How Enemies Treat Enemies

Germany embarks on fresh attempt to ban NPD

The charge most often levelled against White nationalists is that they're "supremacists" who seek to exclude, ban, imprison or otherwise impinge upon others. Many Whites make the mistake of thinking this charge stems from the violation of some general principle against exclusion, banning, or imprisoning people on the basis of their race or beliefs.

But at times the mask slips, and it's clear that the current ruling judaized globalist regime regards banning and so forth to be a perfectly proper and acceptable way to treat their enemies. The real charge against White nationalists, as evident in the report above, is that any subset of Whites organizing politically to do what's best for themselves, separate and apart from others, is bad because it is "anti-semitic"/"racist", i.e. bad for jews and other non-Whites. By citing "anti-semitism" in addition to and distinct from "racism" the ruling regime is just making it crystal clear that for them the overriding principle is that the best interests of the jews come before anyone or anything else.

The Humiliation of Jewish Rule

Saturday Night Live Dress Rehearsal C-Span Chuck Hagel Hearings

Subservience breeds contempt.

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".

The Hagelcaust

The Hagel controversy highlights how jews dominate policy-making in the US.

Here we examine the jewish origins and overwhelmingly jewish debate over a list of what many jews regard as significant grievances against Chuck Hagel. Much of this has been hidden in plain sight, tucked away in jew-centric forums. It was brought to broader mainstream attention in a WSJ op-ed by Brett Stephens, Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem. An army of jews have been very publicly and vociferously expressing their problems with Hagel ever since.

On 7 Jan 2013, Marsha Cohen published A Chronology of the War Against Chuck Hagel (PDF) which begins:

The smear campaign against Chuck Hagel did not begin on Dec. 14, 2012. The former Nebraska senator’s opposition to war as the preferred means of conducting foreign policy made him a maverick during the post-9/11 Bush years. Although most Republicans agreed with Hagel’s socially conservative positions on domestic issues, his nuanced approach to foreign policy — and his view that diplomacy was a more efficacious means of securing long term US interests than sending in troops with an unclear and/or undefined strategic objective — set him apart from many of his fellow party members.

Some criticism of Hagel began to surface in 2007, when he briefly considered running for president as a Republican. In an effort to thwart his candidacy and undermine his potential candidacy, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) compiled a list of petty grievances that would constitute the core of most neoconservative excoriations of Hagel, persisting in cyberspace long after the NJDC had scrubbed all references to them from its website.

In the first page alone Cohen notes, in addition to the NJDC, the following jewish political organizations which have opposed or supported Hagel: AIPAC, Republican Jewish Coalition, J Street, and the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI). Together with the many other organizations, media outlets, and individual high-profile jews whose opinions have been widely publicized, as cited both in Cohen's document and in the posts I've made on the subject, a picture emerges of a large, multi-faceted, well-connected, highly-coordinated network dedicated, on the whole, specifically to the pursuit of jewish political interests.

The fact that this political network cleaves along different lines at different times in response to different issues - as it has with Hagel - does not alter its fundamentally jewish composition or the fundamentally jewish interests that it debates and collectively pursues. To excuse themselves, jews often call attention to the noise of the debate itself and away from the goal of the debate. "Two jews, three opinions!", they say. "Two jews, three opinions about what's best for the jews!", is closer to the truth.

The following links and quotes come from following just a portion of Cohen's lengthy PDF. They demonstrate the long-term and party-line-crossing nature of the jewish debate over Hagel.

88 Senators Condemn Hezbollah. 10 Republicans break ranks on Israel., Philadelphia Jewish Voice PJV#15, Sept 2006:

"When it comes to Israel and the Jewish community, the hypocrisy of Republicans in Congress is just overwhelming. How is it that Republicans in the Senate can claim to be supporters of Israel when almost 20 percent of their caucus — including their top two Members on the Foreign Relations Committee and top Republican on the Armed Services Committee — apparently does not think that Hezbollah should be on the E.U. list of terrorist organizations," asked NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. "While Democrats are out there trying to punish Israel's enemies and ensure that she has a right to defend herself, these ten Republican senators have no problem with the international community treating Hezbollah as a legitimate organization. Shame on them."

In 2006 it was Democrat jews trying to punish, or at least shame, Republican senators, including Hagel, for not "trying to punish Israel's enemies". The shameless underlying presumption is that either Israel and the US interests are identical, or more likely, that Israeli interests matter more.

Cohen writes:

March 12, 2007. National Jewish Democratic Council compiles a list of complaints against Hagel. It subsequently removed the grievances from the NJDC website, but was screen-captured and preserved by ad man and Breitbart.com columnist, Jeff Dunetz, and will serve as the basis for future "opposition research" on Hagel's positions on Israel and Hezbollah

Jeff Dunetz blogs under the pseudonym Yid with Lid. He republished a copy of the NJDC list on the same day it was issued. The list cites Hagel's "failures" from a specifically jewish point of view as far back as Oct 2000. This NJDC list is what Cohen dismissively describes in her introduction as "petty grievances". The jews she cites all take it much more seriously.

Two years later the same list was still at the center of the ongoing jewish debate about Hagel. NJDC Chief Weighs in on Hagel Appointment (Update w/RJC in Response), by Michael Goldfarb, The Weekly Standard, 29 Oct 2009:

Yesterday the Republican Jewish Coalition was taunting its Democratic rival, the National Jewish Democratic Council, over the appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to serve a co-chair of the President's National Intelligence Advisory Board. As the RJC was quick to point out after news of the appointment broke, the NJDC had put out several statements over the years blasting Hagel for his "questionable Israel record." In particular, Hagel had refused to sign a series of letters that had broad bipartisan support and which focused on a range of issues of great importance to the Jewish community. He had refused to sign a letter in August 2006 asking the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. In 2004, Hagel had refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.

NJDC executive director Ira Forman responded by blasting his counterpart at the RJC, Matt Brooks. Brooks, Forman said, is "not concerned with little issues like shame or hypocrisy." Forman said that RJC had plenty of opportunities to question Hagel's record when Hagel was serving in the Senate. "Apparently [the RJC] just recently had a revelation" about Hagel's foreign policy views. But neither was Forman prepared to denounce Hagel again now that the shoe was on the other foot. "Anybody who's looking for purity from us is going to be disappointed," Forman said in the course of declining to criticize the appointment.

Still, Forman isn't a fan of Hagel. He suggested that NJDC would publicly oppose Hagel's nomination for a position with more authority. "If [Hagel] was taking a policy role, we'd have real concerns," Forman said. And Forman indicated that his group would oppose Hagel's appointment to any position that had influence over U.S.-Israel relations.

While the RJC may not have "even a little credibility to attack" this appointment, as Forman says, the bipartisan show of discomfort with Hagel's foreign policy views suggests Hagel is not destined for a bigger role in this administration.

An interesting postscript to this story is the fact that Hagel's appointment was announced at J Street's gala dinner on Tuesday night just before Hagel delivered the keynote speech at that event. NJDC is an explicitly partisan, Democratic organization, while J Street aspires, or at least claims to aspire, to bipartisan influence.

Most jewish political organizations aspire to bipartisan influence. A characteristic trait of jewish political organizations is the flexibility of their partisanship, which usually results in a "bipartisan show of discomfort" (or comfort) most jews can agree on.

The partisan switcheroo on Hagel is a case in point. Jews from all sides continue to debate the same list of specifically jewish concerns, clearly demonstrating how jewish ethnic interests rise above the ebb and flow of party ideologies and loyalties. For or against Hagel their unchallenged presumption, often explicitly stated, is to ensure the selection of someone who will serve the best interests of the jewish ethnostate.

Dunetz brought the NJDC list of grievances back to light last month and added some fresh vitriol. "The Lid": Will the NJDC Oppose Terrorism Loving, Israel-Hating Chuck Hagel's Appointment As Sec of Defense?, 13 Dec 2012:

Senator Hagel often appears before Arab-American groups to air his views regarding the Middle East. Among the gems of wisdom: support for Israel shouldn't be automatic. .

He has also joined a chorus of people surrounding Barack Obama who use the anti-Semitic meme about the so-called Jewish Lobby.

Says Hagel: "The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." This audio should be heard to truly gauge his own feelings.

Note his use of the term "Jewish Lobby". There are many millions of Americans who are not Jewish, who support the American-Israel relationship. Hagel pushes the meme that Jews control American foreign policy (if they did--they would do a better job than this administration).

Note the self-identified Yid with Lid's use of the term "jewish lobby". It's a telling combination of mocking, gloating, contempt and denial.

Dunetz is part of an ethnocentric jewish chorus who expect US government and military leaders to support Israel. Some, like Dunetz, expect that support to be automatic. It's a given to Dunetz that the US government could do a better job serving jewish interests. It is with this end in mind that he tosses self-righteous insults and insinuations with abandon, freely projecting his own unhinged passions onto Hagel. Thus Hagel becomes "Terrorism Loving, Israel-Hating" boogeyman Hagel. What's so ineffably jewish about such wild, deluded exaggerations is that rather than costing Dunetz his credibility or livelyhood, he expects that it should cost Hagel his.

The debate over Hagel is dominated by jews. They dominate the debate over most political issues. In this case they've just made themselves more vocal and visible than usual. However many Americans there are who aren't jews, and however they feel about anything, it's entirely accurate to identify and refer to a "jewish lobby" whose activism represents, at root, pursuit of the best interests of jews.

If Blue people and some others were arguing over what's best for the Bluish ethnostate, and some Blue people started making a big deal over whether somebody who isn't Blue referred to it as the "Bluish ethnostate lobby" or the "Blue lobby", that would rightly be seen as a distinction without a difference. What's different here is that it's jews, not Blues, who are involved.

The ridiculous arguments Dunetz and others make in defense of jewish power wouldn't make sense when applied to anyone else. They make such arguments because they consider jews special and aren't thinking in terms of anyone else. They aren't ridiculed because 1) even the jews who oppose Dunetz are ethnocentric enough not to take issue with the presumption that jews are special, and 2) everyone else is more or less ignorant of, allied with, or intimidated by jewish power.

This jewish chimp-out over Hagel's nomination demonstrates the enormous influence jews have, think they have, or think they should have over US policy-making. It also raises some important questions. Is it really controversial that a US senator or secretary of defense should have the best interests of the US rather than Israel foremost in their mind? Isn't this only controversial because the political discourse is so chock full of jews willing and able to argue more or less dishonestly in favor of whatever they think is best for jews? Isn't this a reflection of the jewish domination of the corporate, mainstream media? Is there anybody left in mainstream politics or media who will dare make the simple point that none of this is good for the rest of us? When?

Jews Override Hagel Veto

Well, well. Previous reports of Chuck Hagel's political death were greatly exaggerated.

A Hagel Education, published on 7 Jan 2013 by WSJ:

President Obama on Monday chose Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon, inviting a confirmation brawl over a troubling nominee. The Senate should oblige. The Hagel hearings are an opportunity to have the debate over Mr. Obama's policies and a growing world disorder that we didn't have in the election campaign.

The suggestion that the Senate has more of a say about US policy than the jewish lobby is quaint. After nearly a month in which one or more of the terms "jewish lobby", "Israel lobby", and "Israel" appeared in nearly every mainstream media op-ed about Hagel, this WSJ report is most conspicuous for not mentioning any at all, even if only to acknowledge what has already transpired. It is indicative of an overall shift in the debate.

But no one questions Mr. Hagel's patriotism and military service. What matters at the top of the Pentagon, at this moment in history, is how he would deal with today's growing security threats amid Mr. Obama's desire to withdraw the U.S. from its traditional role of world leadership.

Only now are questions beside what's best for Israel being brought to the fore. The debate so far has been primarily between jews, their main question being whether Hagel will be good for their ethnostate. That question is still not entirely settled. What has been settled is that this is the primary question. It's not about what should matter most to the US Department of Defense, which many Americans still like to imagine has something to do with the defense of the United States. Likewise, it's not about whether the US should "lead the world", which is just a sick and dishonest way of describing the killing and dying US soldiers have been and will continue doing to keep the world safe for jews.

WSJ's Brett Stephens is the journalist-warrior jew who set the jew-centric tone of the subsequent debate with his 17 Dec 2012 op-ed, Chuck Hagel's Jewish Problem. Now he's making the case that the question is Chuck Hagel's Courage, but still can't help give away the game:

But give Mr. Hagel this: When it comes to expressing himself about Israel, its enemies, and the influence of the so-called Jewish lobby, he has been nothing if not consistent and outspoken. Maybe that's political courage. Or maybe it's a mental twitch, the kind you can't quite help. The confirmation process should be illuminating.

It has already been illuminating. It will be even moreso if the confirmation process makes more jews twitch like Stephens.

Not every jew has decided to shift gears yet. Some are still twitching in response to Stephens initial hit piece. In The tarring of Chuck Hagel published by The Washington Post yesterday, Richard Cohen writes:

I thought the day had long passed when a skeptical attitude toward this or that Israeli policy would trigger charges of anti-Semitism. The accusation is so powerful — so freighted with images of the Holocaust — that it tends to silence all but the bravest or the most foolish. Israeli policy of late has been denounced by some steadfast champions of the Jewish state — the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman or the New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier, for example — so being caustically critical is hardly evidence of anti-Semitism. Rather, it can be a sign of good judgment, not to mention a caring regard for the aspirations of Zionism.

The article that implied Hagel was a touch anti-Semitic was headlined “Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Problem” and suggested that Hagel’s statement that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here” in Congress had “the odor” of prejudice. A PC sort of guy might have put things more delicately: If there is an odor here, however, it is not the rancid stench of anti-Semitism but instead of character assassination.

This is typical of what passes for "caustic criticism" in jewish minds - jews gnashing their teeth at other jews about who is the better jew. Two jews might appear to be arguing vociferously, but note how their language never gets more venomous than when they talk about "anti-semitism", their common cause eventually bubbling to the top, overriding all others.

The sad reality that contemporary political discourse is so dominated by jews and their concerns didn't just happen. It is the product of a long slogging effort by jews. A process by which anyone jews perceive as an enemy is pathologized and demonized, and thereby cowed or marginalized, if not utterly silenced. When a jew cries, "X has a jewish problem", it's a call for jews to pounce on X.

Chuck Hagel is the most recent example of how this "jewish lobby" process works. If he makes the right combination of sufficiently subservient gestures, acknowledging and accepting jewish domination without calling further negative attention to it, then he might get the job. If not, he won't.

Now with the ground well prepared it's safe to get back to the old Red-vs-Blue again, to act as if jews don't have power, and move on. For example, here's David Brooks in Why Hagel Was Picked, published on 7 Jan 2013 by NYTimes.com:

Chuck Hagel has been nominated to supervise the beginning of this generation-long process of defense cutbacks. If a Democratic president is going to slash defense, he probably wants a Republican at the Pentagon to give him political cover, and he probably wants a decorated war hero to boot.

All the charges about Hagel’s views on Israel or Iran are secondary. The real question is, how will he begin this long cutting process? How will he balance modernizing the military and paying current personnel? How will he recalibrate American defense strategy with, say, 455,000 fewer service members?

How, in short, will Hagel supervise the beginning of America’s military decline? If members of Congress don’t want America to decline militarily, well, they have no one to blame but the voters and themselves.

One reason jews won't openly acknowledge their political power is because they realize it's fundamentally dishonest and illegitimate - made possible by the vast majority of people not recognizing it for what it is. This is the threat Stephens was sniffing out in the loose talk from an uppity goy senator about the "jewish lobby". What's weighing on Brooks' mind is related. If and when anything goes wrong jews can be counted on to blame anyone but jews. Brooks is looking to the future, anticipating this eventuality.

Jews Veto Hagel

Chuck Hagel may be off of Obama’s shortlist to head DOD, by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, 19 Dec 2012:

Hagel immediately drew a frosty reception from observers who criticized him for advocating in favor of direct unconditional talks with Iran and for backing sizable cuts to the defense budget.

Those who have worked with Hagel and have an intimate knowledge of his managerial style also expressed concerns about his possible appointment.

Sources on Capitol Hill told the Free Beacon that opposition to Hagel reaches all the way to the Embassy of Israel, which is said to have quietly expressed concern about the former senator.

“Our office has talked with the Israel embassy who says their policy is to support whatever the president wants in his cabinet and would not provide further comment,” one Senate aide told the Free Beacon. “With a little prodding, our contact at the embassy did allude to their concern for Hagel’s nomination.”

An Israeli embassy spokesman declined comment.

Hagel has drawn additional heat from insiders who claim he lacks the credentials needed to manage a department as large and essential as the Pentagon.

“Yes, Hagel has crazy positions on several key issues. Yes, Hagel has said things that are borderline anti-Semitism. Yes, Hagel wants to gut the Pentagon’s budget. But above all, he’s not a nice person and he’s bad to his staff,” said a senior Republican Senate aide who has close ties to former Hagel staffers.

“Chuck Hagel may have been collegial to his Senate colleagues but he was the Cornhusker wears Prada to his staff, some of whom describe their former boss as perhaps the most paranoid and abusive in the Senate, one who would rifle through staffers desks and berate them for imagined disloyalty,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq. “He might get away with that when it comes to staffers in their 20s, but that sort of personality is going to go over like a ton of bricks at the Pentagon.”

“Chances are he’ll view any legitimate effort to talk about military options with Iran as some plot by the ‘Israel Lobby’ to box him in,” the source said.

Reviewing the objections to Hagel, aside from the inconsequential nonsense, it's plain that the that Israel-firsters, AKA the Israel Lobby, AKA jews, effectively vetoed his nomination. They did so in the characteristically dishonest way jews usually go about exercising their power - a gaggle of jews furiously, publicly debating in markedly jewish terms, with the final verdict being Hagel has magically disqualified himself, because jews don't actually have any power.

In this absurd debate, represented in part by Doug Bandow's Neocons Against Chuck Hagel: The Independent Senator Who Wouldn't Genuflect, we hear what are considered examples of Hagel's "anti-semitism": "I'm a United States senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel." Even more scandalous, "The political reality is that ... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here."

The political reality is that USGOV officials, even at the very top, cannot say they would put US interests above Israel's, much less actually do so. Beside that, the mythical divide between "liberal" and "neocon" is once more revealed as a lie. In the wake of Obama's re-election the "liberals" are supposedly in power. The "neocons" should be licking their wounds. The political reality is dominated by jews debating the best interests of jews. Whatever the outcome, jews win.

There are copious examples of this farce. Beyond the two articles already cited I'll call attention to two more.

In Nebraska Jews Recall Senator Chuck Hagel as "Unfriendly" and "Unmovable" on Israel, "Didn't Give a Damn About the Jewish Community", published by Algemeiner.com, 21 Dec 2012, we read:

Former editor of the Omaha Jewish Press, Carol Katzman, who was in that role while Hagel was in office, related her experiences with him in an interview with The Algemeiner.

“He was not the most responsive politician in Nebraska to me personally at the Jewish Press and to the Jewish community as a whole,” she said.

“Every other senator, Nelson, Mike Johanns, (congressman) Lee Terry and (congressman) Peter Hoagland they were all very responsive,” she explained, “it didn’t really matter what their party affiliation was, if we were soliciting them for an interview or a greeting ad for Rosh Hashonah or Passover.” However Katzman says that “Hagel’s office never even responded,” adding, “we would make repeated calls, (and received) no response it was pretty obvious that he and his staff were dismissive.”

To be fair, articles like this weren't part of the debate, which is already over. It does however contain an essential element of the debate, whereby jews lamely try to rationalize their distaste for Hagel and stick him with the blame for it.

In Gil Troy's Hagel: Not An Anti-Semite, Just A Slob, published in the Open Zion section of The Daily Beast on 19 Dec 2012, there is more of the same:

Without rehashing the entire debate, as senator, Hagel was more of an Israel skeptic than an enthusiastic Israel friend, no Ted Kennedy, or John McCain, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton was he. And for that reason, snarky comments about the “Jewish lobby” and about being a “United States Senator” and “not an Israeli Senator” rankle. Prejudice has a pedigree. Just as we winced when Biden as a candidate called Obama “articulate”—because of the twisted history that had many people questioning black people’s brains and eloquence, respectful American leaders should not stir the hornet’s nest around the Israel lobby question.

Here is another characteristic strand of jewish argument, with Troy arrogantly lecturing "leaders" to respect jewish power by pretending it does not exist. He then recounts a lesson about that power from 20 years ago:

I learned from Malcolm Hoenlein that Shoshana Cardin, the President of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, confronted President George H.W. Bush after his dramatic September 1991 press conference, claiming he was “one lonely little guy” facing “powerful political forces,” after 1,200 Israel activists lobbied Congress seeking loan guarantees to help Israel resettle emigrating Soviet Jews. In a private meeting, Cardin explained that talk of Jewish lobbyists out-muscling the president echoed traditionally bigoted exaggerations about Jewish power. Bush pointed out that he “didn’t use the word ‘Jews.’ ” Cardin explained he did not have to. “Everyone understood that the people you were referring to were Jewish. That’s why the White House switchboard lit up with so many messages of support from anti-Semites.”

“I never intended to hurt anyone,” Bush said, teary-eyed, “Or give encouragement to anti-Semitism.” He then apologized to the American Jewish leaders gathered to meet him.

Even US presidents fear jewish power. One way to reconcile the jewish view of this as a "bigoted exaggeration" is to understand that, at least in the minds of hyper-jew-centric jews, US presidents can and should be doing even more for jews. For another example of this, read this bitter jew-centric assessment of Richard Nixon, another president whose failure to openly identify his and his country's enemies hasn't made those enemies hate him any less.

The take-away, once again, is that jewish rhetoric about "anti-semitism" is a simple and effective inversion and projection of their own obsessions and aggression. White political leaders should naturally seek to serve the interests and favor of fellow Whites. But none actually do. Instead what we have is a political reality in which jews relentlessly pathologize and demonize Whites for illusory "White privilege" and ineffective political "dog whistling". Meanwhile jews make ever more blatant and outrageous demands of a regime which already serves their interests first and foremost. Both are sure signs that jewish power not only exists, but is increasing. It will continue to increase until it is faced with real opposition.

George Lincoln Rockwell - Vote White

George Lincoln Rockwell - Vote White

In the United States of America there is only one group, only one, with the courage and the guts to face up to the fact that this battle is racial - it has nothing to do with politics, or economy, free enterprise, taxes - it is a question if this country going to be dominated and run by the White Christian people who built it, or is it going to be run and dominated by a bunch of beatnik scum, negroes, jews, communists, aliens and no good people who are trying to take it away from us and tell us that we mustn't even talk about this because it's hate. Well I don't see anything hateful about defending your home and country and family from aliens who are invading and taking it away from you. And that's what they're doing.

The same problem happened in Germany, and one man was able to rise up and unite his people as White people. He said the White people are a master race. That's what Adolf Hitler preached and I believe it. And I think most White Christians in America who have any sense realize that's true. The jews have been telling us that Adolf Hitler was a monster and he murdered alot of people, and so forth. I learned that that's alot of garbage. Just like they say the people of Alabama, stormtroopers, and beating negroes, and villains, and heels, and so forth, that's not true. The same people that lie about Alabama, lie about Germany. In short, Germany was the Mississippi and Alabama of Europe. And they got me and millions of other White Christians like me to go out and try to destroy it. And I think we made a mistake, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should have destroyed atheistic, soviet, race-mixing communism. Which is what Hitler was trying to do.

We didn't however and now we have it all over us. Grinding[[?]] all over us and destroying us and boasting they're going to bury us. Well I say to you, it's just the other way around, we're going to bury communism. And I believe that only a leader and only a group that's willing to face up to the whole truth, not part of it, but all of it, is going to be able to bury communism. To do it we need the strength of the enormous masses of the people of America. Not right-wingers, such as voted for Goldwater. We need the White Christian masses. The only group in the country with the courage and the guts to go after these masses is the American Nazi party.

No matter what they call us, no matter what they say about us, we believe in the people - in the ordinary taxi drivers, the construction workers, the ordinary little guys that built this country. We believe that if we go to them with a pitch based on the truth, on the facts about race, on the facts about communism, and tell them the truth as we know it, and don't try to hide it or disguise it any, we believe we can win political power because those little fellas will go into the ballot boxes and the ballot booths where nobody can see what they're doing and no matter how much they may be terrorized outside, in that sacred American ballot box they'll vote for a White man. They did it for Wallace, I believe they'll do it for me in Virginia. I believe they'll do it for me or any other leader with the courage to stand up and fight as a White man in this country.

So far, ladies and gentlemen, look at the leaders we've had. We've had some very great ones. I would have gladly given my life following Douglas MacArthur. And I offered to fight and do anything for Joe McCarthy. And yet not one of these men ever once had the nerve to stand up and say, "I am a White man and I'm gonna fight as a White man." Even George Wallace today is still saying racism is evil. And I believe that if we keep saying this, for the benefit of the jews, so they won't call us hate-mongers and racists, we're going to get whipped.

I believe that time is too short. Time is desperate[[?]]. It is time to stand up and tell the whole truth, and to fight for it. To organize not as conservatives, not as republicans, not as democrats, not as liberals, not as northerners, not as southerners, not as Protestants, or religious or anti-religious, or anything else but as White men. Stand up with all our hearts and souls and unite. For the blacks vote black, the jews vote jewish. Ladies and gentleman, let's let the White man vote White. Let's let the White man support the White cause.

If you believe in and understand what I've been preaching, please, won't you support, won't you enable these young men who go out and risk their lives in the streets fighting communists? Won't you support them? Keep them alive. Help them pay the bail the way the communists and the jews support their communist jew scum, to get them out of jail, I've got alot of men in jail right now, won't you please support them? Listen to the group leader who has presented this film and give them all the help you can. It will be deeply appreciated by me and every other White American, every White Christian, in this country. I thank you very much and I hope to see you all personally some time.

According to Metapedia:

He ran unsuccessfully for governor of Virginia in 1965 as an independent, polling 5,730 votes, or 1.02 percent of the total vote.

Jewish Political Ads in Post-White America

Sarah Silverman | Let My People Vote 2012 - Get Nana A Gun - YouTube

Hey black people, old people, poor people, and students...

(Barack Obama Ad) Samuel L Jackson: Wake The F*ck Up - YouTube

Samuel L. Jackson’s profanity-laced pro-Obama ad, NYPOST.com, 27 Sept 2012:

Jackson partnered with the Jewish Council for Research and Education, a liberal super PAC funded largely by billionaire George Soros’ 25-year-old son, Alexander, to film the humorous, four-minute spot to be featured on YouTube.

The Jewish pro-Obama super PAC also funded Sarah Silverman’s provocative YouTube video where she makes a tongue-in-cheek offer of “free lesbian sex” to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to stop him from donating to Romney’s campaign.

As White political influence wanes, so do civility and decorum. Likewise, as the political influence of jews and their allies waxes, so do vulgarity and profanity.

Saban: Obama is Best for Israel

The Truth About Obama and Israel, by Haim Saban, NYTimes.com:

AS an Israeli-American who cares deeply about the survival of Israel and the future of the Jewish people, I will be voting for President Obama in November. Here’s why.

Blah, blah, Israeli-firster rationale omitted.

When I enter the voting booth, I’m going to ask myself, what do I prefer for Israel and its relationship with the United States: meaningful action or empty rhetoric? To me the answer is clear: I’ll take another four years of Mr. Obama’s steadfast support over Mr. Romney’s sweet nothings.

Haim Saban is a private equity investor, the chairman of the Spanish-language media company Univision and a founder of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

What's best for America and Americans? "Israeli-American" Haim Saban and the New York Times don't even pretend to care.

Ocean of Whiteness

The Richmond Free Press is an independent newspaper in Richmond, Virginia. Published on a weekly basis, it is mainly targeted at the city's African-American community.

It's amazing how the anti-White narrative works, isn't it? Blacks are polling at 0 percent for the White candidate, but Whites are the ones who are supposed to feel guilty about it.

Dan Senor: Romney's Jewish "Connector"

Romney’s Jewish Connector:

How Dan Senor became the GOP candidate’s key emissary to Israel’s intelligentsia and the Washington policy scene

Tablet Magazine is a jewish organ, and their article is a vetting of sorts, which in this context means a review of Senor's history of working with other jews in pursuit of the best interests of jews. For the rest of us the article serves as a window into the workings of the jewish/judaized ruling class, both in Israel and the United States.

To some, Senor remains best known as the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, a role that made him a regular television fixture in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Iraq invasion. In the years since, he’s reinvented himself as a cable news commentator and Israel advocate and has simultaneously amassed his own fortune working on Wall Street. He is, even among people who vehemently disagree with his politics, a popular guy who moves with equal ease in New York and Washington. He arrived in the governor’s camp with his own celebrity, and, in a sense, he offers the socially awkward candidate the thing his campaign most craves: an easy ability to make people like him. More importantly, Senor has been a vital emissary over the past six years for Romney not just to the Israelis and the American Jewish community, but to a Republican foreign-policy establishment that, even today, remains somewhat alien territory.

Senor arrived at his current role by way of an itinerant and mostly accidental career that has afforded him access to a wide range of very powerful, very famous, and very rich people. As an ambitious college intern on the Hill, he caught the attention of William Kristol, the editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard, who gave him entree into the neoconservative circle surrounding George W. Bush. Senor eventually became the face of the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq, both during his time in Baghdad and later as a television pundit; while he was in Baghdad, he met his future wife, Campbell Brown, then a reporter for NBC. In between he went to Harvard Business School, worked for the Carlyle Group, and started a private-equity firm with his classmate and friend Chris Heinz, stepson of former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry.

But his greatest success came in 2009, with the publication of Start-Up Nation, a slim blue-and-white volume he wrote with his brother-in-law, the Israeli newspaper columnist Saul Singer. Since its release in 2009, at the depths of the financial crisis, the book has become required reading for the entire Israeli government and for much of the American Jewish community. (The Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad also keeps a copy on his desk.) The title alone has become shorthand for the modern, techno-centric aspects of Israel, as distinct from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “It showed that every conversation about Israel doesn’t have to be about the settlements,” Senor told me when he and I met recently for dinner at Solo, a kosher restaurant in Manhattan.

In 2010, Senor was floated by Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani, as a possible Senate candidate in New York, but he decided not to enter the race, which would have pitted him against popular Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. He now works for Paul Singer, the billionaire hedge-fund manager who is among Romney’s most prominent Wall Street backers. (Singer is no relation to Senor’s brother-in-law.) Senor is also a regular on Morning Joe, where he has become the show’s go-to conservative guest. To critics on both the left and the right, he represents the worst of the Bush era—the prioritization of loyalty and ideology over experience and expertise. “He was on MSNBC pushing for more robust intervention in Syria, and he was going up against a general,” said one longtime Republican operative, who asked not to be identified. “I was saying to myself, This is a guy where, if you look at him, no one’s ever going to confuse him with anyone who ever put on a uniform.”

But Senor’s varied background makes him a perfect interlocutor for Romney in clubby think-tank and fundraising circles. “There are a lot of smart guys in Washington who do some policy, some politics, some fundraising,” Kristol said. “But he certainly knows more than a lot of those guys, or knows better how it works.” In September 2009, after Romney’s first run for the Republican nomination, he joined Senor onstage at a conference hosted by the Foreign Policy Initiative, an organization Senor launched with Kristol and Robert Kagan. Romney made passing reference to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, prompting Senor to note it had been written by Bret Stephens, a columnist well known in conservative circles. “Brad Stephens’ piece?” Romney asked, blankly. “Bret Stephens,” Senor corrected. “Bret Stephens,” Romney repeated, and looked out at the audience. “Sorry, Bret.”

But, in a year when Israel has emerged as a central foreign-policy litmus test, Senor also brings an unusual advantage to the governor’s campaign: his close relationships with a small, influential group of American expats clustered in Jerusalem’s German Colony who operate at the highest levels of Israeli public life. Much has been made of Romney’s pre-political acquaintance with Netanyahu, dating to when they were both young men working for the Boston Consulting Group. But Senor, who travels to Israel several times a year, has ties to Jerusalem’s elite that are unusually personal and that are magnified by the uniquely Anglo-inflected nature of Netanyahu’s current government.

For Tablet's jewish audience, the Republican foreign-policy establishment is "alien territory", in contrast to Israel, which is more like home.

Decoding the Racial Political Discourse

During a discussion on MSNBC's The Cycle concerning Mitt Romney‘s assertion that President Obama should "take [his] campaign of division and anger and hate back to Chicago", Touré, the program's co-host and designated angry black man, got angry:

“That really bothered me,” he said. “You notice [Romney] said anger twice. He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man. This is part of the playbook against Obama, the ‘otherization,’ he’s not like us.”

“I know it’s a heavy thing, I don’t say it lightly, but this is ‘niggerization,’” Touré said to the apparent shock of his co-panelists. “You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”

“Do you see how dishonest that is?” she asked.

Touré denied calling anyone a racist, which prompted Cupp to say, “Certainly you were implying that Mitt Romney and the base will respond to this dog-whistle, racially-charged coding, and hate Obama, the angry black man?”

“Absolutely,” he replied.

“That’s so irresponsible,” Cupp answered back.

“This is not a revolutionary comment,” Touré later said. “This is a constituency all-white party that rejects the black vote.”

Indeed, anti-White rhetoric in media and politics is a long-term trend. Touré's comments call to mind Cassandra Jackson's Huffington post article from June, Why the War on Affordable Health Care is a War on Blacks and Latinos, which I discussed in a podcast titled Guilt-Tripping.

Niggerization, if the term has any meaningful sense, describes a political environment such as we have today, whereby race-conscious blacks like Touré freely project their own racial fears and animosities onto hopelessly deracinated Whites like Romney. This niggerization was preceeded and is enabled by judaization, whereby race-conscious jews lecture and lord over deracinated Whites. For example, in faulting the Republican party for being too White, Touré is simply aping the attitudes and tactics of race-conscious jews. As Harold Meyerson wrote in 2008:

Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year's GOP convention is almost shockingly -- un-Americanly -- white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz reiterated the point in January:

There is a reason that the Democratic Party is far more diverse than the Republican Party, because the natural home, politically on major issues to Hispanics, to women, to Jews, to Asian-Americans, the diverse spectrum -- to African Americans.

The entire spectrum of diversity is comfortable in the Democratic Party because we stand up for the issues that matter to those communities and Republicans shun them.

Non-Whites who participate in the discourse hosted by the thoroughly judaized corporate media are expected to wear their racial identity on their sleeve and regularly present their race-based grievances against Whites. Any White who might respond from a perspective explicitly favorable to Whites has already been excluded or removed. The deracinated Whites who remain can only sputter helplessly about how "divisive" and "irresponsible" their unrestrained racial antagonists are, the pretense being, despite constant reminders otherwise, that the only responsible divide is ideological.

The most notorious icons of Whiteness - Romney, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity - are strictly judeo-conservative, afforded their limelight only so long as they profess love and respect for jews and Israel. Tellingly, it is these deracinated, pro-jew Whites who are most often identified as "nazis", accused of using dog-whistles to appeal to Whites, while secretly hating jews.

What we see here are the reality-inverting, guilt-tripping tactics I referred to in my discussion of Jackson. Non-Whites are using the jewish playbook, passively-aggressively accusing Whites of sneakily conspiring to stereotype, scapegoat, and even war on them. One clear marker is how they unapologetically assert their Otherness even as they pathologize and demonize Whites for noticing. It taps into decades of cultural marxism and anti-White propaganda, and is ultimately based on a centuries-old jewish blame-shifting narrative that put Whites on the defensive back when blacks were still in chains.

The simple fact is that non-Whites are waging and currently winning a war against Whites. It is a war the vast majority of Whites will not think or speak of, much less fight. The more Whites concede, the more non-Whites demand. Their chauvinists fight more or less openly for the interests of their people, allying with each other against Whites. All Whites get in the judaized, niggerized mainstream is indirect, ineffective code-speak.

Jew-Firsters vs Israel-Firsters

In Why I am using 'Israel firster' again M.J. Rosenberg writes:

Short definition: you are an Israel Firster if you believe it is acceptable to criticize US Presidents (whether Obama, Bush or any other) but believe that you must stand behind any and all Israeli policies and prime ministers. Call it “my country, right or wrong” but with a significant twist.

The reason Israel Firster became so explosive in 2012 is because (1) this is the year the lobby wants the United States to either attack Iran or allow Israel to do it and (2) this is the year in which tens of millions of dollars of unregulated campaign contributions are flowing to the Republican candidate for president simply because the single-issue crowd believes that Mitt Romney is the candidate most likely to fit comfortably in Netanyahu’s pocket.

The lobby's biggest fear is that the American people will figure this out and that the blow back will harm the US-Israel relationship.

Frankly, I share part of that worry. But my fear is that if the American people do figure out what AIPAC and its friends are up to, it could harm us here. After all, the lobby has done a great job convincing Congress and opinion leaders that they represent all Jews not just 4%.

I don't want my kids or theirs tainted with any association with those who are pushing for war with Iran, as they did with Iraq, or who blackmail presidents into supporting policies that harm the United States.

How to prevent that?

Frankly, I think I’m more than entitled to call this spade a spade. I have supported Israel (not, however, its more horrific policies) my whole life. I believe that Israel should survive and live in security, in some kind of arrangement with the Palestinian people who deserve peace, security and sovereignty just as much as Israelis do. Also, I speak as someone whose own kids are first generation. Their mom, my wife, was born in a Displaced Persons camp in Germany to two Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust.

I simply cannot be intimidated by those who business is intimidation. The way I see it, both my country, America, and a country I deeply care about, Israel,and the Jewish people are all being placed at risk by a small bunch of multi-millionaires and billionaires whose only interests are self-aggrandizement, hob-nobbing with those in power, and crushing anyone who gets in their way.

One day, everyone will understand that. It should be our mission to make sure that before they do, we break the back of an unrepresentative, dishonest and corrupt lobby that jeopardizes us all.

Rosenberg insinuates that he speaks for 96% of jews. According to him the problem with Israel-firsters is that what they're doing isn't good for the jews. What's more, as an entitled, morally self-righteous, holocaust-invoking jew he won't be intimidated into silence by the entitled, morally self-righteous, holocaust-invoking jews in the other 4%.

Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president, is at this moment in Israel performing his humiliating donning-of-the-skullcap ceremony, pledging fealty and obeisance to the interests of an alien nation.

This bizarre pilgrimage and rite of misdirected loyalty has become de rigueur for all aspirants to political "leadership" today, no matter their religious, political or state affiliation. Obama too, First Jewish President, "leader" of the free world, has already performed, and today is blasted for not renewing his vows.

Such is the thoroughly judaized state of the current regime. After decades of purges the only open opponents to the Israel-firsters who remain are jew-firsters. Where the Israeli-firsters wear their loyalty more or less on their sleeves, their jew-firster critics, like Rosenberg, are just as corrupt and dishonest in that they misrepresent the nature of the whole dispute as political or economic when it is in fact purely jewish. The primary concern, on all sides, is what's best for jews. They simply disagree about what's best for which jews.

The image above comes from the jew-firsters at Breitbart, who cite and join a broad swath of organized jewry denouncing Rosenberg, explaining:

While the term [Israel-firster] might not immediately be considered derogatory, in context, it’s usually apparent that it’s not meant in a positive way.

It all depends on the point of view. Whites are regularly subjected to intentionally derogatory terms such as "racist", "nazi", and "White supremacist". None of this is meant in a positive way either, except again in the sense that it comes from people whose main obsession is what's best for the jews.

Anti-White/Pro-Jew Hackers Attack A3P

The announcement left by the attackers at the American Third Position home page (down at the moment, the screenshot is from Google's cache) begins:

Jamie Kelso and American Third Position Hacked and Destroyed; Private Emails Expose Blatant Racism and Ties to Ron Paul

#ANONYMOUS #ANTIFASCIST #OPBLITZKRIEG #OCCUPYWALLSTREET #ANTISEC

DISCUSS ON PIRATEPAD OR IRC.ANONOPS.LI #OPBLITZKRIEG

Fellow anons: we are pleased to bring you the dismantling of a major US-based white supremacist network known as the "American Third Position"(A3P). These racist losers have chapters across the US, operate several white power websites, forums and online stores, and are even running a candidate in the 2012 elections. Although they try hard to maintain a professional public image to camouflage their vile racism, we're now airing all their dirty laundry all over the internet. Contained in this major dump are several thousand private forum messages, personal emails, internal organization notes, names, phone numbers, home addresses and other information on all of their members and supporters. It’s time for these cowardly suit and tie white supremacists to sleep with one eye open. Scared much?

In addition to finding the usual racist rants and interactions with other white power groups, we also found a disturbingly high amount of members who are also involved in campaigning for Ron Paul. According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors. Ron Paul's racist politics and affiliations are already well known, being viciously anti-immigrant, anti-abortion and against gay marriage -- not to mention having authored the racist "Ron Paul Papers" and receiving financial support from other white power groups (pictured with Don Black from stormfront.org). Hard to believe Ron Paul draws some support from the left and the occupation movements, especially now that it is confirmed Ron Paul hangs out with straight up racist hate groups.

We put extra effort in ruining the life of A3P webmaster Jamie Kelso. On top of being on the board of directors of A3P, former $cientologist, and high ranking Ron Paul organizer, he also is the account owner of german nazi forums and store nsl-forum.org, rhs-versand.com. We went ahead and wiped those websites off the internet as well, dumping private messages and order information. Aside from us releasing his information such as his social security number, address, resume and private discussions, we also heard some folks went on a joyride with Kelso's credit card and made some lulzy purchases, including sex toy purchases and making donations to the Anti Defamation League and many others. Oops.

We call upon not only other antifascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilize this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags. It is essential if we wish to live in a world free from oppression to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets.

No Dialogue! No sympathy! Destroy White Supremacy!

*** DEFACED WEBSITES:
A3P sites:
http://american3rdposition.com
http://www.whitenewsnow.com
http://merlinmiller2012.com
http://virgilgoode2012.com

German Nazi forums and store:
http://www.nsl-forum.com
http://www.rhs-verdand.com

*** DOWNLOAD FROM:
http://www.nazi-leaks.info
http://www.p4rtyvan.net

Other articles on A3P:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/american-third-position
http://www.adl.org/main_Extremism/Backgrounder:+American+Third+Position.htm

http://www.onepeoplesproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=940
http://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/american-olympic-gold-medalist-joins-white-supremacist-political-group/

Table Of Contents:

Private Conversations from James Kelso and A3P emails

Private Forum discussions exemplifying connections between a3p and Ron Paul

More Forum Conversations Filled with Racism, Sexism. Transphobia etc

Addresses, phone numbers and other personal info on hundreds of A3P members,supporters and merchandise purchasers

Private Conversations

Taken from the following email accounts:
admin@american3rdposition.com
admin@whitenewsnow.com
contact@american3rdposition.com
jamie.kelso@american3rdposition.com
jamiekelso@whitenewsnow.com

**CONNECTIONS WITH BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY**

Title: Meeting Minutes for 1/7

. . .

Following this is a selection of private emails, as well as a long list of names, addresses and phone numbers.

The attackers also gained access to A3P's twitter account, renaming it "American3Pwned" and using it to post links to a variety of additional information, including post-attack exchanges they have had with A3P personnel.

The motives and intentions of the attackers are clearly stated:

We call upon not only other antifascists but all those opposed to white supremacy to utilize this information and make hell for these white nationalist scumbags. It is essential if we wish to live in a world free from oppression to expose and confront racists at their jobs, their schools, at their homes and in the streets.

No Dialogue! No sympathy! Destroy White Supremacy!

Only a handful of mainstream media outlets have so far reported on the attack. Whereas the Anonymous rhetoric is malevolent, specifically anti-White and cites the ADL and SPLC as authorities, mainstream reports overlook the malevolence and helpfully transliterate that rhetoric into a righteous assault on "nazis" while focusing on the guilt-by-association of various non-A3P political figures.

Anonymous attacks American Nazis, msnbc.com.
Anonymous Expose Nazi Third Position 'Bridging Tactic' with Ron Paul, International Business Times.
BNP links to US extremists revealed by Anonymous, The Guardian.

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.

Rick Perry's Jewish Problem

Gov Perry Dancing with Orthodox Jews

What a humiliating performance.

Our Jewish Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Omitted: paragraphs detailing yet another Netanyahu snub.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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