Tag Archives: israel

Barrage on Farage

farage_thanks_jews

Nigel Farage: ‘Jewish lobby’ has disproportionate power in the US.

Farage is about to get the Hagel treatment. The jews, who have tirelessly organized and lobbied to codify the conflatation of jews and Israel, are screeching that Farage has…conflated jews and Israel while noticing they organize and lobby. Under jew rule speaking about jew power is a criminal offense.

Like any good kikeservative, Farage will likely attempt to atone by humiliating himself. This would involve loudly professing that he is not a “racist”, has always especially loved the jews, their lobbying, and their state, maybe while visiting one or more of the many prominent places of jew-worship and sliding a pile of shekels their way. The jews will then undoubtedly return to demonizing him, and he will return to acting as if they don’t exist except when told to speak or perform some service for them. As usual.

This Fictitious Conflict

zionism_is_code_for_death_by_jewing

Left-posing jew Weiss writes, Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals):

For a long time, liberalism and Zionism have gotten along fine in America– just look at the Democratic Party and its love for Israel. But Charlottesville represents a crisis for liberal Zionists. When they condemn white nationalism in the U.S. and celebrate Jewish nationalism in Israel, the contradiction is obvious to all.

Just consider three prominent voices. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the liberal Zionist group J Street, and blogger and Democratic Party thinker Josh Marshall.

Weiss cites three contemporary jew voices. Below I’ll cite a prominent opposing voice from the past.

The extent of the contradiction is worse than Weiss admits. The jews have an ethnostate, a state explicitly by for and of jews, whereas Whites have none. Not one. Even outside their explicit ethnostate the jews have laws specifically protecting themselves and their ethnostate from criticism. Jews claim that jews are White, that Whites have privilege and thus deserve to be oppressed, and that jews are oppressed by Whites and thus deserve their privilege. When Whites object even indirectly to any aspect of this jewing the jews swarm forth as a tribe and screech louder for even more special funding and protection from their ostensibly liberal host state.

So-called liberals and their liberal democratic states aren’t advertised as elevating one group above others. Quite the contrary. Yet they openly elevate the jews above all others, and especially above Whites. That’s the big contradiction. Zionists do not merely support a state for jews, they oppose any state for Whites. They regard Whites and jews as political opposites. That’s not a contradiction, it’s the parasite having its cake and eating its host too. Liberalism has always served the jews, providing the means by which any and all forms of jewing have been simultaneously advanced and defended.

Weiss continues:

Charlottesville makes this conversation urgent because the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership hurts resistance to intolerance. You can’t be righteously anti-nationalist in the U.S. and evangelists for Jewish nationalism over there.

This is not just good liberal philosophy. It’s the best policy to fight anti-Semitism. Israel’s status as a human-rights abuser is now its global reputation; and Jews and Jewish organizations who blindly defend it are hurting the reputation of Jews.

It is behind the mask of liberalism that academia, corporations, and the mainstream media have issued a constant stream of increasingly hostile rhetoric psychopathologizing and demonizing Whites. Whites who collaborate are rewarded, even if only temporarily. Whites who resist, even if only rhetorically, are punished. And behind that same liberal mask the same powerful institutions actively denounce and suppress any criticism of jews.

The snarling illiberal reality of this anti-White/pro-jew regime is deliberately concealed behind its smiley weaponized buzzterms. The jews cry “tolerance”, “social justice”, “diversity”, and “equity” as they strike “nazis”, by which they mean Whites, then screech “anti-semitism” when they imagine some ricochet might possibly hit the jews.

Weiss is an apologist for his tribe posing as a critic. He postures as a liberal but frets specifically about the best interests of jews. He minimizes the harm jewing causes Whites. He’s concerned about the potential harm any backlash might cause jews.

Yair Rosenberg provides a more overt example of jew hostility toward Whites. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg makes no pretense that he’s a liberal and offers no apologies for being obsessed with whatever is best for the jews, in or out of their jew state. Unlike Weiss, Rosenberg’s toxic anti-White opinions are shamelessly amplified by the corporate mainstream jewsmedia.

Rosenberg recently jewsplained Why There’s No Such Thing as White Zionism, directly addressing the anti-White/pro-jew cake-eating Weiss misidentifies. Rosenberg describes the problem as sneaky White nationalists stupidly trying to use liberal-zionist double-talk in the same way jews have. Smirking Rosenberg admits that the argument is senseless, because jews are oppressed and Whites are oppressors, i.e. because jews aren’t White.

Writing nearly a century ago Adolf Hitler discussed this same apparent contradiction and described how he came to understand that jews aren’t Germans, how this fictitious conflict between liberalism and zionism brought about this realization:

It was not until I was fourteen or fifteen years old that I frequently ran up against the word ‘Jew’, partly in connection with political controversies. These references aroused a slight aversion in me, and I could not avoid an uncomfortable feeling which always came over me when I had to listen to religious disputes. But at that time I had no other feelings about the Jewish question.

There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism.

Then I came to Vienna.

Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?

As was always my habit with such experiences, I turned to books for help in removing my doubts. For the first time in my life I bought myself some anti-Semitic pamphlets for a few pence. But unfortunately they all began with the assumption that in principle the reader had at least a certain degree of information on the Jewish question or was even familiar with it. Moreover, the tone of most of these pamphlets was such that I became doubtful again, because the statements made were partly superficial and the proofs extraordinarily unscientific. For weeks, and indeed for months, I returned to my old way of thinking. The subject appeared so enormous and the accusations were so far-reaching that I was afraid of dealing with it unjustly and so I became again anxious and uncertain.

Naturally I could no longer doubt that here there was not a question of Germans who happened to be of a different religion but rather that there was question of an entirely different people. For as soon as I began to investigate the matter and observe the Jews, then Vienna appeared to me in a different light. Wherever I now went I saw Jews, and the more I saw of them the more strikingly and clearly they stood out as a different people from the other citizens. Especially the Inner City and the district northwards from the Danube Canal swarmed with a people who, even in outer appearance, bore no similarity to the Germans.

But any indecision which I may still have felt about that point was finally removed by the activities of a certain section of the Jews themselves. A great movement, called Zionism, arose among them. Its aim was to assert the national character of Judaism, and the movement was strongly represented in Vienna.

To outward appearances it seemed as if only one group of Jews championed this movement, while the great majority disapproved of it, or even repudiated it. But an investigation of the situation showed that those outward appearances were purposely misleading. These outward appearances emerged from a mist of theories which had been produced for reasons of expediency, if not for purposes of downright deception. For that part of Jewry which was styled Liberal did not disown the Zionists as if they were not members of their race but rather as brother Jews who publicly professed their faith in an unpractical way, so as to create a danger for Jewry itself.

Thus there was no real rift in their internal solidarity.

This fictitious conflict between the Zionists and the Liberal Jews soon disgusted me; for it was false through and through and in direct contradiction to the moral dignity and immaculate character on which that race had always prided itself.

Yes. Race and morality are key. Liberalism and zionism are simply code for death by jewing. They have mutated somewhat yet remain two faces of the same jew-first moral fraud. Both incite non-jews into fighting “racism” (Whites being White) and “anti-semitism” (anything that interferes with jews jewing). Both are championed by jews for the benefit of jews.

Hitler described accurately not only what was happening Germany in his time, but also forsaw the jew-dominated future we’re now living:

The Jewish domination in the State seems now so fully assured that not only can he now afford to call himself a Jew once again, but he even acknowledges freely and openly what his ideas are on racial and political questions. A section of the Jews avows itself quite openly as an alien people, but even here there is another falsehood. When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, the Jews thereby adopt another means to dupe the simple-minded Gentile. They have not the slightest intention of building up a Jewish State in Palestine so as to live in it. What they really are aiming at is to establish a central organization for their international swindling and cheating. As a sovereign State, this cannot be controlled by any of the other States. Therefore it can serve as a refuge for swindlers who have been found out and at the same time a high-school for the training of other swindlers.

As a sign of their growing presumption and sense of security, a certain section of them openly and impudently proclaim their Jewish nationality while another section hypocritically pretend that they are German, French or English as the case may be. Their blatant behaviour in their relations with other people shows how clearly they envisage their day of triumph in the near future.

The jew war on Whites is waged stealthily under the fiction that jews are White. It started and will end with the realization that they aren’t.

David Cole’s Muh Israel Argument

taki_muh_israel

Cole makes the perennial argument made by all “right”-posing jews: White nationalists should support “muh Israel” because it’s stupid and crazy to do otherwise.

The Alt-Right Gets a Wedgie at Taki’s Magazine:

During my Holocaust revisionist years in the 1990s, I encountered—no surprise here—lots and lots of “anti-Zionists.” After my forced reemergence as David Cole in 2013, I encountered even more. People in those circles continue to be amazed that I’m a supporter of Israel. I, on the other hand, continue to be amused at the level of anti-Israel sentiment that exists among self-described white nationalists and alt-rightists. I don’t quite get it. Israel is the closest thing to “the West” in that fetid sandlot known as the Middle East, and Israelis do exactly the types of things that white nationalists and alt-rightists want to do themselves (build walls to halt immigration, unapologetically racially profile in the name of safety, unashamedly fight to preserve an ethno-state, etc.). Yet rather than admiration from the “white right,” Israel gets hostility.

Those [Palestinian/pro-Palestinian] guys were like the Islamic version of the most exaggerated Hollywood stereotypes of hillbillies. “Muh lah-yand! Git off muh lah-yand! They dun took muh lah-yand!” Anytime I would try to have a rational discussion with one of those sad sacks, the discussion would always revert back to “the Jews took our land,” as though that magical statement had the power to kill any debate about tactics.

I really don’t understand why the whining of Palestinians catches the ear of anyone on the alt-right. I mean, the cornerstone of the Palestinian cause is that they were “colonized by Europeans” who “grabbed land via warfare.” And you, Mr. Alt-Righter, are sympathetic to that complaint? You think we should force Israel to “give that land back”? Funny, because when the Aztlán loons in the Southwest also claim to have been “colonized by Europeans” who “grabbed land via warfare,” and when they claim that Mexico deserves to “get that land back,” I don’t hear a lot of sympathy. In fact, all I hear from alt-rightists is “Hey, wars happen. The Indians fought; they lost. The Mexicans fought; they lost. We don’t owe them their land back.”

I just don’t accept the notion that gaining territory through war suddenly became a crime against humanity in 1945, right after—and what a coincidence this is!—the victorious Allies gained a shitload of territory from Germany following World War II. That 1945 “deadline” is arbitrary, and I don’t buy into it. As far as I’m concerned, Israel has a right to keep every damn square inch of land it won, and I don’t see that as a position that betrays any particular pro-Jewish or anti-Muslim bias.

In the 1980s, South African blacks, on advice from leftist whites (and, ironically, Jews) decided to take a very sound piece of advice: Stop committing terrorist acts against white South Africans. Don’t traumatize the folks who have to approve the dissolution of their own rule. Reserve your violence (like, say, those snazzy burning-tire “necklaces”) for the traitors in your own ranks. But to whites, be all Gandhi-like, be all “oh, heaven forbid, I’d never use violence in my quest for freedom,” and in no time at all, the name Mandela will become synonymous with Jesus. And it worked. Black South Africans got majority rule, and slowly but surely they’re getting the ethnic cleansing that their PR machine promised they didn’t seek.

Overreaching and overarching conspiracy theories about “Zionist influence” might be comforting to those who want to see Israel as the octopussian world center of all that is evil, but don’t expect Trump to share that worldview.

Like most jews, Cole has nothing but contempt for Whites. Essentially he’s whining because he imagines alt-right Whites might sympathize more with other goyim than jews, and he’s worried that might be bad for the jews.

Beside deliberately misrepresenting the relationship between jews and Whites this particular type of you-goyim-should-support-Israel argument also falsely equates jew-first “zionism” with nationalism. The fact is that the jews have always been parasites, living among and feeding upon Europeans before and after Europe divided into ostensibly sovereign nationalist states.

“Zionism” is a euphemism for the more blatant form jew parasitism has taken specifically after jew-firstism prevailed over White racialism in World War II. It is the idea that jews get a sovereign jew ethnostate and everyone else gets “democratic” states with governments, full of jews, dedicated to “combating racism and anti-semitism” and serving the alien jew ethnostate. And whatever else anyone pretends it means, “muh holocaust” serves as the primary rationale for this grotesque reality.

Jews don’t feel guilty about any of this. On the contrary, even before White resentment can coalesce jews screech as one that the real harm is being done to them. Many jews regurgitate some form of “singling-out the jews” counter-accusation, projecting their own jew-centric mindset, trying to guilt-trip deracinated “liberal” Whites for caring. Cole is aiming at more race- and jew-conscious Whites. Rather than deny the impact of jewing he attempts to obscure and minimize it. He sneers “you’re just jealous”, as if it were more desirable to ape jew parasitism than end it.

Once you properly perceive the jews for what they actually are this type of disingenuous argument not only falls flat, it comes across as a particularly insidious form of hostility. The answer is simple. Jews aren’t White, they’re anti-White. White nationalism and jew parasitism aren’t alike, they’re antithetical. There is no moral or logical obligation to sympathize with an enemy, and jews posing as allies, advising Whites how to better serve jews, are the worse kind of enemy.

The Jew-State Solution

john_kerry

Secretary of State John Kerry’s Remarks on Middle East Peace:

Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region.

Despite our best efforts over the years, the two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy.

The truth is that trends on the ground – violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation – they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want.

Today, there are a number – there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.

Now, most on both sides understand this basic choice, and that is why it is important that polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that there is still strong support for the two-state solution – in theory. They just don’t believe that it can happen.

After decades of conflict, many no longer see the other side as people, only as threats and enemies.

Kerry’s assertion that “Israel can either be jewish or democratic” touched a nerve, causing yids everywhere to flip their lids.

The context provided by Kerry is testimony to the inordinate power jews wield outside Israel, right now, an open admission that a pro-jew mindset prevails at the highest levels of USGOV and distorts policy-making in the most profound ways. The unhinged response from jews – inverting the situation, imagining themselves victims of powerful enemies – serves mainly to distract from the fact that, as usual, the entire argument is all about what’s best for the jews.

As infuriated jewess Mona Charen put it in Stupid Anti-Israel Policy, there are so many ways the stupid goyim could be better serving the jews:

The world is aflame with threats and instability, yet Kerry and Obama, petulant leftists with an Israel fixation, could not resist this last kick in the teeth to the region’s sole democracy. They knew it would harm Israel’s moral standing – now the delegitimizers can claim that Israel is in violation of “Security Council” resolutions – and give an unmerited win to the Palestinians. Perhaps most infuriating of all, they claim to be doing it all for Israel’s own good.

Kerry presents “democracy” and the jew ethnostate as two mutually exclusive ideas, as if jews will some day have to choose one or the other. Yet the two ideas are best understood as complementary outgrowths of the same whatever’s-best-for-the-jews premise. The political reality is that the jews have their ethnostate, and its form of government, whatever anyone might call it, has been and will continue to be decided exclusively by jews. When apologists like Charen emphatically advertise Israel as “the region’s sole democracy” all they’re really saying is that they see it as the duty of everyone else’s “democracy” to serve this jew ethnostate. The “two-state solution” Kerry prefers is moot. It’s not good enough for the jews, who see no compelling reason to concede anything to their enemies. They already have a “two-state solution” – their ethnostate and a USGOV which serves them too.

Ezra Pound is purported to have noted that “democracy is now currently defined in Europe as a country run by jews”. It fits this jew ethnostate, overtly run by jews, just as well. Where Kerry and other “petulant leftists” get hung up is in the pretense there is any more sensible definition.

Jews on the Warpath

geysers_real_in_wiesels_mind

It’s overwrought, as jewish political rhetoric usually is, but this Haaretz op-ed gives a truer view of the extent and nature of jewish rule, and jewish consciousness of it, than is ordinarily visible in the mainstream jewsmedia. Beware: Republican Jews on the warpath:

Now it’s no longer a “crisis in the relationship” that they try to paper over; now it’s no longer just “tensions with the White House” that they’re making every effort to reduce in between meetings; now, it’s an open war with the United States. It’s Sheldon Adelson versus Barack Obama, and Israel is caught in the cross-fire.

After Vice President Joe Biden, our greatest friend over there, announced an unspecified trip abroad that will prevent him from being in Congress at the fateful hour, Republican Jewish organizations launched a campaign of intimidation against those lawmakers who had already announced their intent to skip the joint session: Their political fate will be bitter.

Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of nations.

God, save us from our Jews; we can handle the non-Jews ourselves. How easy it is to stir up the highest institutions of democratic America, and how difficult to bomb Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Ask the heads of your intelligence agencies, or ours, and they’ll whisper it in secret.

From Israel, the land you love so much and are so far away from, we’d like to tell you American Jews, regardless of your opinions and party affiliations – all those of you who won’t openly wash your hands of these risky gambles – that our fate is in our own hands.

Don’t play with fire that will burn us alone, or perhaps you as well: Because of your silence, you’ll be accused of dual loyalty.

In these very moments, the protocols are being rewritten. Rich Jews are writing them in their own handwriting. They, in their wealth, are confirming with their own signatures what anti-Semites used to slander them with in days gone by: We, the elders of Zion, pull the strings of Congress, and the congressmen are nothing but marionettes who do our will. If they don’t understand our words, they’ll understand our threats. And if in the past, we ran the show from behind the scenes, now we’re doing it openly, from center stage. And if you forget our donations, the wellspring will run dry.

It’s not just Sheldon Adelson, or “rich jews”, or Republican jews. As the Daily Mail reports, at the Daily Mail, Elie Wiesel lends support to Benjamin Netanyahu’s U.S. speech:

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel is lending his support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress on the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program.

Outspoken New Jersey Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach said on Thursday he is placing full-page advertisements in two leading U.S. newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, featuring Wiesel’s endorsement of Netanyahu’s speech.

The advertisement quotes Wiesel as saying he plans to attend Netanyahu’s address ‘on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran,’ with the author asking Obama and lawmakers: ‘Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?’

The high-profile ad campaign puts pressure on the White House and congressional Democrats to rethink their plans to skip the address.

Speaking to Reuters by phone, Boteach said: ‘There’s no personality more respected in the global Jewish community and few in the wider world than Elie Wiesel. He is a living prince of the Jewish people.’

‘He is the face of the murdered 6 million (Jews killed in the Holocaust). So I think that his view on the prime minister’s speech sounding the alarm as to the Iranian nuclear program carries a unique authority that transcends some of the political circus that has affected the speech,’ Boteach said.

Here’s the full text of Wiesel’s ad:

Iran’s Plan for the Jews, Ancient and Present

Many centuries ago a wicked man in Persia named Haman advised: “There exists a nation scattered and dispersed among the others… It is not in our interest to tolerate them.”

And the order went out to all the provinces, to “annihilate, murder and destroy the Jews, young and old, children and women.”

Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy. The Ayatollah Khamenei has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: “the annihilation and destruction” of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.

The disaster of ages past was averted, but the event is remembered in the holiday of Purim. On March 5th, Jewish children in synagogues around the world will shout down the name of Haman when it is pronounced in the Book of Esther. They understand a simple truth that at times eludes world leaders: When someone in power threatens your destruction, you must loudly condemn him.

On the day before Purim the Prime Minister of Israel will address Congress on the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran. I intend to be there. Should we not show our support for what might be the last clear warning before a terrible deal is struck? Santayana wrote that those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it. I believe that those who deny history – specifically the Holocaust – are determined to repeat it.

President Obama, Vice President Biden, distinguished members of Congress, I ask you – As one who has seen the enemies of the Jewish people make good on threats to exterminate us, how can I remain silent?

As Queen Esther said when addressing her King: “How can I behold the destruction of my people?”

I plead with you to put aside the politics that have obscured the critical decisions to be made. Surely it is within your power to find a solution that will permit Israel’s Prime Minister to deliver his urgent message.

Will you join me in hearing the case for keeping weapons from those who preach death to Israel and America?

In traditional Jewish families we close the Sabbath with the lighting of the Havdalah candle and a quote from the Book of Esther retelling how danger was replaced by light and happiness, and the blessing: “And so may it be for us.”

Wiesel is demonstrating how the jewish narrative, from the Purim tale to the “6 million” tale, is used as a weapon. Specifically he is using it to instigate a war which will be waged by others for the benefit of jews. He’s being especially brazen (and typically jewish) to invoke Purim, in effect announcing what he’s doing, though in a way that virtually none of the ignorant goyim will understand. As I noted in Jewish Crypsis – Religion – Part 4:

In a nutshell Purim is the celebration of the triumph of jews over their enemies. Specifically, it is a victory achieved by means of deception, seduction and exploitation of others – whereby a single wiley crypto-jewess [Esther] manipulates one group of goyim into warring on another group of goyim in the service of jewish interests. The moral of the story and righteousness of it all rests upon the jewish license noted above: proactively exterminating “mortal dangers” “by any means necessary”.

These three things [Purim, Kol Nidre and Moser] have little or nothing to do with God, or serving God, unless God is understood as the people who are being served, the jews themselves.

When Wiesel concludes by referring to, “how danger was replaced by light and happiness”, he and every jew knows that this means getting goyim to slaughter goyim for the jews. Like World War II. They also know that most goyim don’t know. We must change this.

Secure America, For Israel

secure_america_for_israel

The twits at Secure America Now are pumping out judeo-con double-talk: America must support Israel defending itself!

Institute for Policy Studies provides some “left-wing” jewish insight into SAN:

Secure America Now (SAN) is a hawkish advocacy group founded in 2011 by pollsters John McLaughlin and Pat Caddell. The group produces political ads and policy analyses in an effort to “inject national security issues into the public dialogue.”[1] A high-profile “member” of the group is Devon Cross, a longstanding neoconservative activist who has supported a number of militarist advocacy initiatives, including the Project for the New American Century.[2]

Secure America Now has been criticized for attempting to mask a right-wing, “pro-Israel” agenda with misleading claims about bipartisanship. For instance, in a report about a poll it released in July 2011 that purported to demonstrate that Jewish Americans were abandoning the Democratic Party, the Washington Post’s Plum Line reported, “Republicans are touting yet another poll that purports to predict the end of the Jewish allegiance to the Democratic Party. Citing a new poll by Republican John McLaughlin and Pat Caddell, the GOP’s favorite ‘Democrat,’ they have convinced themselves that this time, Obama really is in trouble among Jewish voters.”

The pro-Israel agenda is bipartisan. “Left-wing” organizations ordinarily mask it. What makes SAN “right-wing” is that it doesn’t. SAN also makes no attempt to explain how “standing with Israel” helps “Secure America Now”. To do so would mean acknowledging that 1) the jews run America, 2) they care far more about Israel than America, and 3) SAN exhortations to “stand with Israel” and “stop Iran” are about signaling a willingness to serve the jews, not Americans.

Predictably, such obsequiousness amuses the jews.

Four Jews, One Opinion on Israel

weinstein_silver_harman_maher

Bill Maher, Jane Harman, Jamie Weinstein and Charles Krauthammer agree. Somebody has to be at fault, and it can’t possibly be the Israelis.

“Liberal” Maher faults “the rest of the world” and even the “Palestinian civilians who are dying”. He describes the Israelis as “the victim of the soft bigotry of high expectations”. Their enemies, in contrast, he expects to just get over being expelled.

“Conservative” Krauthammer understands how these sneaky Palestinians think, playing up their weakness and exaggerating their suffering, counting on the “near-total historical ignorance and reflexive sympathy” of others. Krauthammer, after all, is one of the foremost experts in such matters.

“Liberal” Harman is a dimmer Maher. She agrees with Krauthammer. She advocates secure borders for Israelis, because she wishes them to have peace. She advocates exactly the opposite for Americans, no doubt because she doesn’t wish for us to have peace.

“Conservative” Weinstein is a dimmer Krauthammer. He too knows how these Palestinians think. All he thinks anyone needs to know is that they’re anti-jew. Never mind why.

israel_asa

Answering the American Studies Association

ASA Members Vote To Endorse Academic Boycott of Israel, American Studies Association, 16 December 2013.

This statement, and especially the Endorsements attached below it, provide a good example of the jewish narrative blowing back on jews. The swift and explosive response from jews outside the ASA illustrates, yet again, that jews aren’t “white” in any meaningful political sense and their ethnostate isn’t subject to the usual standards by which “white” states are judged.

The divisively unanswerable questions of what it means to be ‘pro-Israel’, Max Fisher, 17 December 2013:

On Monday night, the heads of two major pro-Israel organizations and the editors of two publications associated with support for Israel gathered for a relatively routine event: a panel discussion at the 92nd Street Y, in New York, on “what it means to be pro-Israel.” A few hours earlier, members of the American Studies Association, an association of some 5,000 American studies college professors, had voted 2 to 1 to boycott Israeli universities. Shortly after the panel moderator and editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, Jane Eisner, raised the issue, the panel broke up in a relatively spectacular walk-off.

In debates about Israel, disagreements that might seem minor on the surface – the “tyranny of small differences,” as one Israel-watcher put it to me – are often something much graver. If you know what to watch for, you can observe somber, serious people like these four panelists talk around underlying issues so sensitive they are rarely addressed or even acknowledged. Issues that are almost always below the surface, but too deep to come out except in moments of the most heated candor, often surprising even the people naming them.

These are questions so difficult, and that cut so close to the core of what it means to be an American supporter of Israel, that even scholars or professionals with decades invested in Israeli issues will hesitate to touch them. But you can hear them, if only hinted at, in arguments like Monday evening’s. Is it good or bad for Israel that more American Jews are questioning Israeli policies? At what point, if ever, should one’s support for Israel be limited by the needs of non-Israelis touched by the conflict? Is a Zionist’s responsibility to guard Israel’s survival, to guard Israel’s interests or merely to concern oneself dispassionately with the issues facing the country?

Some of these questions are simply unanswerable. Some are trick questions. Some are highly taboo; the question about competing interests can easily echo accusations, made by the most anti-Semitic movements in history, that Jews harbor “dual loyalties” and cannot be trusted. But many are just extremely difficult, touching on issues of identity, politics and personal responsibility. They cause conflict both because no one can agree on the answers, or often even the terms of the questions themselves, and because everyone ends up judging one another according to their own personal and widely varying standards.

What’s best for the jews? This is the central question around which jewish arguments about politics, identity and everything else revolve. To a jew this question is “unanswerable” only in the sense that they never stop asking it. By exaggerating their disagreements on answers jews downplay their agreement on the question.

In asking this question jews show no fear of tricks or taboos. What they fear are the wholly different questions which inevitably form in the minds of non-jews. Who are these jews? What are they doing? Why should anyone tolerate the conflict and harm they cause? These questions, and the “anti-semitic movements” which coallesce in response, have historically been instigated by the words and deeds of the jews themselves, by jewish parasitism, by jews infiltrating, manipulating and exploiting their host society.

In the case at hand the jews are more and more openly directing the resources of the United States toward Israel. They anticipate a hostile reaction because one is justified. The existence of Israel, their fruiting body, only highlights jewish parasitism. It inspires even nominally “liberal” jews to fret most illiberally over their particularist identity and interests, even when those interests are being served so clearly at the expense of others. It inspires even nominally “conservative” jews, like John Podhoretz, to tantrum at domestic tribemates on behalf of foreign tribemates.

How do they answer the ASA? By orchestrating political and academic boycotts, of course. Jews in government are moving to cut off government funds to ASA supporters and jews in universities are directing them to cut off support for ASA. No “dual loyalty” here. These jews in positions of power demonstrate that they see themselves as jews first, and see the institutions over which they have some measure of power as vehicles for advancing the interests of jews. One institution has vexed them, so they are using their influence over others to exact punishment.

Jews know they don’t face any substantial, organized opposition. The only real difficulty they have is in communicating about their conspiracy. Their problem is more cryptological than ideological. How to discuss and advance jewish interests while suppressing any “anti-semitic movement”? Their answer, as always, is to do both, because they are in essence the same.