himself will now win plenty of admiring attention
The obvious question is, why? We have here two conflicting explanations. Either the world is full of people just waiting to be revealed as congenital jew-haters, or there is something about the way jews behave that alienates others. The "argument" israel supporters offer is that only a crackpot jew-hater would reveal himself by suggesting the second option, therefore the first must be true. As far as I'm concerned it's just another way they alienate me.
Andy, thanks. Looking at Kapner, who might be spot on but seems to me a clown, I have to say I'm honestly not as satisfied with jewish critics of jews as I am in the non-jewish, preferably White critics. Jewish critics certainly offer some worthy insights, and it is tempting to cite them as a way of warding off attacks, but there are two problems with that. First of all, the attacks come anyway. Both Kevin MacDonald and David Duke, for example, have focused on quoting jews to support their arguments, and both are still hated and vilified. Second, the point, for me at least, is not criticizing jews - it is to call attention to and stop the harm they and others are causing my people. I'm naturally drawn to the opinions of my own people, knowing that they are much more likely to share my interests, even though they may avoid discussing jews.
Besides Majority Rights, where I made the comment I think you're referring to, I find delight in reading the opinions found in the many pro- and crypto-White links I've collected in the siderbar under Pundits and Right. Near the bottom of Right are the handful of jewish opinions I've found worthy of attention. Philip Weiss, Israel Shamir, Norman Finkelstein, The Kvetcher, FailedMessiah. I'll add Karin Friedemann and Makow soon, and put them all in new section. As right or righteous as they may be they simply don't speak for me or mine.
[Henry Makow--is a subject I wrote upon last July at the WorldPeace-Phaedrus.blogspot.com blog. "Tanstaafl's" suspicions regarding this Jew, based upon general anti-semitism, are well-founded, don't doubt, as I noted then--below-copied. A.]
* * * * *
Never Trust Jew--Especially In Matters Of Theology
(Apollonian, 10 Jul 08)
Phaedrus (see worldpeace-phaedrus.blogspot.com, "An Illuminati Primer" 9 Jul 08), good comrade, this is excellent instance/opportunity to trash someone/something who/which deserves it--not u of course, but rather this Jew, Makow, whom I've always suspected, and it's occasion to demonstrate simplest, most basic analysis for cultural principles.
We can start w. Makow's second sentence regarding Pelagianist hereticalist "good-evil" which doesn't and can't exist. For Jews are ultra-subjectivists (Talmudists--see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for good Talmudic expo), foremost liars, frauds, and criminals; they're a DISEASE, specifically disease-of-opportunity which afflicts gentile humanity as it suffers hubris in such as "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler.
For in OBJECTIVE universe (thus providing for "TRUTH" of Gosp. JOHN 8:32) note there is and can be no "good-evil" as there is no perfectly "free" human will, everything determined according to absolute cause-effect.
Thus Jews simply function socio-biologically (see KevinMacDonald.net), in cyclic manner, active agents removing excess over-populated gentiles suffering hubris, subjectivism, Pharisaism-moralism (esp. Pelagianism), thence socialist fascism and "hate-crime," etc.
Then as we consider second-to-last sentence from this Jew scum, Makow, regarding "essence of religion," note it is totally and absolutely impossible for us to be "selfless," nor should we so try to be. Rather we must (should) first be honest and forthright, at least with ourselves, and given our natures and inclinations as selfish beings, strive to be RATIONAL.
Moral of this brief exposition of mine is NEVER, EVER trust a Jew, EVER. Even the best of them must not be trusted fully, can never be full citizens--even if it's St. Paul himself, surely greatest of all Christian saints.
And never fear an honest Jew (of race, much as this is possible/imaginable--say like Nat Kapner of RealJewNews.com) understands perfectly well how/why they cannot and must not be trusted.
For it's tough enough for gentile to understand Christianity within all the great cultural confusion, which Christianity upholds objective nature of reality--HENCE TRUTH--objectivity the only thing giving truth its meaning, never forget.
For real battle is of lonely truth vs. infernal, organized, conspiratorial lies, led by Satan's very henchmen, Jews. And never doubt there's never any "morality" which can properly come before truth and reality first, then that HONESTY by which we struggle to grasp such truth.
CONCLUSION: And there's nothing more deceptive or greater affront to honesty than filthy Jew lie to effect we can or should try to be "selfless." Rather, as I say, we must be first honest, then most rational given that necessary selfishness, selflessness lie, never forget, the founding fallacy and ideal of Jew-inspired socialist fascism/dictatorship. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
In Charles Freeman’s disloyalty allegations Kevin MacDonald calls special attention to Freeman's charges of disloyalty that the MSM have studiously ignored:
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.
. . .
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 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.
MacDonald writes:
One wonders why the ADL has not made a statement on Freeman’s comments. It may well be that the entire organized Jewish community hopes for a quick death for this incident — the less said the better at this point. This same logic would explain why the disloyalty issue is not discussed in the MSM: Disloyalty is a very grave charge that the goyim shouldn’t even be thinking about. As Steven Walt points out, lobbies live in the dark and die in the light of day. It’s hard to imagine Abe Foxman complaining that Freeman’s accusation of disloyalty is yet another anti-Jewish canard when it’s not very difficult for even the most braindead among us to see that there is a whole lot of truth in it.
It is important to realize the gravity of the charge of Jewish disloyalty. It is a charge that has repeatedly surfaced throughout Jewish history beginning in the Book of Exodus where Pharaoh says: “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land” (Exod. 1:9–10).
[Indeed yes "Tanstaafl"--we need JEW-EXPULSION, an idea whose time has truly come. A.]
* * * * *
House Of Nation-State Infested By Jew Parasite Disease--Requires Christian Revolution, Nothing Less
(Apollonian, 15 Mar 09)
This is excellent, most topical blog-article by peerless TheDefenestrators.blogspot.com ("United Nations...," 15 Mar 09), for sure, but we must rather consider the horrific mess we've gotten ourselves into by means of HUBRIS, our land now infested by invaders of various races, but with whom now we must and can well make common-cause against that dread Jew parasite disease-of-opportunity.
For a nation-state is like a house--it's a shelter for the people who are like the family living in the house. Thus nation-state is shelter against other races and peoples within this worldly existence of Greek Tragedy, Darwinian competition, and Hobbesian "war of all against all."
So what happened in CYCLIC history? (according to "Decline of the West," by Oswald Spengler)--thus white Christian people, suffering HUBRIS of Pharisaism-moralism (beginning in hist., for at least third wave of Pelagianism, this time rationally styled, as fm Rousseau, Kant, etc.), pretending to be "mighty-white," and addicted to false MAMMON god, allowed into it's national house that fatal Jew parasite disease-of-opportunity which proceeded to corrupt the people now addicted so hopelessly to COUNTERFEIT fraud/conspiracy (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. on US Federal Reserve Bank [Fed]), masterminded by Jews and Judeo-conspirators (see TheNewAmerican.com and AugustReview.com for expo/ref. on CFR-Bilderberg conspiracy).
Thus Jews and cohorts have so brilliantly taken over the land which used to belong to now hubristic, suicidal white Christians who still sit around in proverbial daze wondering what has happened.
So now to save our very lives, not to mention people and culture, we gentiles most urgently, even desperately need JEW-EXPULSION--but how can we practically work to achieve it?
Thus we must emulate original Christian patriots of early 4th cent. Only Christianity can do the necessary trick--but it must be a REVOLUTIONARY-type Christianity, especially rationalistic and absolutely ANTI-SEMITIC (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13).
For this anti-semitic revolution must most critically and directly counter-act Jews' indispensable enablers, "Christian"-styled cohorts, dupes, and suckers, the "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists, led by traitorous "Sadduceans"-of-modern-day, all paid by Jews, deluded people taught to imagine and insist, so fatally and horrifically, "Christ was Jew" (hence Talmudist).
Thus Christianity must simply be re-oriented with proper rationalist perspective, founded in objectivity, the theology of St. Paul placed in proper context of Gosp. JOHN which then poses story of lonely human struggle of TRUTH vs. Jew lies and conspiracy.
Hence white Christians must revive and ressurect that original OBJECTIVITY (as of Aristotle), proper foundation for their original rationalist culture--rejecting that insane subjectivism in form of Pharisaism-moralism which admitted into the land those most treacherous Jew parasites, conniving conspirators, horrific criminals now ruling by means of COUNTERFEIT conspiracy, the Fed fraud, engine of Orwellian "perpetual war for perp. peace" as we presently observe regarding Musselmen in Iraq and Afgan.
Thus greatest ethical principle and imperative is not child's "good-evil" (Pelagian heresy) or "love" of St. Paul, such "love" now so horribly taken out of context as it is presently--but rather HONESTY, that great bulwark against Jew lies and liars (JOHN 8:44) who presently run that otherwise invincible COUNTERFEIT scam/operation to which so many are so horribly addicted.
Of course Judeo-conspirators hope to make use of the snare of United Nations (UN) "good-cop" against bad-cop "The Israel Lobby" (as by Walt-Mearsheimer, CFR-Bilderberg agents).
CONCLUSION: But Christian gentiles must never forget there's no "good" Jew (Talmudist--see RevisionistHistory.org, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best expo/ref.) anymore than there's "good psychopath," good child-molester, or good cannibal. Jew-expulsion: it's truly an idea whose time has come. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples … and that means us, doesn’t it?
Desmond sure gets around.
Anon,
The citizenship question applies universally not just to Isreal. The isreali case is what set precedent in 1967.
Good brief explanation here:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html
So in essence you're a US citizen as long as you want to remain a US citizen. It really doesnt matter waht you do as long as you dont renounce your US citizenship.
Great legal minds at work there...
UN resolution.
Thats a real laugher.
Freeman UnVeils Monumental, Crushing, Devastating Counter-Attack Against Jews--Patriots Must Take Note
(Apollonian, 16 Mar 09)
Comrades, this is extremely brilliant article and event (see VanguardNewsNetwork.com, "Charles Freeman's...," 15 Mar 09), not just for commentary by MacDonald--who rather lacks a good deal of focus, I'd say, as for the very crux and center of Judeo-conspiracy, that crass criminal COUNTERFEITING fraud (see RealityZone.com for expo/ref. on US Federal Reserve Bank [Fed]) at very heart of it all--but most especially by Freeman himself who seems to have actually anticipated the Jew-Israel assault against him, and prepared a smashing counter-attack, striking hard at his foul Jew adversary, which counter-attack provides for even further details.
And indeed, Judeo-conspirators veritably recoil, which MacDonald well observes and describes; Judeo-conspirators seem to sense they've stepped upon a land-mine, the hook-nosed harpy, Melanie Phillips spewing her own venom for Freeman's spirited counter-attack--"how dare he?" demands the harpy Jewess.
For Freeman only leaves out most immediate and direct mention of the mass-corporate "Jews-media" as primary instrument of these Jew-Israeli traitors and foreign enemies of USA. And the only next integral component of Judeo-conspiracy to be noted is the "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.) hereticalists who spread even further that noxious Jew-sympathetic disinfo and confusion within the masses of white and gentile volk.
Thus we see clear beginnings to most substantial analysis of the problem of Judeo-conspiracy, the complete overthrow of American civilization and culture instituted upon original Christian rationalism of the founders, this overthrow by way of Jew lies in general and specific tools as COUNTERFEIT conspiracy and holohoax lies (see Codoh.com, Ihr.org, and ZundelSite.org for expo/ref. on holohoax).
For the only next observation is impending gross horrific overthrow of that most precious, original, founding Christian religion celebrating Christian TRUTH, Jew overthrow directly enabled by means of COUNTERFEITING and the buying and traducement of putative "leaders," the "Sadduceans" of modern-day, of JCs, who themselves then complete the betrayal NOT ONLY of USA to such as Israel, but of Christianity itself, including especially its ideal of Christian truth against Jew lies (according to Gosp. JOHN).
For never forget JC lies, treason, and apostacy begin with basic idea, now religion of JCs, that Christ was a Jew, hence Talmudist, for the easily verifiable fact is Christ was actually FOREMOST ANTI-SEMITE (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13). And note if u're NOT anti-semitic, THEN U AIN'T NO CHRISTIAN, pilgrim; get it straight.
CONCLUSION: Thus Christians and all Americans owe great debt of gratitude to leadership and especially EXAMPLE of Charles Freeman who doesn't merely flounder in passive defense, begging for forgiveness. Freeman rather counter-attacks, again, most pointedly and vigorously, the fatal analysis working against (a) Judeo-conspirators and Israel, to (b) mass corporate "Jews-media," (c) to COUNTERFEIT CONSPIRACY, the crux to it all, (d) but then including that necessary and integral enabling component to it, the JCs, perhaps the WORST TRAITORS of all, who threaten to consummate the complete overthrow of USA culture, its essential Christian-rationalist foundation, celebrating TRUTH, reason, and that Western objectivity of the Greeks and Aristotle. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Apologies. The WaPo editorial Sailer referred to was A Parting Shot That Maligns Obama, Too dated 15 March, which urged Obama to take offense at Freeman's "questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions". Auster linked Blame the 'Lobby', dated 12 March and subtitled "The Obama administration's latest failed nominee peddles a conspiracy theory".
Reading Auster's Just the man to to write the president's National Intelligence Estimates! it's fairly easy to see what his problem is. He judges Freeman as if he had been appointed to a position in israel rather than the US. For Auster, in order to be considered human, much less a US civil servant, you must always have the best interests of israel foremost in mind.
NY Foreign Policy Examiner: Charles Freeman on GPS: he renames Jewish Lobby the Likud Lobby, dated 15 March, is more disturbing than anything else I've read about Freeman so far:
Freeman had his day in court this afternoon, on Fareed Zakaria's CNN program GPS. As I listened, I found that Freeman articulated the feelings of many American Jews that do not endorse the far right wing, neo-conservative views of the Likud Party of Israel. Of course, those Jews have been called antisemitic by their detractors.
However, Freeman indicates that those Jews that oppose the policies of Israel are brave, and more concerned about Israel's survival in the long term, as well as Israel moral standard, which has all but disappeared. There was an allusion to a movement, though he did not refer to it by name, of such American Jews, which is called J Street.
Hence, Freeman suggestion that the Jewish Lobby, which is now called AIPAC (acronym for American Israel Public Affairs Committee) should more aptly be called the Likud Lobby. He spoke in a very matter of fact manner, and blamed the Israel Lobby for the assassination of his character, doing so with utter disregard of the truth. By doing so, Freeman courageously pushed to the forefront an issue that only takes place behind closed doors.
. . .
When asked his reaction to calls that he is antisemitic, Freeman pointed to his Jewish family members, his admiration for Israel, and his sorrow that Israel has become so badly corrupted, and values damaged by its settlement project. Still more frightening was his confirmation that right wing elements have a hammerlock on public discussion and policy. In other words, they enjoy veto power over appointments to the government: pro israel, anti arab no matter how injurious.
What Freeman has exposed is not so much a struggle between israeli, chinese, saudi, and American interests. It's more a struggle between two jewish factions. The hawkish israel über alles "likud" (including Austerites), whose influence currently dominates, and the bleeding heart liberals who wish israel would at least pretend to conform to the same diaspora-judaized standards (immigration, civil rights) non-jewish Western countries are held to.
Auster knows what we don't. Namely, that Freeman is simply an initiate into the Learned Elders of Mecca. Auster is worried about the preponderant and disproportionate influence of Muslims in the media ("media" "Medina" Coincidence? I think not!) like Zakaria and the undue influence they wield over American foreign policy. The rest of us are just anti-anti-Arab nutters blind to the obvious.
The hawkish israel über alles "likud" (including Austerites), whose influence currently dominates, and the bleeding heart liberals who wish israel would at least pretend to conform to the same diaspora-judaized standards (immigration, civil rights) non-jewish Western countries are held to.
I'm not sure you're correct here. Granted, I'm no expert on Israeli politics, but I have done some reading on the subject. I did a little research after their recent election.
I summarized what I found here:
http://ptweston.blogspot.com/2009/02/israeli-election.html
My conclusion was that there were no Jewish parties in Israel that support anything resembling the diaspora Jewry position on immigration and multiculturalism. Even the so-called "moderate" and "leftist" Israeli parties forthrightly state that Israel is a Jewish state and will remain so.
As an aside, even a cursory examination of Israeli politics reveals Auster once more to be a liar. I'm not the only one to notice this, either. In a recent post on "View From the Right", Auster's correspondent Mark Jaws called him out for his oft-repeated statement that the Israeli left is trying to destroy Israel just like disapora Jewry is trying to destroy the white world. Jaws pointed out that it is ridiculous to even attempt to make that comparison.
I really don't see any support for multiculturalism for Israel among diaspora Jewry, either. The Obama-worshiping leftist Jews I know tend to support Kadima, a "moderate" Israeli party that would be considered more extreme than the BNP if it were in a white country. Jewish proponents of multiculturalism for Israel are like White Nationalists, a tiny, powerless minority. Their influence is probably overstated to make Israel seem more normal to deracinated whites.
That's not much of a struggle.
P.T., your blog post The Israeli Election states the case very well, and I believe you are quite right about the situation in israel.
This is an interesting one. This is the only party so far that resembles anything like a leftist party from the United States or Europe. Several planks of Hadash's platform (racial equality, the elimination of ethnic discrimination, gender equality in the workplace) are axioms of Western political life. In Israel they're supported by a fringe left-wing party that won approximately three percent of the seats in the Knesset.
I was referring to the situation in the US, where what's left of our country is being picked over by the likes of both AIPAC and J Street. AIPAC et.al. dominate, but ironically this squabbling about what's best for jews is to them all proof there is no such thing as an Israel Lobby.
I've heard the same hysterical claims that Auster makes about leftist influence in israel from other jews as well, and I'm sorry to say I have been misled by them to a certain extent. That Jaws-Auster exchange also caught my eye. It was in National coalition of Jewish organizations demands end of immigration law enforcement:
Mark Jaws writes:
I wonder if this national coalition of Jews will apply the same Biblical standards to Israel, and demand that Israel open its doors to a few million pre-1948 displaced Palestinians and their descendants. No way. Once again, liberal Jews are overplaying their hand, and earning for themselves the scorn and derision of millions of conservative traditionalists.
LA replies:
Though I myself made this argument in passing earlier in the entry, the problem with the argument is that in recent years liberal U.S. Jews have been on the side of the suicidal peace process in Israel. So, while the paleocons keep obsessively criticizing Jews for their supposed pro-Israel double standard, the double-standard argument is less and less relevant. The problem with the Jews is not that they push a suicidal policy for the U.S. and a national survival policy for Israel. The problem with the Jews is that they advance a suicidal policy both for the U.S. and for Israel. Paleocons refuse to see this, because they need to see Jews as manipulative conspirators. If they see the Jews not as manipulative conspirators but as super-liberals, i.e., as being just like everyone else, only more so, the paleocons would lose the justification for their anti-Jewishness, and, in more than a few cases, would be left without a reason to go on living.
Where there is a greater ground for criticizing the Jews for bad faith is not in relation to a supposed pro-Israel double standard but in relation to the U.S. immigration problem. The fact that Jews will not support any immigration restrictions, even against their mortal enemies the Muslims, because they think that white Christian Americans are more dangerous to them than Muslims, is highly objectionable and immoral, and grounds for severe criticism of Jews and a demand by the Christian majority that the Jews change their attitudes.
Mark Jaws writes:
Please convince me that pushing for the peace process is the same as advocating Israel open up its borders and allow Palestinians to overwhelm the Jewish state, thereby making Jews a minority in Israel. I don't think that is what liberal American Jews are demanding from Israel.
LA replies:
Yes, Mark has a point. Being for the peace process is not the same as advocating open borders for Israel, and obviously Jews have not done that.
The problem with the analogy, of course, is that open borders for Israel means open borders for those actively seeking to mass murder Jews and destroy Israel. Open borders for the U.S. does not mean that (though it ultimately could lead to that).
However, it could be said that the difference between the two situations is just a difference of degree. When Jews advocate open borders for the U.S., they don't add any caveats, such as, "This applies, of course, only to immigrants who are assimilable and non-hostile." No. The demand they make on the U.S. to welcome the stranger is absolute. Why then should the Jews be allowed to escape the principle of absolute openness when it comes to Israel?
Yes, Mark has a point, and notice how Auster slithers away from it. First by reiterating his absurd assertion, deflecting attention onto "the paleocons" and the anti-jewishness to which Auster imagines they cling for dear life just because. Pressed again he retreats into his usual hair-splitting smokescreen, babbling on about who is assimilable and non-hostile, falling back on the qualifiers he so confidently uses when discriminating blacks and muslims from "whites". "But but ... it's us against the unassimilable hostiles!"
Ordinarily Auster spreads his little incongruent turds of wisdom across several posts. In this one, an instant classic which I'm bound to be quoting again, he was flustered into putting "grounds for severe criticism of Jews and a demand by the Christian majority that the Jews change their attitudes" together with his more usual "dangerous" rhetoric aimed at ethnic groups other than his own. The poor fool's only defense to the observation that 2+2=4 is "No it isn't! 2+2=5! Only a serious anti-semite would say 2+2=4!" And Mark Jaws, AIPAC, and J Street would all set aside their squabbles to join in the screeching.
That's how jews are allowed to escape the principle of absolute openness when it comes to israel. If you criticize jewish double-standards for israel and the West you are labeled a jew hater. As Andrew Sullivan wrote, this is the third rail no one is allowed to touch and have access to real power in Washington.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3676035,00.html
According to this report, there are some one million illegals residing in Israel. I suspect that number is wildly inflated (the reverse of what occurs in western countries, I know), but let's say it's 500,000. That's nearly ten percent of the total population and more than ten percent of the Jewish population.
There's just no way that could happen if "ethnocentric jews," always and at all times keenly aware of their interests, were running things. Whether they're as prominent or not, the fact is liberal forces in Israel do threaten the future of that country.
You have to remember that upwards of 1/5th of the country (and growing) consists of what even you would have to accept are existential enemies. Yet the Israeli left has gone out of their way to accommodate them, going so far as to ban "racist" parties that have faced up to demographic reality. The arabs there have been very unfortunate, but events matter, and it was those events that led to the invention of a "Palestinian" nation, the acceptance of which was very foolish on the part of Israelis and western jews. For people always thinking ten steps ahead and who always play their cards right (according to antisemitic lore) they sure seem to have fumbled this one. Maybe they've been groping in the post-modern dark a bit too, and not everything has been one long plot to dispossess the White Man.
It's perfectly understandable that you'd chafe at the pervasive influence of the Israel lobby but that doesn't entitle you to make up facts about Israel, which is a country that is facing much of the same pressure as European countries, and for much the same reason -- suicidally stupid liberal feel-good optimism. Israel might be better prepared to face down those challenges but it's a difference of degree, not of kind.
Also, it's hardly only diaspora jews who hold their adopted countries to a double standard. I can't tell you how many supposed "whites" I've discussed these issues with who say things like, "I'm not really all that concerned about immigration to Australia..." -- while being up in arms about immigration to Italy.
Anon 7:41,
There's just no way that could happen if "ethnocentric jews," always and at all times keenly aware of their interests, were running things. . . . For people always thinking ten steps ahead and who always play their cards right (according to antisemitic lore) they sure seem to have fumbled this one. . . . Also, it's hardly only diaspora jews who hold their adopted countries to a double standard.
I'd be more inclined to take your tales of woe at face value if you didn't sprinkle them with arrogant and ignorant jibes, and instead offered to reciprocate either understanding or sympathy. It's actually fortunate for my kind that at least some of you can't even pretend to do so when it might help you. It makes us more confident in our desire not only to segregate ourselves from your poisonous "liberals", but also your "conservatives", who are for the most part just as odious and untrustworthy in word and deed, and thus not worthy of any alliance.
You have to remember that upwards of 1/5th of the country (and growing) consists of what even you would have to accept are existential enemies.
Israel's problems are hers to solve. I'd like nothing more than for every member of the Israel Lobby - official, non-official, left, right, likud- or kadima-supporters - would relocate to israel and lend her a hand. For the good of my people in solving our problems we do not need them or their overweening and unhealthy influence. They harm us. And I count them among the upwards of 1/5th of my country (and growing) that consists of what I recognize as existential enemies.
There's just no way that could happen if "ethnocentric jews," always and at all times keenly aware of their interests, were running things.
This is buncombe, pure and simple.
The "Law of Return" is first and foremost an ethnic strategy. It never utilised a halakhic definition of who is a Jew. However, it, at least in part, mitigated the "demographic threat" from the Israeli Arab population. It has always been contentious. To classify it as a "liberal" policy that somehow parallels the open borders policy desires of diaspora Jews is simply the fabrication of a self-deluded mind.
I'd be more inclined to take your tales of woe at face value if you didn't sprinkle them with arrogant and ignorant jibes, and instead offered to reciprocate either understanding or sympathy.
That requires two to tango and I was responding to "arrogant and ignorant" statements you and your people seem to feel free to make about Israel. You can't do that and then claim to be open to reciprocity.
Israel's problems are hers to solve. I'd like nothing more than for every member of the Israel Lobby - official, non-official, left, right, likud- or kadima-supporters - would relocate to israel and lend her a hand. For the good of my people in solving our problems we do not need them or their overweening and unhealthy influence. They harm us. And I count them among the upwards of 1/5th of my country (and growing) that consists of what I recognize as existential enemies.
That's fine. Many Israelis who realize what the real threats to their country are also wish it was simply a matter of stating what those threats are and expecting everyone else to fall into line and "do something" about them. Unfortunately, in the real world, it isn't that easy. Those Israelis are only slightly less powerless than yourself. I'd put them on par with the Austrian "far right" -- reasonable (but still insufficient) support, but support that can easily be co-opted by the "mainstream" because real understanding is lacking among the people -- liberal fantasies die hard.
This is buncombe, pure and simple.
The "Law of Return" is first and foremost an ethnic strategy. It never utilised a halakhic definition of who is a Jew. However, it, at least in part, mitigated the "demographic threat" from the Israeli Arab population. It has always been contentious. To classify it as a "liberal" policy that somehow parallels the open borders policy desires of diaspora Jews is simply the fabrication of a self-deluded mind.
I never classified it as such, so you can't have been referring to me with your last sentence.
I wish you would read the comments section of that thread I linked to. You would see how sharply divided ethnic identities and loyalties are in Israel, nothing like the compact tribal unity antisemites imagine -- Americans ask "who is White?"; Jews ask "who is Jewish?" Many Israelis are convinced that Israel is already finished as a jewish country (a country in which jewish identity and its celebration is foremost). There are many parallels between Israel and the West if only you'd care to see them.
Anon,
There are two separate strands of nonsense in what you say.
1) Your pitiful and irrelevant strawmen concerning the imperfections of jewish omnipotentence.
2) Your obtuse conflation of how divided jews are about what's best for them, and whether my country should also be first and foremost concerned about what's best for jews and israel rather than ourselves.
Can you not see how absurd it is that the only acceptable positions in Western politics today are varying degrees of obsequience to jewish and israeli interests? Even this supposed jew-hater Freeman professes love for jews and explains his motivations as being in the best interests of israel. Likewise "liberal" jews like J Street. Why should we tolerate a government that subordinates OUR interests to a particular country or minority? Or that pretends those interests are identical? And even the status quo isn't enough. Jews of all stripes just keep pushing and pushing for more obsequience. Any resistance is considered a sure sign of jew hatred and is met with apocalyptic shrieks. It's intolerable.
Are you my previous visitor Some Israeli? Because if not you zionist fellows all seem to think alike. It's all about you. I should always sympathize with you. Sorry. I'm not concerned about israel's problems. I'm concerned about the problems jews, left and right, who are concerned about israel's problems are causing my country. Understand? Instead of wasting your time here trying to convince me that my concerns are mistaken you should do us both a favor and instead visit Auster, Phillips, and all the diaspora-zionists like them and convince them to move to israel. You can take the "liberals" too, though I'm sure you don't want them any more than we do.
Americans ask "who is White?"; Jews ask "who is Jewish?"
With apologies to Tanstaafl & Daniel, for my view varies here from theirs, Americans never asked "Who is white"?, until Jews like Boas constructed "whiteness" by compiling fraudulent data. Whiteness is an ethnic based strategy. It didn't exist before the 20th century.
"The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:
“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.
“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.
“We are determined that they shall not...It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]
The Immigration Act of 1790 begins:
Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) (Excerpts) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof. . .
"being a free white person"
True, however, Vaile's comment shows a very vivid awareness of differences. Restriction was not based on who was white but on the belief there was a founding American ethnic group and it was worth preserving. It wasn't until the US Supreme Court received challenges from Turks, Syrians, Arabs, Sikhs and Hindus that a legal definition of 'white' arose. It was of special interest to organised Jewry because of the potential for exclusion.
Boas constructed a theory of 'phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors' which denied race (as in the races of Europe) or more accurately acknowledge European racial differences, however, suggested they were changed by American environmental factors. In other words the concept of a white race was born in the US, which obviously included Jews. If the USSC decided that Syrians were not white, as previous decisions found
Syrians
In re Najour
174 F. 735
(N.D. Ga. 1909) 1909 Syrians are White
In re Mudarri
176 F. 465
(C.C.D. Mass. 1910) 1910 Syrians are White
In re Ellis
179 F. 1002
(D. Or. 1910) 1910 Syrians are White
Ex parte Shahid
205 F. 812
(E.D.S.C. 1913) 1913 Syrians are not White
In re Dow
213 F. 355
(E.D.S.C. 1914) 1914 Syrians are not White
Ex Parte Dow
211 F. 486
(E.D.S.C. 1914) 1914 Syrians are not White
Dow v. United States
226 F. 145
(4th Cir. 1915) 1915 Syrians are White
it posed the potential to provide a basis for revoking Jewish citizenship.
@Desmond
There are THOUSANDS of sources easily available on the web (e.g. Google Books) that disprove your thesis that White identity is a 20th century innovation. I suspect a detailed search through library archives would reveal at least hundreds of thousands of additional sources (e.g. passages in magazines, newspapers, novels, etc).
Here's a source, Two Lectures on the Natural History of the Caucasian and Negro Races from 1841 by the eminent American doctor of the time Josiah Clark Nott with a clear conception of differing races, including Caucasians and Negros.
For example, on page 8, he states (italics are his):
I must show that the Caucasian or White and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians.
Here's a British parliamentary source from 1826 mentioning the White race.
A simple google books search on terms like Caucasian race or "White race" will reveal numerous source discussing these issues. My searches above are from January 1776 to December 1880.
Your various examples concern defining the BOUNDARIES of Whiteness and are not a refutation of the historical existence of White identity. And the cases you described are reasonable since a fraction of the North African, Middle Eastern and Central and South Asian populations are closely related to European Whites and immigrants from some of these lands began arriving in America during that era.
You're correct that during that time, there was strong identification with specific European ethnic groups ("races" in the language of the day) and some notion of different "subraces", like the Nordic race, among some, because mixing between these different groups was much smaller than today, where most Whites have ancestors among several European populations.
But that doesn't mean the broader White identity did not exist.
Given the massive historical evidence of White identity, the logical conclusion is that the Whiteness Studies crowd has their own dishonest motives in trying to deconstruct the identity and history of Whites and denying their historical self conception.
Let's not have this discussion here. I'll dedicate a post+thread for it in the near future.
"White": An Abstraction Dependent Upon Circumstances, Purpose Being To Distinguish Friend, Foe
(Apollonian, 18 Mar 09)
"Desmond Jones": Why not let's cut to the "chase"?--what exactly are u attempting to try to endeavor to doing?--does it involve the reification of an abstract?
So what comes first, the particular or the abstract?--Aristotle or Plato?
"White" then is obviously an abstraction--utterly meaningless without particular referents.
So obviously the distinction ("white") arose fm people who identified themselves as NOT someone else--am I right or wrong? So then "white" referred, in US history, as those free (and even not free) folk who originated in Europe to distinguish them fm Negroids, Indians, and Jews.
So golly gee, is it really tremendous discovery for u that "white" is not only 20th cent. invention? "White" goes back to the Greeks, at least, surely.
CONCLUSION: In USA, for example, one merely needs refer to historical governments which obviously empowered European-derived Christians--WHO WERE NOT JEWS, and indeed COULDN'T be Jews by definition. Neither could "white" possibly be negrid or Indian. But always "white" had to be Christian, hence objectivistic and Aristotelian, etc. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Looking foward to that thread, Tan.
Anon - the comment from your link that says the most is Moishe's "Who is a Jew?". Isreali law will dictate that; there is confusion on how one counts "illegals" as well.
"...for much the same reason -- suicidally stupid liberal feel-good optimism." How about - for much the same reason - greedy, take-advantage-of-cheap-labor-pools economics.
"You have to remember that upwards of 1/5th of the country (and growing)..." where exactly does the Isreali border run? Do you still include Gaza & the West Bank, portions of both. Being sympathetic for acquiring occupied territories and claiming they are now illegally residing within the state is absurd.
The parallels are meaningless. If the US cannot make national security decisions without consideration of the political fallout from pro-Isreal groups, it (the US) will continue to fail its people.
The first item on US immigration policy agenda would be similar to Isreal's revisions to the "Law of return" - only after you prove loyalty to the state (US); followed by an overturning of Afroyim v. Rusk and Vance v. Terrazzas and revoke citizenship to anyone that maintains citizenship with another nation.
@Desmond
In a follow up to my comment and your previous posts, your list of court cases from the early 20th century actually demonstrates how important White identity was, since those Syrian plaintiffs were litigating to be included in the important long-standing legal category of White, which Tan demonstrated dates from the earliest days of the US.
1) Your pitiful and irrelevant strawmen concerning the imperfections of jewish omnipotentence.
Sigh. I was responding to antisemitic presumptions of jewish omnipotence.
2) Your obtuse conflation of how divided jews are about what's best for them, and whether my country should also be first and foremost concerned about what's best for jews and israel rather than ourselves.
As a matter of fact, I didn't ask that you consider what's best for Israel at all. Point out where I did if you disagree.
Can you not see how absurd it is that the only acceptable positions in Western politics today are varying degrees of obsequience to jewish and israeli interests?
The problem is you would call any support of Israeli interests -- even support which required you to do nothing -- "obsequiousness." Most Americans would except their country to "support" Italy under conditions which required them to do nothing without anyone describing it as subservience. Certainly that is their position with respect to Britain.
It's intolerable.
What is becoming increasingly intolerable is your unhinged ranting. K-Mac wonders what communication is possible with jews. Anyone reading your blog and witnessing your descent into hysterics must wonder what communication is possible with unhinged antisemites.
What can a jew or non-white ever do to right himself in your eyes? If your answer runs along the lines of "leave my country or die," forget it, no one will do that. You are a political naif. Not even omnipotent Israelis enjoy that luxury. Come up with a better answer or remain forever irrelevant.
I state calmly and plainly that I won't serve your interests and you interpret that as making demands of you? Holy crap, you say I'm unhinged? LOL! If you don't like this blog go peddle your israel-first blitherings elsewhere.
My only contribution to this thread was to note the fallacies of antisemites (or whatever you'd prefer yourselves to be called -- "jew realists," there) about conditions in Israel. You misinterpreted this as a demand to serve Israeli interests and ranted about how intolerable it all is. It may be overdoing it to call it unhinged but reading your blog one notices a pattern of sinking deeper and deeper into outright, smoldering hatred to the point where you now groan about simple facts or corrections being put to you.
You are the one who mentioned "reciprocity." My words to you were, fine, don't like jews, don't go out of your way to serve Israeli interests, but if you're going to claim there is some basis on which reciprocity is possible then please avail yourself of the facts about the country you're criticizing, namely the supposed insufferable double-standard in which Israelis are enjoying all the splendors of "tribalism" while cruelly denying them to Americans when the fact is Israel is nearly as sharply internally divided as America and for many of the same liberal reasons.
There’s that “a” word again – oh, no, anything but that!
I'm not using it in that way. Get over yourself.
Anonymous: No one is assuming jewish omnipotence.
That just isn't true. Assumptions of near-omnipotence are widespread among you.
We are noting the highly disproportionate influence of jews (which you cannot deny) in media, education, business (finance), government/think tanks, and so forth. They merrily abuse the power that they hold in these areas, almost always towards anti-White ends. You’re not fooling anyone.
There are historical reasons for why this is the case, none of which I'd expect you to even try to understand. Your faux-objectivity on this point will not fool many.
Support of Israel’s interests is not a natural state of affairs but a coerced one. The jews make aid for Israel inevitable, otherwise it would dry up in a hurry. We owe your people nothing, not even neutrality, given the horrendous and wanton culture-destruction that your people engage in.
I'm not suggesting you "owe" Israel anything. I'm only making the point that most Americans on appraising the facts would have sided with Israel and expected that if their government were to take any side it'd be Israel's.
There is some truth to accusations of cultural destruction, but that needs to be balanced against the search for truth that jews embarked on on finding themselves strangers in your land (notoriously described as "punitively objecive") and which resulted in a number of cultural improvements.
Here’s something for you to consider, you narcissistic shite: ”Anti-Semitism” is a defensive phenomenon.
Yes, historically an excessive one. A jew or two collected taxes or charged you interest and the response was to assail the entire community. Later a jew noted the economic disparities the classist, capitalistic practices of the day produced and seeking to redress them again led to the jews taking a "defensive" hiding, again and again and again. Do you shoot your neighbor for blasting his stereo or do you ask him to turn it down?
The only “answer” we will accept is the complete extirpation of your parasitic kin and all the other dead weight you brought in from White lands. We won’t settle for less.
Lovely company you keep, Tanstaafl.
My only contribution to this thread
Your only contribution has been to moan about strawmen and your own misinterpretations, while pretending you're the one who's been wronged. I'm understanding you perfectly. Your modus operandi, every single tired psychological trick, is typical of your tribe.
I was googling around for "acting guilty", looking for a pithy phrase or parable that would sum up Anon's attitude.
That's how I ran into Comeuppance: A Parable about the Possibilities of Dissent. It's a little story recounted by the blogger's hero, civil rights lawyer Arthur Kinoy, about how judge Jerome Frank didn't stay the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Why?
It simply was not prudent for a “liberal Jew” to be the one to save the two “Jewish atom spies.”
. . .
Kinoy concludes this hard-won lesson: “However, Mike Perlin and I came through the experience with the inner hope that at least never in our lives would we become “as old as” Jerome Frank was that afternoon.”
Wonderful. Of course it makes sense that this blogger, who laments justice and emotes so unselfconsciously about using whatever power he has to protect even criminal jews, also happens to be an anti-White anti-racist. Not exactly a surprise.
Now Anon probably imagines these links were concocted by the vast world-wide conspiracy of omnipotent anti-semites, smouldering with hysterical hatred for the poor innocent israelis. Because it's all about israel.
Myself, I don't believe I'm doing any injustice in taking the words of this blogger and Anon at face value. Disgusted by them, yes. Misinterpreting them, no.
Anon, would it be possible to start this conversation over?
My only contribution to this thread was to note the fallacies of antisemites (or whatever you'd prefer yourselves to be called -- "jew realists," there) about conditions in Israel.
What specific logical fallacy did you point out or do you see in the post and comments? My own preference is that you do not call me any names for labeling of that nature is dehumanizing and it isn't an argument.
Americans when the fact is Israel is nearly as sharply internally divided as America and for many of the same liberal reasons.
The point is, Israel committed an act of ethnic cleansing in their "holy land" for a second time and reduced the non-Jewish population substantially over the years despite being heavily outbred by it.
The double standard comes into play in the teaching of history and how Jews in the media use history as a bludgeon when framing the issues. For instance, now that the Fairness Doctrine is coming back, would the Jews accept the childrens being taught about the Jewish conquest of Canaan? All the millions of slaughtered Arabs?
You did enjoy the fruits of tribalism and it is built into your religion. We understand their are some "leftists" in Israel but it isn't comparable one iota to our situation in America.
Let us compare the platforms of the political parties and see for ourselves if we deny this fact.
There’s that “a” word again – oh, no, anything but that!
I'm not using it in that way. Get over yourself.
You shouldn't be using it at all. Get over yourself.
That just isn't true. Assumptions of near-omnipotence are widespread among you.
They comport pretty well with reality and Jews are always saying the same things in the articles they write, edit, publish, distribute and finance.
There are historical reasons for why this is the case, none of which I'd expect you to even try to understand. Your faux-objectivity on this point will not fool many.
Like what historical reasons? How Jews were the abused middle-men forced to charge exorbitant interest rates? How the Polish nobility had a bunch of willing extortioners from amongst the Jews?
What reasons?
I'm only making the point that most Americans on appraising the facts would have sided with Israel and expected that if their government were to take any side it'd be Israel's.
Yes most Americans would. But why? I call it brainwashing.
There is some truth to accusations of cultural destruction, but that needs to be balanced against the search for truth that jews embarked on on finding themselves strangers in your land (notoriously described as "punitively objecive") and which resulted in a number of cultural improvements.
some truth? So, Jews are pilgrims who found themselves in a strange land and were punished for adapting?
What "cultural improvements" are Jews responsible for? Ultimately, we don't need them.
Yes, historically an excessive one. A jew or two collected taxes or charged you interest and the response was to assail the entire community. Later a jew noted the economic disparities the classist, capitalistic practices of the day produced and seeking to redress them again led to the jews taking a "defensive" hiding, again and again and again. Do you shoot your neighbor for blasting his stereo or do you ask him to turn it down?
It builds up inside and it builds up inside. You can call it excessive if you want but you aren't extending any historical grace to men of the times.
If we deport you now, will that be excessive?
We don't want you here.
Yes, historically an excessive one. A jew or two collected taxes or charged you interest and the response was to assail the entire community.
Disingenuous. Those Jews acted as agents of the Jewish community, and -- as Salo Baron Wittmayer has explained -- under Jewish law the community is responsible for the acts of each Jew:
To this day orthodox Jewish ethics has remained in its essence national rather than individual, and this accounts, incidentally, for the otherwise incomprehensible legal theorem of the common responsibility of all Jews for the deeds of each.--Salo Wittmayer Baron (1895–1989), a preeminent scholar who revolutionized the study of Jewish history during his lengthy tenure at Columbia University. [From page 10 of Baron's "A social and Religious History of the Jews", published by Columbia University Press, 1957
ISBN 0231088388, 9780231088381.]
I outlined very clearly to "Anonymous" why we feel as we do about his kind. I gave the justifications as well as the qualifiers. Unsurprisingly, and in true Jewish fashion, he chose to obfuscate.
The old "judge us as individuals, not as a group" is fallacious in so many ways that I won't dignify it with a response. This very viewpoint is what is sold by the neo-cohn/faileo-conned axis - and part of the reason that "conservatism" is in the toilet.
Wah, wah. Anonymous, why don't you go debate with some like minds over at Free Republic?
I was googling around for "acting guilty", looking for a pithy phrase or parable that would sum up Anon's attitude.
Tanstaafl, much of what "the jews," as a group, are guilty of will come as much of a shock to them as it does to those of who you come to see them as guilty. Only few will be prepared to accept that guilt. Appraising another's "acting guilty" by judging it against the entirety of what that individual's group stands accused is to hold him to an impossible standard.
Now Anon probably imagines these links were concocted by the vast world-wide conspiracy of omnipotent anti-semites, smouldering with hysterical hatred for the poor innocent israelis. Because it's all about israel.
It's about Israel in this thread because you made it about Israel and I responded.
The point is, Israel committed an act of ethnic cleansing in their "holy land" for a second time and reduced the non-Jewish population substantially over the years despite being heavily outbred by it.
It was a war; the "Palestinians" didn't exist as a nation; and in most cases they resettled only a few kilometers away in another part of the Arab land they, at the time, saw themselves as belonging to. It's like an Italian being ethnically cleansed from NYC who resettles in New Jersey -- a terrible inconvenience, certainly, and the pain of being prevented from returning great, but wars are never painless.
You did enjoy the fruits of tribalism and it is built into your religion. We understand their are some "leftists" in Israel but it isn't comparable one iota to our situation in America.
I am talking about what Israelis enjoy at present, not what they once did. Americans, as I understand it, also once enjoyed the fruits of something akin to tribalism. Those bonds are now frayed in both. The parallels between the two countries are comparable to a greater extent than you think.
If we deport you now, will that be excessive?
We don't want you here.
I consider deportation (more precisely, expulsion) excessive, yes.
That is your position, and I can accept that you hold it sincerely. You don't speak for every member of your group, however, and weighty matters such as this can only be arrived at after grueling deliberation and group consensus. Israeli's who understand their country's delicate position also wish it were as easy as snapping their fingers.
Disingenuous. Those Jews acted as agents of the Jewish community, and -- as Salo Baron Wittmayer has explained -- under Jewish law the community is responsible for the acts of each Jew:
The reprisals were experienced and understood in their day as excessive and are certainly excessive by the standards of today.
I outlined very clearly to "Anonymous" why we feel as we do about his kind. I gave the justifications as well as the qualifiers. Unsurprisingly, and in true Jewish fashion, he chose to obfuscate.
There isn't the space here and I don't have the inclination to provide any more than cursory answers, so if that appears obfuscatory so be it.
The clearest your outline got was some vague statements about exorbitant influence wielded by jews and that antisemitism is a defensive phenomenon. I answered that there were historical and almost unavoidable reasons for those clashes and that they have impacted jews more negatively than you're prepared to acknowledge and that the meeting of people's hasn't entirely been a negative for your own, though you appear determined to see it that way.
The old "judge us as individuals, not as a group" is fallacious in so many ways that I won't dignify it with a response.
Both are always possible; which is preferable or expedient depends on circumstances. Nothing about either is at all times "fallacious."
One last thing Anon, as for Karl Marx pointing out the excesses of "capitalism" we needed him not.
We already had our own home grown white suitably charged and talented in the form of Charles Dickens.
There are plenty of other systems and critiques valid and created by gentiles if you would come out the insulating womb of Jewish thought.
We have no need for the kahal.
Appraising another's "acting guilty" by judging it against the entirety of what that individual's group stands accused is to hold him to an impossible standard.
Not when Jews try to inculcate guilt in Whites a la Timmy Wise.
It was a war; the "Palestinians" didn't exist as a nation; and in most cases they resettled only a few kilometers away in another part of the Arab land they, at the time, saw themselves as belonging to. It's like an Italian being ethnically cleansed from NYC who resettles in New Jersey -- a terrible inconvenience, certainly, and the pain of being prevented from returning great, but wars are never painless.
We can say the same thing about German lebensraum, after all the Jews were only going to settly a few miles away in Poland which was much more historically Jewish than Germany anyway. A trifling matter and a minor inconvenience.
War for living room is never painless.
I don't want to misrepresent myself too much. I don't think the evil visited upon the Palestinians is the greatest tragedy to ever befall mankind so please forgive me if I've given that impression.
I am talking about what Israelis enjoy at present, not what they once did.
Like I said, let us compare the major political parties in Israel to those in America and see which platforms smack more of tribalism.
Americans, as I understand it, also once enjoyed the fruits of something akin to tribalism.
Akin but certainly in now way the same thing.
Those bonds are now frayed in both. The parallels between the two countries are comparable to a greater extent than you think.
I didn't say there weren't parallels but that we are muuuuch further down the road here.
I consider deportation (more precisely, expulsion) excessive, yes.
Will you accept severe career restrictions? No? Why don't you just dictate to us what is acceptable for you? That is where we are going anyway right?
That is your position, and I can accept that you hold it sincerely. You don't speak for every member of your group, however, and weighty matters such as this can only be arrived at after grueling deliberation and group consensus.
Duuhmocracy. Great. What works against us here will hopefully destroy your cousins over there.
Israeli's who understand their country's delicate position also wish it were as easy as snapping their fingers.
I don't think deporting Jews will solve all our problems. But, like 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea, it's a damn fine start.
The reprisals were experienced and understood in their day as excessive and are certainly excessive by the standards of today.
Understood as excessive by the traitorous nobility?
They were just stupid Polish peasants anyway.
How could they have known any better?
There isn't the space here and I don't have the inclination to provide any more than cursory answers, so if that appears obfuscatory so be it.
There is space. You just don't have the inclination. All it takes is a few hyperlinks to relevant sources.
I answered that there were historical and almost unavoidable reasons for those clashes and that they have impacted jews more negatively than you're prepared to acknowledge and that the meeting of people's hasn't entirely been a negative for your own, though you appear determined to see it that way.
It is a majority negative experience. Are you prepared to explain it otherwise or not? I'm listening.
Both are always possible; which is preferable or expedient depends on circumstances. Nothing about either is at all times "fallacious."
Agreed. This is why it is possible for me to have good Jewish friends who know very much of my "anti-Semitism" and understand it.
What "cultural improvements" are Jews responsible for?
I'm still waiting for anon to answer this one, but I do have some thoughts of my own on the matter.
Jews have improved our culture by giving us:
-Multiculturalism
-Open borders and the notion that America is a "land of immigrants" with no particular racial or ethnic identity
-Academic race-denial
-Feminism
-The constant stream of anti-white and race-mixing propaganda coming from Hollywood
-The subversion and replacement of American conservatism by neo-conservatism, an anti-white, socially liberal philosophy that differs from liberalism only based on its adherents desire to sacrifice American blood and treasure to defend Israel
I can't even imagine where we'd be without these improvements.
Americans, as I understand it, also once enjoyed the fruits of something akin to tribalism.
And who played a wildly outsized role in breaking down any sense of tribalism amongst white Americans?
If every doctor was a jew and every Nobel prize went to a jew it wouldn't make up for the jewish role in pathologizing our racialism, opening our borders, and defrauding us into bankruptcy.
Nobel Prizes are the sort of thing that will benefit us via mail, as Svigor has put it. In the event of a technological or medical breakthrough, one need not be living in the same country as the innovator to enjoy the fruits of his labor.
Attention, our marching orders have been issued. US must end Iran nuke drive, or Israel may attack, PM warns:
The primary imperative for the United States and President Barack Obama is to put an end to Iran's nuclear race, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said before his swearing-in Tuesday, adding that if the US failed to do so Israel might be forced to resort to a military strike on the Islamic Republic's nuclear installations.
"The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons," Netanyahu told The Atlantic. The Iranian drive for a nuclear weapon was a "hinge of history," he said, emphasizing that all of "Western civilization" was responsible for preventing an Iranian bomb.
You stole indian land, enslaved blacks, gassed jews, and your primary imperative is to protect jews everywhere, forever, no matter what they do, no matter the cost to you.
What does he think, he's some kinda Jedi?
Obama to hold ‘First Seder’:
On Thursday, when he hosts a Seder at the White House, Obama will not only be fulfilling that hope shared during his campaign, he will also become the first sitting president to attend, let alone host, the Jewish ritual feast at the executive mansion.
“To break Matzo, so to speak, in the official White House dining room is historic,” said William Daroff, the director of the Washington office ofUnited Jewish Community.
More change.
Notice that it's just before Passover as Obama has announced his intentions to push another massive illegal alien amnesty this fall in the Knesset, err..., Congress.
This certainly constitutes "Progress By Pesach" (Passover).
Oh yeah, they're quoting the delusional 12 million illegal "immigrant" number, AND they plan to really, truly secure the border THIS time.
Let's hope Charlie Brown changes his strategy: Sorry about kicking you, Lucy. I "slipped".
Steinitz: Deport 100,000 illegal workers:
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz recently instructed ministry officials to develop a comprehensive plan for deporting 100,000 illegal foreign workers from Israel within a year.
"What's going on is an outrage," said Steinitz at a meeting a few hours prior to the Passover Seder. "There are a 100,000 people taking jobs illegally while Israelis remain unemployed. The plan must involve painful economic sanctions on those who employ illegal workers."
. . .
"The point is to make it fiscally unwise to hire an illegal worker," he told ministry employees. "It is a financial crime. It is not enough merely to deport the workers; we must also hurt the employers."
"We must fight such employers, must look for them, publish their names, indict them - and do it by this year! It is inconceivable that, of the 400,000 foreign workers in Israel, 100,000 of them are illegal and meanwhile unemployment in Israel stands at over 200,000 persons," the new minister said.
The government and media in israel don't care much about what's best for foreigners. And they call them "illegal", not "undocumented".
Where is the pro-immigrant apologia we in the West are so accustomed to hearing? The "hard-working immigrants looking for a better life", "doing jobs israelis won't do", in a "nation of immigrants". And where's the demonization of the "nativists", "xenophobes", "fascists", and "racists" who support deportation?
Consider the numbers as well. Israel deporting 100000 illegals out of a total population of 7.37M is equivalent to the US, with a total population of some 303M, deporting 4.1M illegals. The 12-30M illegals in the US represent three to seven times as many as israel has, but for reasons only jews can explain the US is supposed to celebrate and grant amnesty to our illegals by passover while undeported illegals in israel represent "an outrage".
US shadow president Rahm Emanuel tells israel: "we're in charge". Israeli response: "no we're in charge - remember who you are, shut up, and do your job!"
NU's Katz reminds Emanuel he's Jewish:
Katz claims that in a private meeting with the unnamed leader, Emanuel said, "In the next four years, there will be a peace agreement with the Palestinians on the basis of two states for two peoples, and it does not matter to us who is the prime minister."
In the letter, a Hebrew version of which was provided to The Jerusalem Post by Katz's parliamentary aide, Katz wrote: "For many Israelis, this report is a cause for worry because it reveals a condescending attitude toward our prime minister and Israeli public opinion. This is an attitude that Israel does not expect from a real friend such as the US, and all the more so from an Israeli Jew who has succeeded in being appointed White House chief-of-staff."
Katz went on to compare Emanuel to the biblical Esther, who ended up at using her influence with Persian King Ahashverosh to intervene on behalf of the Jews of the Persian Empire.
"For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?" Katz wrote, quoting from the Book of Esther (4:14).
Katz was hinting that Emanuel should use his influence to protect Israeli interests, which, he believes, are best served by preventing the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Emanuel was born in Chicago in 1959. His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, a Jerusalem-born pediatrician, was a member of the IZL (Irgun).
Rahm Emanuel and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel. Emanuel and his wife, Amy Rule, are members of Anshe Sholom B'nai Israel, a modern Orthodox congregation in Chicago. They have a son and two daughters; the older two attend the same Conservative day school Emanuel himself attended as a child.
What is Esther's claim to fame?
As a result of Esther's intervention and influence, Mizrahi Jews lived in the Persian Empire for 2400 years thereafter. Esther's husband Ahasuerus followed in the footsteps of Cyrus the Great, in showing mercy to the Jews of Persia: Cyrus had decreed an end to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews upon his conquest of Babylon in 539 BC.
Thus we see why it was so important that Charles Freeman not be permitted to exercise any intervention or influence several steps farther down the chain of command.
Post a Comment
<< Home