Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Dan Senor: Romney’s Jewish “Connector”

4 Comments

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.

Blog

Jew-Firsters vs Israel-Firsters

13 Comments

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.

Blog

The Anti-White/Pro-Jew Regime’s Position on Genocide

51 Comments

Remarks at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Forward-Looking Symposium on Genocide Prevention, USGOV Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, 24 July 2012:

Now, this gathering is yet another example of what the museum does so well. It brings us face to face with a terrible chapter in human history and it invites us to reflect on what that history tells us and how that history should guide us on our path forward. As Sara said when we were walking in this morning, human nature did not dramatically and profoundly change in 1945. We still struggle with evil and the terrible impulses and actions that all too often result in atrocities and violence and genocide. But I want to thank the Committee on Conscience for bringing attention to contemporary cases of extreme violence against civilians.

Let me begin by acknowledging that here in this museum, it’s important to note that every generation produces extremist voices denying that the Holocaust ever happened. And we must remain vigilant against those deniers and against anti-Semitism, because when heads of state and religious leaders deny the Holocaust from their bully pulpits, we cannot let their lies go unanswered. When we hear Holocaust glorification and public calls to, quote, “finish the job,” we need to make clear that violence, bigotry will not be tolerated. And, yes, when criticism of Israeli Government policies crosses over into demonization of Israel and Jews, we must push back.

Here at this museum and in the work that many of you do every day, we are countering hatred with truth. Thanks to the museum and institutions like it and scholars and academics and activists around the world, we have accurate histories. We have memorials and archives that record the stories of those who survived and those who did not. And because we know what happened, our call to action is that much clearer and compelling. Bringing that dark chapter into light helps clarify and sharpen what we mean when we say “never again.”

But despite all we have learned and accomplished in the last 70 years, “never again” remains an unmet, urgent goal. At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, we have seen campaigns of harassment and violence against groups of people because of their ethnic, racial, religious, or political backgrounds, and even some which aimed at the destruction of a particular group of people, fitting the definition of genocide.

Clinton, presenting the official policy of the US government, advocates a baldly pro-jewish narrative, a view of history and morals dictated to the rest of us by a vengeful and vindictive people whose ghoulish museums and incessant guilt-tripping demonizes Whites.

Though Clinton spoke quite a bit about Africa, she made no mention of the harassment and violence Whites in Zimbabwe or South Africa have suffered.

President Obama was clear when he stated that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest as well as a core moral responsibility. So if a government cannot or will not protect its own citizens, then the United States and likeminded partners must act.

The rhetoric concerning “core national security interest” and “core moral responsibility” is utterly dishonest. The various groups of peoples living in the United States do not constitute a nation, and of these groups nobody but Whites are expected to be responsible to serve any group’s interests but their own. Open borders and forced integration are an effective way of destroying us. The current government of the United States does not protect it’s citizens (or anyone else) from this destruction, it helps inflict it.

Well, genocides and mass atrocities don’t just happen spontaneously. They are always planned. Genocides are preceded by organized, targeted propaganda campaigns carried out by those in power. Extremist leaders spread messages of hate often disguised as something else – a song on the radio, a nursery rhyme, or a picture book. The messages filter down. Those in power begin to dehumanize particular groups or scapegoat them for their country’s problems. Hatred not only becomes acceptable; it is even encouraged. It’s like stacking dry firewood before striking the match. Then there is a moment of ignition. The permission to hate becomes permission to kill.

Indeed.

Unfortunately for Whites, in the jewish narrative Whites can only be perpetrators of genocide, and only non-Whites can be victims. The thoughts and morals of the people currently in power are driven by this anti-White narrative. This is why the US government ignores violence against Whites. This is why it imposes open borders and forced integration. This is why it abides the dehumanizing and scapegoating of Whites in general, even as it defends jews.

A Jerusalem Post article regarding Clinton’s speech adds:

According to a poll unveiled at Tuesday’s event, 55 percent of the American public believes the United States should take military action against Syria, with 24% saying the US shouldn’t. At the same time, Syria ranked low on a list of foreign policy priorities.

The majority (55%) also felt Americans should provide ground forces in Syria, but only as a part of an international force.

In general, 69% of those surveyed said the United States should act to stop genocide in other parts of the world, with only 25% opposed. Another question worded slightly differently found that 78% support the US taking military action to stop genocide or mass atrocities with just 18% opposed.

I imagine Whites would be even more likely to support military action to stop their own genocide, if only they would come to understand what’s happening in such terms. To do so Whites must first overcome the constant anti-White propaganda, the scapegoating, the demonization, and realize that we have a more legitimate, more moral responsibility to defend our own interests than anyone else’s.

Blog

Learning from History

19 Comments

Twenty or so years ago California governor Pete Wilson warned that unless something was done to stop the influx of illegal immigrants, or at least to stem the outflow of government resources to support them, the state would soon face bankruptcy. Sure enough, California is today essentially bankrupt, though in the current mainstream media and political climate it is not attributed to immigration.

Wilson wasn’t wrong about where California was heading, or why, though he was wrong in failing to note the racial dimension of that problem. It was clear even then that the threat to White Californians was not just financial, but existential. Unfortunately for Whites, Wilson and other White political leaders had by that time abandoned White identity and interests. Bankruptcy is only one facet of California’s degeneration, due as much to the flight of disgusted law-abiding, tax-paying Whites as it is to the flood of disgusting gang-banging, tax-eating mestizos.

So now that California is saturated with non-White immigrants and the United States as a whole is being driven off the same cliff, even Wilson’s deracinated, economic objections are characterized as “hardline” and “alarming” by latino chauvinists. There is a lesson here. The price Whites pay for failing to recognize and explicitly defend our interests as a group, for trying so hard not to be “racist”, is to be displaced and dispossessed by other groups who are more willing to organize and pursue their own group interests.

Whites used to understand this. A much earlier and clearer illustration can be taken from The International Jew published by Henry Ford. Indeed the Wilson/California debacle can be understood as just one consequence of the ascendency of jews to power that Ford tried to warn Americans about. The first volume of TIJ is subtitled “The World’s Foremost Problem”. This reflects the situation almost a hundred years ago, when the American media and political climate was not yet completely dominated by jews and jewish interests, but the potential for such domination was openly and bluntly recognized as a threat.

Ford and his contemporaries weren’t imagining this threat. Despite increasingly absurd denials, jews dominate more completely now than they did in Ford’s day. Whites everywhere are today experiencing the painful, poisonous fruits of this domination. Whites are confused and demoralized and run away from White identity and interests, and feel compelled to do so because jews have used their increasing power to pathologize and demonize us as a group. The world’s foremost problems today, according to the people who wield the power to define those problems, are “racists”, meaning Whites, and “anti-semites”, meaning anyone jews don’t like.

The lesson for Whites is not to run away screaming in fear when the enemy starts pushing those “racist”/”nazi”/”holocaust” buttons, nor to try and join them in their game. The enemy won’t stop because you join them, or ignore them, or surrender. We must understand and learn from our history, not run from it. Listen, as I will, to “The International Jew” Study Hour at tWn, where Carolyn Yeager and Hadding Scott retrospectively review the wisdom recorded in Ford’s TIJ. Let’s imagine what could have been done better, and let’s do it.

Blog

IREHR: Human Rights is Anti-White

4 Comments

Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights

The About link points to A New Statement by a Renewed Organization for New Times, by Leonard Zeskind:

The white nationalist movement consists of an ever-shifting array of organizations, publishing houses, think tanks, websites and individuals with an interlocking leadership and cross-pollinating memberships. Two relatively distinct trends exist in the movement: a mainstreaming wing that hopes to build a political majority among white people, and a vanguardist wing comprised of hard-core cadres with a more violence-prone tendency. Both movement wings aim at establishing a whites-only political, cultural, and social dominance over the United States. The long-term goal of the most significant sector of the movement is the creation of an Aryans-only nation-state, separate from the rest of the country.

The influence of the white nationalist movement has far exceeded its size. In the post-Jim Crow years, it has re-articulated racism and white supremacy in American life, and turned them into an ideology of white dispossession. The expected loss of majority status by white people, projected by the Census Bureau to occur around mid-century, has animated this idea. One immediate outcome has been that the public discourse about affirmative action has been dominated by notions that white people are the new “victims.” Talk of discrimination quickly turns to charges of “reverse racism” and “special rights” for “minorities.” More, white nationalists years ago cut the turf for the anti-immigrant sentiment that has swelled behind it. In the United States, anti-Semitism exists in its most congealed form in the Jewish conspiracy theories that white nationalists have propagated; and the notion of Holocaust denial would barely exist at all if white nationalists had not turned it into their movement’s calling card.

The so-called Christian right, paleo-conservatism, and other far-right movements exist in a symbiotic relationship with nativism and white nationalism; and ideas and people flow between these movements, sometimes creating a whole that is bigger than its parts. In the current period, during the first months of the Obama administration, white nationalists have grown stronger in a milieu of racist and nationalist opposition to the status quo.

The combined experience of the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights’ board members represents nearly a century of direct experience countering racism, anti-Semitism, white supremacy and white nationalist movements.

Individually and together, we have investigated the smallest corners of white nationalist activity, in the process building one of the largest research archives on white nationalism in country. We’ve also helped conceptualize the broadest band of understanding of the problems at hand. We have written extensively on these issues for publications in the United States and Europe. And we have helped build trans-Atlantic relationships to trace and disable the international designs of white nationalists.

We have organized to protect Native Indian sovereignty rights in the Northwest, fought Klan groups in the Southeast, and helped build a family farmer’s movement that opposed anti-Semitism and the Posse Comitatus in the Midwest. We organized a broad-based opposition to the militia. We initiated peer-based responses to the white power music scene and were the first to point out the white nationalist origins of the anti-immigrant movement.

IREHR brings both a long-term perspective and a short-term urgency to our work. We aim to continue examining racist, anti-Semitic, and far right social movements, analyzing their intersection with civil society and social policy, and to educate the public and assist in the protection and extension of human rights through organization and informed mobilization.

Judeo-liberal “human rights” rhetoric doesn’t get much more blatantly anti-White than this. What’s more, this is plainly driven by a deep and overriding concern for the best interests of jews.

Self-righteous anti-Whites like Zeskind regularly remind us that jews aren’t White. Jews think of and portray themselves as innocent victims with Whites as their evil victimizers. They aren’t us, and they aren’t interested in sharing a “civil society” with us. In their minds we have a duty to provide them a “civil society”, abandoning or subordinating our own best interests while they freely pursue theirs.