A Jew-Firster Spat About Israel-Firsters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fjordman Fallout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment 19, by Osimandia:

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

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

Comment 20, by Pit:

Yep:
politically correct = Semitic correctly.

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

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

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

Comment 26, by Pit:

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

Comment 58, by Deep Roots:

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

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

An Interview with Robert Stark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Path to National Suicide Discussion at Mangan's

Path to National Suicide

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

Iowa's Critics

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

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

Who are these critics?

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

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

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

Who are these critics?

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

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

Bloom introduces himself as an expert Iowanologist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's how Bloom sums up his gripe:

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

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

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

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