Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

The Hagelcaust: Confirmed

Hagel and anti-Semitism, JTA - Jewish & Israel News, February 26, 2013:

To the Editor:

Previous letters have correctly noted and decried ex-Senator Hagel's anti-Semitism but have focused on secondary concerns rather than the core of his mindset. To seize on this or that hostile comment regarding Israel or Israeli policy is besides the point, regardless of how off base they may be.

Hagel's ugly characterizations will find supporters, certainly among anti-Israel Jewish leftists posing as supporters of Israel.

The essence of Hagel's anti-Semitism is the sort expressed by such classics of paranoid anti-Semitica as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or the works of Henry Ford. Like them, Hagel believes a sinister pro-Israel/Jewish cabal acts like a puppeteer pulling the strings of members of an "intimidated Congress" and has turned the State Department (hardly noted for its philo-Semitism or support for Israel) into an "adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry."

The campaign against Hagel's nomination failed precisely because no one -- none of the Jewish organizations that attacked him or his adversaries on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- had the moral courage to call Hagel what he is: a political anti-Semite. Lindsey Graham came closest, but was loath to pull the trigger.

That Senators Blumenthal, Levin and Schumer remained silent -- indeed Schumer played the smarmy role of his Jewish enabler -- is contemptible in the extreme.

Dr. Stephen Steinlight

New York, N.Y.

I'm wondering if this is Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies? The name, residence, and hyper-jewish identities match. What doesn't quite fit is that CIS-Steinlight has claimed:

I am an American. My first identity is as an American. My primary identity is as an American. My first concern is the well being of my fellow citizens.

Then again, he also said:

Jews are disproportionately involved in every kind of insanity.

I've emailed CIS-Steinlight to ask if he is JTA-Steinlight. Though it would be an interesting revelation, it's tangential to the main point here.

A brief news item from the same source on the same day had this to say about a portion of the very real jewish cabal and a few of its star puppets. Senate confirms Hagel, JTA - Jewish & Israel News, February 26, 2013:

Among the Republicans voting to push the nomination were a trio of Hagel's toughest pro-Israel critics, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). All three voted against his actual confirmation, which needed only a simple majority to pass.

A number of centrist Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, had expressed concerns about past Hagel comments, particularly his claim in 2006 that a "Jewish lobby intimidates" Congress, as well as his skepticism of sanctions and military moves that would keep Iran from advancing its suspected nuclear weapons program.

Jewish domination of US policy and political discourse has been increasing, and increasingly obvious, for decades. The jewish debate over Hagel, which raged for years and only broke into the mainstream last December, has all along been based on conflicting opinions about what's best for Israel. Hagel had to seek and win the endorsement of various senate jews and heavyweights in organized jewry before the puppets on the senate subcommittee even got their chance to give him any grief. When they did it was all about Israel.

Jews have enormous power. Though they argue incessantly about their best interests, ultimately enough of them decided that Hagel may just serve those interests well enough. Of course there are still many jews, like Steinlight, even this level of jewish domination fails to please, and who instead imagine America is dominated by sinister anti-jews.

If Steinlight's ravings alienate and disgust you then it's time to show some moral courage and face the facts about jewish power. You could start by tuning in to “The International Jew” Study Hour to hear what Ford and his writers had to say, supplemented by the insightful contemporary commentary of Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott.

Labels: , ,


Sunday, February 24, 2013

How Anti-Whiteness is at the Heart of Jewish Identity

The flip side of sweeping explanations that overlook the jews are the ones that are all about them. Where the jew-blind explanations are primarily for the non-jews, to keep us busy thinking about anything but jewish influence and power, the jew-centric explanations, which we'll examine here, reflect how jews see the world and explain it to each other.

These jew-centric explanations of the world present a surreal, uncompromisingly one-sided view in favor of jews - how they've continually been wronged by others, most especially Europeans. This sick anti-White narrative is today the prevailing narrative in media, academia and politics. It comes from the jews.

New History: How Anti-Judaism Is at the Heart of Western Culture, by Adam Kirsh, Tablet Magazine, 13 Feb 2013:

The title of David Nirenberg’s new book, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition, uses a term pointedly different from the one we are used to. The hatred and oppression of Jews has been known since the late 19th century as anti-Semitism—a label, it is worth remembering, originally worn with pride by German Jew-haters. What is the difference, then, between anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism? The answer, as it unfolds in Nirenberg’s scholarly tour de force, could be summarized this way: Anti-Semitism needs actual Jews to persecute; anti-Judaism can flourish perfectly well without them, since its target is not a group of people but an idea.

Nirenberg’s thesis is that this idea of Judaism, which bears only a passing resemblance to Judaism as practiced and lived by Jews, has been at the very center of Western civilization since the beginning. From Ptolemaic Egypt to early Christianity, from the Catholic Middle Ages to the Protestant Reformation, from the Enlightenment to fascism, whenever the West has wanted to define everything it is not—when it wants to put a name to its deepest fears and aversions—Judaism has been the name that came most easily to hand. “Anti-Judaism,” Nirenberg summarizes, “should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought. It was rather one of the basic tools with which that edifice was constructed.”

This is a pretty depressing conclusion, especially for Jews destined to live inside that edifice; but the intellectual journey Nirenberg takes to get there is exhilarating. Each chapter of “Anti-Judaism” is devoted to an era in Western history and the particular kinds of anti-Judaism it fostered. Few if any of these moments are new discoveries; indeed, Nirenberg’s whole argument is that certain types of anti-Judaism are so central to Western culture that we take them for granted. What Nirenberg has done is to connect these varieties of anti-Judaism into a convincing narrative, working with original sources to draw out the full implications of seminal anti-Jewish writings.

The main reason why Judaism, and therefore anti-Judaism, have been so central to Western culture is, of course, Christianity. But Nirenberg’s first chapter shows that some persistent anti-Jewish tropes predate Jesus by hundreds of years. The Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, writing around 320 BCE, recorded an Egyptian tradition that inverts the familiar Exodus story. In this version, the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element, “strangers dwelling in their midst and practicing different rites.” These exiles settled in Judea under the leadership of Moses, who instituted for them “an unsocial and intolerant mode of life.” Already, Nirenberg observes, we can detect “what would become a fundamental concept of anti-Judaism—Jewish misanthropy.” This element was emphasized by a somewhat later writer, an Egyptian priest named Manetho, who described the Exodus as the revolt of an impious group of “lepers and other unclean people.”

As he will do throughout the book, Nirenberg describes these anti-Jewish texts not in a spirit of outrage or condemnation, but rather of inquiry. The question they raise is not whether the ancient Israelites were “really” lepers, but rather, why later Egyptian writers claimed they were. What sort of intellectual work did anti-Judaism perform in this particular culture? To answer the question, Nirenberg examines the deep history of Egypt, showing how ruptures caused by foreign invasion and religious innovation came to be associated with the Jews. Then he discusses the politics of Hellenistic Egypt, in which a large Jewish population was sandwiched uneasily between the Greek elite and the Egyptian masses. In a pattern that would be often repeated, this middle position left the Jews open to hostility from both sides, which would erupt into frequent riots and massacres. In the long term, Nirenberg writes, “the characteristics of misanthropy, impiety, lawlessness, and universal enmity that ancient Egypt assigned to Moses and his people would remain available to later millennia: a tradition made venerable by antiquity, to be forgotten, rediscovered, and put to new uses by later generations of apologists and historians.”

This "exhilirating intellectual journey", presented as a "new history", is really just the same old tired promotion of the same old jew-excusing apologia, replete with persistent jewish tropes:

  • That the defining feature of non-jews, and specifically "the West", i.e. Whites, is "anti-jewism".

  • That jews are powerless, innocent victims.

  • That non-jews try to invert and otherwise manipulate history.

These are actually just variations on the most common jewish trope of all: The problem is not the jews, it's anyone and everyone else!

Jews are not unaware that there are other points of view. They simply do not compare to their own. Rather than denying the idea that, "the Hebrews did not escape from Egypt but were expelled as an undesirable element", they invert and thereby co-opt it. Taken together with the hundreds of conflicts and expulsions since, the moral of the jewish narrative is that everyone else is the undesirable element, the "lepers".

With the rise of Catholic polities in the Middle Ages, anti-Judaism took on a less theological, more material cast. In countries like England, France, and Germany, the Jews held a unique legal status as the king’s “servants” or “slaves,” which put them outside the usual chain of feudal relationships. This allowed Jews to play a much-needed but widely loathed role in finance and taxation, while also demonstrating the unique power of the monarch. The claim of the Capet dynasty to be kings of France, Nirenberg shows, rested in part on their claim to control the status of the Jews, a royal prerogative and a lucrative one: King after king plundered “his” Jews when in need of cash. At the same time, being the public face of royal power left the Jews exposed to the hatred of the people at large. Riots against Jews and ritual murder accusations became popular ways of demonstrating dissatisfaction with the government. When medieval subjects wanted to protest against their rulers, they would often accuse the king of being in league with the Jews, or even a Jew himself.

The common thread in Anti-Judaism is that such accusations of Jewishness have little to do with actual Jews. They are a product of a Gentile discourse, in which Christians argue with other Christians by accusing them of Judaism. The same principle holds true in Nirenberg’s fascinating later chapters. When Martin Luther rebelled against Catholicism, he attacked the church’s “legalistic understanding of God’s justice” as Jewish: “In this sense the Roman church had become more ‘Jewish’ than the Jews.” When the Puritan revolutionaries in the English Civil War thought about the ideal constitution for the state, they looked to the ancient Israelite commonwealth as described in Judges and Kings.

Surprisingly, Nirenberg shows, the decline of religion in Europe and the rise of the Enlightenment did little to change the rhetoric of anti-Judaism. Voltaire, Kant, and Hegel all used Judaism as a figure for what they wanted to overcome—superstition, legalistic morality, the dead past. Finally, in a brief concluding chapter on the 19th century and after, Nirenberg shows how Marx recapitulated ancient anti-Jewish tropes when he conceived of communist revolution as “the emancipation of mankind from Judaism”—that is, from money and commerce and social alienation.

Religion, no religion, kings, no kings - the common thread is jews somehow managing to get special status and privileges. The jewish narrative explains this by imagining ubiquitous "anti-jews" who only imagine jews exist. Unsurprisingly, the "exhilirating intellectual journey" concludes by imagining Marx not as part and parcel of a quintessentially jewish revolutionary tradition but as an "anti-jew".

Not until the very end of Anti-Judaism does he touch, obliquely, on the question of what this ancient intellectual tradition means for Jews today. But as he suggests, the genealogy that connects contemporary anti-Zionism with traditional anti-Judaism is clear: “We live in an age in which millions of people are exposed daily to some variant of the argument that the challenges of the world they live in are best explained in terms of ‘Israel.’ ” For all the progress the world has made since the Holocaust in thinking rationally about Jews and Judaism, the story Nirenberg has to tell is not over. Anyone who wants to understand the challenges of thinking and living as a Jew in a non-Jewish culture should read Anti-Judaism.

More important, let's touch on what this all means for Whites today. We live in an age in which millions of Whites are exposed to, and to a terrifying extent, have accepted the jewish narrative - a viewpoint utterly hostile to themselves.

Whoever did whatever to whom in the past, today it is jews who police the mainstream media and public political discourse and fill it with terms like "anti-semitism", "Israel" and "Holocaust". These terms reflect their obsession with themselves and their best interests, which includes imposing their way of seeing the world, their self-obsessions, onto everyone else.

Reinforcing this point, a "related content" link on the article above takes the reader to an older article from October 2011, Ron Rosenbaum Confronts 'The End of the Holocaust':

Alvin Rosenfeld is a brave man, and his new work is courageous. The book is called The End of the Holocaust, and it is not reluctant to take on the unexamined pieties that have grown up around the slaughter, and the sentimentalization that threatens to smother it in meretricious uplift.

The real “end of the Holocaust,” he argues, is the transformation of it into a lesson about the “triumph of the human spirit” or some such affirmation. Rosenfeld, the founder and former director of the Jewish studies program at Indiana University, which has made itself a major center of Jewish publishing and learning, is a mainstream scholar who has seen the flaw in mainstream Holocaust discourse. He has made it his mission to rescue the Holocaust from the Faustian bargain Jews have made with history and memory, the Faustian bargain that results when we trade the specifics of memory, the Jewishness of the Holocaust, and the Jew-hatred that gave it its rationale and identity, for the weepy universalism of such phrases as “the long record of man’s inhumanity to man.”

The impulse to find the silver lining is relentless, though. Suffering and grief must be transformed into affirmation, and the bleak irrecoverable fate of the victims must be given a redemptive aspect for those of us alive. In fact it’s an insult to the dead to rob their graves to make ourselves feel better. One recent manifestation Rosenfeld has shrewdly noticed is the way there has been a subtle shift in the popular representation of the Holocaust—a shift in the attention once given to the murdered victims to comparatively uplifting stories of survivors, of the “righteous gentiles,” of the scarce “rescuers,” and the even scarcer “avengers,” e.g., Quentin Tarantino’s fake-glorious fictional crew.

Rosenfeld is not afraid to contend with the fact that, as he writes, “with new atrocities filling the news each day and only so much sympathy to go around, there are people who simply do not want to hear any more about the Jews and their sorrows. There are other dead to be buried, they say.” The sad, deplorable, but, he says, “unavoidable” consequence of what may be the necessary limits of human sympathy is that “the more successfully [the Holocaust] enters the cultural mainstream, the more commonplace it becomes. A less taxing version of a tragic history begins to emerge, still full of suffering, to be sure, but a suffering relieved of many of its weightiest moral and intellectual demands and, consequently easier to be … normalized.”

Normalized? The Holocaust as one more instance in the long chronicle of “man’s inhumanity to man”? Rosenfeld’s book offers a welcome contrarian take on the trend. Yes, we’ve had enough, as Rosenfeld points out, of museums that cumulatively obscure memory in a fog of well-meaning but misleading inspirational brotherhood-of-man rhetoric.

Here, stripped of the usual misleading brotherhood-of-man rhetoric, is an even more specific and virulent example of jewish self-obsession. Rosenbaum and Rosenfeld see sympathy, everyone's sympathy, as something the jews alone deserve.

What we haven’t had enough of is a careful consideration of the implications of the Holocaust for the nature of human nature. As George Steiner told me (for my book, Explaining Hitler), “the Holocaust removed the re-insurance from human hope”—the psychic safety net we imagine marked the absolute depth of human nature. The Holocaust tore through that net heading for hell. Human nature could be—at the promptings of a charismatic and evil demagogue, religious hate, and so-called “scientific racism”—even worse than we imagined. No one wants to hear that. We want to hear uplifting stories about that nice Mr. Schindler. We want affirmations!

And the fact that it was not just one man but an entire continent that enthusiastically pitched in or stood by while 6 million were murdered: Doesn’t that call for us to spend a little time re-thinking what we still reverently speak of as “European civilization”? Or to investigate the roots of that European hatred? How much weight do the Holocaust museums give to the two millennia of Christian Jew-hatred, murderous pogroms, blood libels, and other degradations? Or do they prefer to focus on “righteous gentiles” in order to avoid offending their gentile hosts?

And for all their “reaching out” and “teachable moments,” how much do the Holocaust museums and Holocaust curricula connect the hatred of the recent past with contemporary exterminationist Jew-hatred, the vast numbers of people who deny the first, but hunger for a second, Holocaust? It’s a threat some fear even to contemplate—the potential destruction of the 5 million Jews of Israel with a single well-placed nuclear blast—a nightmarish but not unforseeable possibility to which Rosenfeld is unafraid to devote the final section of his book.

Rosenbaum, a perpetually offended professional jew, thinks the problem with jews is that they aren't self-obsessed and offensive enough. The threat, as he sees it, is "human nature", which is just another way of saying everyone and anyone else.

Rosenbaum goes on and on in this vein, expressing his contempt for "the non-jewish majority" because, in his opinion, they don't care enough about the jews.

Consider the Faustian bargain that Holocaust museums in America have so often made with the non-Jewish majority: The survivors and eyewitnesses of the Holocaust are dying, and the only way to get Americans to care about the destruction of the Jews, the only way we will get a (nearly) front row seat on the National Mall in Washington for our Holocaust museum, is by convincing Americans that the Holocaust can be a “teachable moment” in America’s uplifting struggle against intolerance. Rosenfeld calls this bargain “the Americanization of the Holocaust,” and even though he’s on the executive committee of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum he’s not happy about the tendency.

In discussing, for instance, the Los Angeles-based Museum of Tolerance (the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Holocaust museum), he says that “by situating the Holocaust within a historical framework that includes such quintessentially American experiences as the Los Angeles riots and the struggle for black civil rights, both of which are prominently illustrated, the Museum of Tolerance relativizes the catastrophe brought on by Naziism in a radical way. America’s social problems, for all their gravity, are not genocidal in character and simply do not resemble the persecution and systematic slaughter of European Jews during World War II.” It’s a critique I first saw articulated by Jonathan Rosen in a 1993 New York Times op-ed called “The Misguided Holocaust Museum” back when the museum on the Mall was first opening. At first I was surprised, but then I was persuaded, at least to a certain extent, by Rosen’s impassioned dissent from the conventional wisdom.

And of course there is the difficult question of how one compares such tragedies. Why not a Cambodian genocide museum? In what ways are the Cambodian, the Armenian, and the Rwandan genocides similar and different from the Nazi genocide? If the Rodney King riots do not deserve being placed on the same plane shouldn’t the casualties of slavery in America, an institution that killed the bodies and murdered the souls of those who survived, count just as much?

There’s an argument that it’s a politically savvy heuristic strategy to unite with other sufferers against the murderous haters rather than set our suffering apart. And Jews have a strong record of concern for the sufferings of others. Solidarity! But Rosenfeld is on a mission not to allow the differences of the identity of the Jewish victims to disappear, and he is both a moral thinker and an astute cultural critic.

Rosenbaum's argument: Hey jews, you're letting everyone forget that it's all about the jews.

Labels: , ,


Thursday, February 21, 2013

John McCain: They Care for Our Babies

McCain faces angry crowd town hall [VIDEO],, 20 Feb 2013:

Again, sir, you're not telling these people the truth. They, they wash our... They mow our lawns, they care for our babies, they, they uh, they, they well... They clean, they wash, those where those people do, sir.

McCain projects his own problem with telling the truth. It's evident from his stammering that he knows it too.

It's what I've been doing for 30 years.

McCain cares more for any alien than he cares for any citizen in that town hall meeting.

McCain argues that they serve our interests, that they care for our babies! The truth is exactly the opposite.

Everyone understands that aliens come to the US seeking a better life for themselves. They know that the US government, guided by the same treasonous mindset expressed by McCain, is on their side - it won't keep the aliens out and won't send them home. They know US citizens are forced to care for alien babies - to pay for their birthing, their education, their food, their health care, their safety.

That's why polls show a Majority of U.S. citizens say illegal immigrants should be deported.

What more Whites should understand is that it isn't about money. It is good and right for us to seek a better life for ourselves. To care for our own babies. A good and right government would help its citizens, not undermine them. But the US government has, over the course of decades, gradually been usurped by jews and jew-firsters. Thus US politicians have become increasingly obsessed with defending Israel as a jewish state at the same time they advocate genocidal anti-White policies in the US and every other country founded by Whites. John McCain embodies this reality, slavishly serving the interests of rich jews and poor mestizos, while betraying Whites, rich, poor and in-between.

Labels: ,


Monday, February 18, 2013

Sweeping Explanations and the Jews

In Peter Turchin on the Big Picture, Steve Sailer writes:

Peter Turchin is a professor at the U. of Connecticut who started out in zoology and ecology and has moved over time into human history from a quantitative standpoint, searching for general patterns. He was born in Russia (his father was prominent dissident Valentin Turchin). His historical theorizing benefits from his knowing much about Russia, which few Americans do.

Ah, I thought, maybe Turchin has something to say from a quantitative standpoint about the general pattern of jew oligarchs in Russia, which Sailer has previously discussed. In The Unbearable Innocence of Economists, for example, Sailer quotes Bryan Caplan:

The oligarchs are disproportionately Jewish. 90% of Russian Jews have left the country over the last 30 years, but 6 out of the 7 leading oligarchs have Jewish ancestry. This would be hard to explain if their success were primarily due to political connections - but expected if their success largely reflected entrepreneurial ability.

Sailer, projecting his own style, describes Caplan as "astonishingly naive". In this case Sailer indicates that he actually understands what's going on and who's responsible:

What happened in Russia in the 1990s was one of the great economic crimes in all history. And it happened largely with the approval of the American economists who were employed in large numbers, typically at American taxpayer expense, to advise the Yeltsin regime. Indeed, one of America's top economists, Harvard's Andrei Shleifer (Larry Summers' best friend), was in on the corruption himself. Yet, the economics profession has done nothing to chastise Shleifer for his crookedness that ended up being penalized $28 million by a U.S. federal judge.

Then he retreats into sarcasm.

"Russian" oligarchs. "American" economists. In most forums this is as deep as the discussion gets. To his credit, Sailer does occasionally broach the subject of jewish disproportions, and mocks explanations like Caplan's. His commentariat often digs even deeper, but it's also chock full of Caplans, ever ready and willing to provide more explanations. The problem with Sailer is, when it comes to jews, he so often acts as if he has forgotten things he previously demonstrated he understands.

Reading farther into his post about Turchin, it becomes clear that Turchin doesn't have any insights about jews, in Russia or anywhere else. Near the end Sailer quotes Turchin's Return of the Oppressed, concerning US immigration restriction in the 1920s:

It almost goes without saying that there was a racist and xenophobic underside to all this. The co-operating group was mainly native-born white Protestants. African-Americans, Jews, Catholics and foreigners were excluded or heavily discriminated against.

This is the jewish version of history, though Sailer lets it go without saying, once again retreating into sarcasm. At any rate he doesn't let it diminish his favorable opinion of Turchin, who he thinks is "on to something". Much of Sailer's commentariat responds by gushing about how fasinating and interesting Turchin's sweeping theories are, and many pitch in with their own. Ben Tillman took issue with one of the more egregious bits of goofiness:

My thesis is that the elites made a deal with the white working class with the New Deal. This lasted until the early 60's, when the affluence of the white working class started to worry the elite and they brought in blacks to cut them down to size, along with renewed immigration. The condition of the white working class has steadily deteriorated since then. The elite has acquired so much power through the media and law that they can't be challenged and the white working class has no representation anyway.

You left out the part where the one elite was replaced by another in the early/mid-60's, with the results you noted.

Indeed. This seems to be the point of such exercises. On the one hand there are lots of people, intelligent people, who are curious, interested and fascinated. They want explanations. On the other hand there are lots of other people, intelligent people, who literally make it their business to provide explanations. Explanations which conspicously avoid mentioning the jews, except perhaps to present them as hapless victims.

That's the overall impression I get of Turchin's work. As his Wikipedia page describes:

Peter Turchin has made contributions to population ecology and historical dynamics. According to, Turchin is one of the top cited authors in the field of Ecology/Environment. He is one of the founders of cliodynamics, the new scientific discipline located at the intersection of historical macrosociology, cliometrics, and mathematical modeling of social processes. Turchin developed an original theory explaining how large historical empires evolve by the mechanism of multilevel selection.[1] His research on secular cycles[2] has contributed to our understanding of the collapse of complex societies as has his re-interpretation of Ibn Khaldun's asabiyya notion as "collective solidarity".[3][4]

Of special importance is his study of the hypothesis that population pressure causes increased warfare.

As far as I can see most of this theorizing goes on without any critique of the outsized and deleterious influence of jews, whether in finance, media, law, politics or the academy, where so much of this jew-blind theorizing goes on. The problem isn't that there's any unwillingness to generalize about and criticize whole groups of people. Theorizing about Whites, Russians, Americans, elites, economists, etc. abounds.

As I've discussed on Age of Treason Radio, warfare, racial warfare, is how I interpret what's going on. Jews, for their part, wage war steathily, disguising it with copious hasbara, explaining that it isn't about jews, that "racism" and "xenophobia" are the real problems. In forums where race and borders are regarded as normal they argue instead that the real problem is White nationalism, neo-nazism or "anti-semitism". Whites, for our part, are largely unwilling to accept the nature or extent of this warfare. The most intelligent Whites, most capable of actually figuring out what's going on, are also the ones most terrified of being painted as stupid/crazy/evil. Ironically, they are eager to signal their intellect by entertaining sweeping theories, the more elaborate the better to compensate for astonishing naivete regarding the jews.

Labels: ,


Tuesday, February 12, 2013

The Humiliation of Jewish Rule


Sunday, February 03, 2013

Ed Koch and Liberalism

Koch’s headstone: ‘My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish.’

The New York Daily News says Koch wanted his identity as a jew to be a central and lasting part of his legacy, citing Koch's HuffPo article from Jan 2011, What's on My Tombstone, and Why:

The United States, France and Israel ought to form a special unit devoted to running each of [Daniel Pearl's] terrorist murders down and target them for execution. The Israeli Mossad did exactly that with the Munich murderers of the Israeli Olympic team killed in Munich in 1972.

On my tombstone, which awaits me at the Trinity Church nondenominational cemetery at 155th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, I had inscribed the last words of Daniel Pearl -- uttered at his publicly viewed murder -- which were, "My father is Jewish. My mother is Jewish. I am Jewish." I believe those words should be part of the annual services on the Jewish High Holiday of Yom Kippur, and should be repeated by the congregants.

Koch was not only speaking for or about himself. He was speaking to fellow jews, for their benefit.

Though Koch came to fame as the mayor of New York between 1978 and 1989, in recent years he made it increasingly obvious that he was most obsessed with the narrow interests of jews. When he expressed his opinion in public, it was often plainly in this context.

On at least two occasions (see here and here) Koch identified others as bigots. As is typical of jewish bigotry, in both cases it was more a reflection of his own hyper-sensitive ethnocentrism. As is also typical, nobody of any stature in media or politics dared criticize "liberal" Koch for his increasingly blatant illiberalism.

While many of the obituaries and editorials I have surveyed remarked with some circumspect on Koch's queer brand of "liberalism", only a few noted Koch's jew-first priority, and none put the two together in critical terms. John Podhoretz, a jew more often identified as "conservative", opined glowingly at the New York Post that Ed Koch was a liberal who defied left on ‘nuts’ ideas. Though Podhoretz shares the same very jewish concerns which animated Koch, he made no mention of it. Instead Podhoretz focused entirely on an earlier era, casting Koch's legacy in partisan political terms which make even less sense today than they did at the time. What Koch's career best demonstrates is how jewish identity transcends silly partisan affliations.

Contrast this with Robert Byrd, who even before death was regularly condemned as a "racist". When Byrd died it wasn't hard to find "conservatives" complaining, for example, that Byrd's KKK History Shows Partisan Double Standard.

Of course, the most glaring double standard isn't partisan, it's jewish - it clearly distinguishes jews from Whites. The idea is that nobody, and especially not tolerant "liberals", should tolerate White bigotry. If you are now or ever have been a member of a special unit devoted to serving White interests, like the KKK, that's considered inexcusable grounds for exclusion, censure, condemnation, etc. On the other hand, as we see with how the former so-called "King of New York" is treated, openly advocating for the best interests of jews, even to the point of calling for murder squads to hunt down and execute your enemies - well, jews will be jews. Nothing special. Not even for "liberals".

Labels: , , ,