Tag Archives: jewish influence

Blog

Giffords Shot, White Vitriol Blamed

19 Comments

How do we know it’s White vitriol? Because that’s the only vitriol anybody in media or politics ever calls vitriol.

Many of the initial news reports spread blame via broad references to Arizonans, Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin (and her fans).

A typical example of the mass White guilt-by-association is Sarah Palin under fire as Arizona sheriff blames political ‘vitriol’ for triggering ‘unstable’ Safeway gunman’s massacre:

‘When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government,’ Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told a news conference.

‘The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.

‘And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.’

He added: ‘That may be free speech. But it’s not without consequence.’

In using the word mecca Dupnik was clearly implying that fanatically bigoted White people are flocking and clustering in Arizona. He wasn’t referring to crazy muslims, and definitely wasn’t trying to remind anyone about Nidal Malik Hasan. That mass murder was completely different. That took place in Texas, not Arizona, and Hasan shouted “allah ackbar”, which has nothing whatsoever to do with who he shared his views with. How can we be sure Dupnik wasn’t broadly disparaging muslims? Because nobody has accused him of that. The many, many people quoting that particular word all seem to understand exactly which “prejudiced bigots” Dupnik was putting down.

Likewise, nobody’s making any comparisons to black mass-“racist”-killer Omar Thornton. Which is odd because White “prejudiced bigots” were assigned responsibility in that case too.

On Saturday night it was still possible to wonder how a White guy shooting a bunch of White people could inspire such invective about bigotry. The link seemed unusually tenuous, based as it was on the fast and lose assumption that Giffords was shot because she was a leftwinger who favored immigration and healthcare reform. But apparently no smear is too tenuous to believe about prejudiced, bigoted White people, being the greedy stupid latent nazis we are, always looking for any excuse to vent our well-documented proclivity for vitriol, mob violence, lynching, gassing, etc.

The link came into better focus in Sunday’s news. Gabrielle Giffords shooting reignites row over rightwing rhetoric in US | World news | The Guardian:

The National Jewish Democratic Council – Giffords is the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Arizona – saw the attack as emanating from the polarised political debate: “It is fair to say – in today’s political climate, and given today’s political rhetoric – that many have contributed to the building levels of vitriol in our political discourse that have surely contributed to the atmosphere in which this event transpired.”

Giffords’s father was blunter. Asked if she had any enemies, he said: “Yeah, the whole Tea Party.”

“Rightwing rhetoric” is a codeword for “evil White speech”, because it’s clear the NJDC is not talking about jewish rhetoric. The full NJDC statement was even broader and blunter than Gifford’s father. Statement on the Attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords | NJDC Blog:

National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) Chair Marc R. Stanley and Vice-Chair Marc Winkelman today issued the following statment:

“NJDC’s leaders and members are stunned and horrified by the attack today on Gabby Giffords, Arizona’s first Jewish Congresswoman. Representative Giffords is a courageous and vibrant leader dedicated to advancing the causes and values we care so deeply about. Beyond being an advocate for health care reform and immigration reform, as well as the people of Arizona, she is our close friend. Gabby, those who were murdered and injured, and their families all remain in our thoughts and prayers.

The tragic attack on Representative Giffords, her staff, and citizens participating in the practice of democracy in Arizona is beyond reprehensible. One suspect, now in custody, may be directly responsible for this crime. But it is fair to say – in today’s political climate, and given today’s political rhetoric – that many have contributed to the building levels of vitriol in our political discourse that have surely contributed to the atmosphere in which this event transpired. Throughout the health care reform debate, we saw an ever-worsening level of political discourse – frequently pointing fingers at Democratic members of Congress who were supposedly directly threatening our country and our way of life. As elections approached, members of Congress increasingly received death threats, even as our public debate became more and more coarse.

As we learned in Israel through the tragic assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, words – and an eroding public discourse – can have profound consequences. The rhetoric of hate and anger must be banished from our political discourse before the next calamity takes place.

The loss of any life – and the injury of any American – is unacceptable. While we do not yet know exactly what motivated this deranged gunman, improving the tenor of our public debate can only help. It is up to us to act now. Nothing less than our democracy is at stake.”

Got that? The NJDC doesn’t know what motivated the shooting, but they know White political discourse equals vitriol and their desire to banish political discourse equals dedication to advancing their causes and values. They also know that jew does not equal White. Because if it did they would be silencing their own rhetoric of hate and anger.

Here’s the Jewish Daily Forward’s view of how well Giffords senses and serves jewish interests. Gabrielle Giffords Shot in the Head:

Giffords, 40, is a member of the powerful Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Science and Technology. A third-generation Arizonan, she is part of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions.

She is a vocal advocate for renewable energy, particularly solar energy, and has said improving security along the U.S.-Mexico border is among her top priorities. She is also a supporter of Israel, and is considered a safe pro-Israel vote in the House.

Giffords’ Jewish roots run deep. As the Forward reported back in 2006, her paternal grandfather, the son of a Lithuanian rabbi, was born Akiba Hornstein. He changed his name, first to Gifford Hornstien and later to Gifford Giffords, apparently to shield himself from anti-Semitism out West.

The congresswoman is the daughter of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother. In 2001, then a state senator, Giffords traveled to Israel on a trip sponsored by the American Jewish Committee. It was that trip, she said,, that solidified her connection to her Jewish roots and her commitment to living as a Jew.

“I was raised not to really talk about my religious beliefs,” Giffords said, in an interview with Jewish Woman magazine. ”Going to Israel was an experience that made me realize there were lots of people out there who shared my beliefs and values and spoke about them openly.”

Giffords is an active member of Congregation Chaverim, a Reform synagogue in Tucson, where she said Rabbi Stephanie Aaron is her spiritual mentor. She is also among five members of Congress to serve on United States Holocaust Memorial Council.

The two links embedded in the quote above drive home the significance jews attach to their identity, group awareness, and overrepresentation in politics. Note: none of this is bigotry until jewish political organizations see some bigot trying to practice democracy and engage in political discourse about it.

Giffords is 1st female Jew elected from Ariz.:

While Jews comprise roughly 2 percent of the U.S. population, they’re now at a record-high level of 8 percent in the 110th Congress, statistics provided by the National Jewish Democratic Council show.

Giffords, who attends Tucson’s Congregation Chaverim, is one of six freshman Jewish members in the U.S. House of Representatives, and one of 30 Jews with House seats. Thirteen of the U.S. Senate’s 100 seats are held by Jews.

Interview with Gabrielle Giffords:

The member of Congress from Arizona’s 8th District says her Jewish values have played an important part in shaping her philosophy.

Naturally Cathy Lynn Grossman, writing in her Faith & Reason column for USAToday, wondered if Giffords and her aide, Gabe Zimmerman, were targeted because they’re jewish. Sure, one of Loughner’s favorite books was Mein Kampf, but the real reason is Giffords’ strong jewish identity.

Again, the “global news service of the jewish people” was broader and blunter. Memo notes Giffords’ Judaism in motives of alleged attacker:

A U.S. Department of Homeland Security memo reportedly notes that Gabriel Giffords is Jewish in describing the motives of the Arizona congresswoman’s alleged assailant.

The memo, obtained by Fox News Channel, says that Jared Lee Loughner mentioned American Renaissance, an extremist anti-immigrant group, in some of his own postings.

“The group’s ideology is anti-government, anti-immigration, anti-ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti-Semitic,” says the memo sent to law enforcement, which also notes that Giffords, a Democrat, was the first Jewish congresswoman from Arizona.

The bigotry at American Renaissance runs so deep that they don’t accept the jewish premise that jews aren’t White. To prove the point, AmRen responded with that classic incriminating line, “some of our best friends are jews!”

The people who wrote and reported that FOX/DHS memo may have known this, or maybe they just think being anti-government and anti-immigration is close enough to “anti-semitism” for government work. Sure, jews were anti-government back in the sixties, full of angry vitriol about the White establishment. But that was good. It’s only “anti-semitism” if you say it was bad. Now that jews are so overrepresented in government, anti-government is bad and the government’s obsession with fighting “anti-semitism” is good.

To drive home just how unacceptable AmRen’s kind of bigotry and “anti-semitism” really is the “global news service of the jewish people” article included this gem about wise jewesses:

“If you want something done, your best bet is to ask a Jewish woman to do it,” Giffords, a former state senator, said at the time. “Jewish women — by our tradition and by the way we were raised — have an ability to cut through all the reasons why something should, shouldn’t or can’t be done, and pull people together to be successful.”

To be honest, “zionist occupied government” is a kind of joke. Jews can recite a million ways the government could better serve their interests, and only a fraction of those have anything to do with zionism. Sure, shootings prompt jews to round up and silence their enemies, but that’s just a dim echo of the glory days in the old Soviet Union, when “anti-semitism” was punishable by death.

Blog

Who Rules America

16 Comments

New York Vs. Washington: Whose Menorah Is Bigger? – The Shmooze – Forward.com, 2 Dec 2010:

Is a New York-Washington rivalry about to erupt over menorah size? While NY1 News is claiming Mayor Michael Bloomberg lit “the world’s largest menorah” to kick off Hanukkah in New York last night, some news sources are claiming the National Menorah on the White House Ellipse — ignited yesterday in a ceremony attended by a Jewish Obama Administration official — is, in fact, the biggest in the world.

Original image: National Chanukah Menorah lit in Washington – UPI.com.

Blog

Murdoch, Phillips, and Auster on What’s Best for “The Jews”

18 Comments

The Aim Is to Make Israel a Pariah:

Recently, Rupert Murdoch gave an extraordinary speech at an Anti-Defamation League dinner in which he revealed, yet again, that he is a true and selfless friend of the Jewish people and of Israel.

We live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews. For the first decades after Israel’s founding, this war was conventional in nature. The goal was straightforward: to use military force to overrun Israel. Well before the Berlin Wall came down, that approach had clearly failed.

Then came phase two: terrorism. Terrorists targeted Israelis both home and abroad – from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada. The terrorists continue to target Jews across the world. But they have not succeeded in bringing down the Israeli government – and they have not weakened Israeli resolve.

Now the war has entered a new phase. This is the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it. The battleground is everywhere: the media … multinational organizations … NGOs. In this war, the aim is to make Israel a pariah.

Tonight I’d like to speak about two things that worry me most. First is the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society – especially in Europe. Second is how violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally distancing herself from the Jewish state.

When Americans think of anti-Semitism, we tend to think of the vulgar caricatures and attacks of the first part of the 20th century.

Today it seems that the most virulent strains come from the left. Often this new anti-Semitism dresses itself up as legitimate disagreement with Israel.

Right now we have war. There are many people waging this war. Some blow up cafes. Some fire rockets into civilian areas. Some are pursuing nuclear arms. Some are fighting the soft war, through international boycotts and resolutions condemning Israel. All these people are watching the U.S.-Israeli relationship closely.

In this regard, I was pleased to hear the State Department’s spokesman clarify America’s position yesterday. He said that the United States recognizes “the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people.” This is an important message to send to the Middle East. When people see, for example, a Jewish prime minister treated badly by an American president, they see a more isolated Jewish state. That only encourages those who favor the gun over those who favor negotiation.

Ladies and gentlemen, back in 1937, a man named Vladimir Jabotinsky urged Britain to open up an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe. Only a Jewish homeland, he said, could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. In prophetic words, he described the problem this way: “It is not the anti-Semitism of men,” he said. “It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”

The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different. But these threats are real. These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.

Is Rupert Murdoch jewish? Does it matter? As we see here, he’s most concerned about the best interests of “the jews”. He’s pleased that the US government defends the “special nature” of Israelis, never mind that it attacks Whites for wanting anything similar. He sees Israelis and diaspora jews as one cosmic “the jews”, and he vividly imagines they need defending from “the inherent xenophobia” of Europeans and a nuclear Iran. He implies that Europeans and Iranians are of a single mind – hell-bent on Israel’s destruction.

As an aside, Jabotinsky was a jewish ethno-nationalist. He advocated jewish interests without pretending that they didn’t conflict with European interests. The ADL’s role has been to convince Americans and Europeans to think of jewish ethno-nationalism as wholesome and normal, while White ethno-nationalism is pathological and evil.

In language that is familiar to anyone who has been exposed in any way to contemporary mainstream Western media, academia, or politics, Murdoch paints jews as the eternally innocent victims of moral and mental defectives “warring” on them. His description of “threats … soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II” calls up decades of guilt-tripping and brain-washing. Despite the loud and constant self-pity of wealthy, powerful jews and their wealthy, powerful friends their self-serving manipulations only highlight the anti-White/pro-jewish regime which reigns across the Eurosphere today. Pity for supposedly oppressed “minorities”, jews first and foremost, has been used to justify anti-White “civil rights”, massive transfers of wealth, and genocidal levels of immigration by hyper-fecund non-Whites. If Whites lend a hand to protect anybody, it should be to protect ourselves.

Zionist jewess Melanie Phillips makes her living lecturing others, primarily via British media, about what they should consider wrong, bad, immoral and insane. Very often her lectures revolve around the interests of “the jews”. Phillips referred to Murdoch’s speech in an op-ed grandiosely titled The war for civilisation:

Well at least one man gets it.

Rupert Murdoch has made a direct, to-the-point, ambiguity-free speech about the anti-Israel, anti-Jew frenzy now consuming the west.

It is a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time.

Phillips is accustomed to rebuking the world. As an example of “our” time, Phillips cites Adrian Hamilton’s Israel has no future as a purely Jewish state criticizing a new Israeli “loyalty oath”. Right after telling us how special and important “the jews” and Israel are Phillips insists this oath is really no different than “Britain is British, France French and so on”.

Hamilton says nothing about Israel that hasn’t been aimed at Whites and our countries a million times before, often by jews, and usually in more strident terms. Ideas like “Britain is British, France French” are viciously attacked, from within, and in such cases the voices of naive literal anti-“racists”, like Hamilton, who mistakenly regard jews as equals, are dwarfed and drowned out by the anti-White bigotry flowing from chauvinist jews and jewish organizations who operate under no delusions of equality. There is, to use the terminology of Murdoch and Phillips, a war on Britons. “The jews” are on the other side. Melanie Phillips is with them. When she writes negatively about muslims it’s because she thinks they’re doing something bad for “the jews”. When she denounces those who want Britain to remain British she does so for the same reason.

Just as Murdoch does, Phillips only mentions muslim/arab hostility toward jews in passing. It is plain to see that they both consider the real enemy, the people they are most concerned about waging “war” on “the jews”, to be White/European. This is why Murdoch and Phillips both completely ignore anti-White bigotry. To acknowledge it would require an examination of jewish culpability. In their minds “the jews” are above reproach, special people in one special country who are treated especially bad, especially by Whites. As Phillips writes:

Within the west, it is also the ever-more brazenly explicit reason for the campaign of delegitimisation being waged against Israel. Israel is the one and only country in the world whose right to exist is being questioned. And that of course is the point of Hamilton’s little tirade.

To make his case that Europeans are waging an ongoing “war” against “the jews” Murdoch cited Karel De Gucht, an EU bureaucrat. Phillips makes her case by citing Hamilton, an opinion shaper like herself, reading his mind and putting words in his mouth to write a little tirade of her own:

So what Hamilton wants is for Israel no longer to be.

Phillips concludes by abruptly broadening her fears and smears, naming the crime and the criminals:

Thus the ‘progressive’ western intelligentsia make themselves potential accomplices to genocide.

Self-styled jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster likes to write scolding letters. He addressed one to Melanie Phillips about her remarks on Murdoch, taking the judeo-centrism to an even more bizarre level. Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews? (Auster’s emphasis):

Below is an e-mail I sent today to Melanie Phillips, followed by her reply. You will see from her reply why I felt at liberty to post the exchange, which I had no thought of doing when I wrote to her.

I’m sorry to bother you. I know you don’t want to hear my thoughts. But I must say this to you and I hope you will give the 90 seconds it will take you to read this e-mail.

When you say of Rupert Murdoch’s speech on anti-Semitism that it is “a rebuke to the world on the single most important and defining issue of our time,” you are making a big mistake. Is the threat to the Jews a bigger problem than the Islamization of the entire West? When you call anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism the “most important and defining issue of our time,” you are coming across like a typically Judeo-centric Jew who thinks that the Jews are the most important thing in the world. Instead of being concerned first and foremost about the West, you are concerned first and foremost about the Jews. And this supports the anti-Semitic view of Jews, that Jews are not at bottom loyal to the West, but only loyal to the Jews.

I have spent a significant part of my time battling against the anti-Semites on the American paleoconservative and white nationalist right. The fuel that drives the anti-Semites is their belief that Jews are not on the side of the West, that Jews are using the West to advance and protect Jewish interests. You seem to have no idea of how the inordinate Judeo-centrism of your statement would make you appear to others.

I respectfully ask you to ask yourself if it’s really true that anti-Semitism is the “single most important and defining issue of our time,” and whether you are being helpful to the Jews, helpful to Israel, and helpful to the West [Tanstaafl: note the order], when you make the protection of the Jews and Israel the supreme issue of the world.

Lawrence Auster

Melanie Phillips replied:

The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the west’s repudiation of its own culture (b) the animus against the Jews lies at the core of the Islamic threat against the west and (c) if Israel goes down, the west goes down. Your message is typically as ignorant as it is offensive.

Melanie

What Auster is saying here is, “Hey, it would better advance and protect jewish interests if you would just pretend you cared about the goyim.” “No”, Phillips responds, “Can’t do that.” Their disagreement concerns the significance of “the war against ‘the jews'”, or rather, the significance it should be accorded in public discussions. The “war” itself is taken for granted.

“The war against ‘the jews'” and what Auster calls the effort “to advance and protect jewish interests” are of course two sides of the same coin. The latter can be seen as “the war against those ‘the jews’ accuse of warring against ‘the jews'”, or more simply, “the war to advance and protect jewish interests”.

We’re reminded again that muslims play only a supporting role in this “war”. Phillips’ typically judeo-centric view is that “the Islamic threat against the west” is just one aspect of “animus against ‘the jews'”. Auster’s typically judeo-centric view is that Phillips’ public assertion that “the Islamization of the entire West” is most important because it is bad for “the jews” is itself bad for “the jews”.

Auster brags of his efforts to war on Whites who refuse jewish dominance and he accuses Phillips of making his self-appointed job harder. In doing so Auster concedes more clearly than ever before a point he has long danced around. He does indeed spend a significant part of his time battling White conservatives and nationalists, and clearly he does so because he favors jews and jewish interests more than anything else. See Lawrence Auster, Champion of “The Jews” for more on this point.

Auster takes for granted, de Gucht-style, that ethnocentrism is typical of jews, though he argues it should be masked to best advance their interests. Auster sees Phillips’ approach as too brazen, not wrong. Both cloak their pursuit of what’s good for jews inside a putative defense of the West, or as Auster puts it, “using the West to advance and protect jewish interests”. Auster differs from Phillips largely in his willingness to cultivate his pose as a champion of the West by grappling with the symptoms of the anti-White regime. He even discusses the jewish role in it, though not to worry, it’s only because he thinks it’s bad for “the jews”.

After Auster shares their private email exchange, a critique of Phillips ensues. Much of it applies just as well to Auster:

Jeff in England writes:

Subject: THE BIG BANG(er)

I had to laugh at your latest attempt to get Melanie to become a serious thinker on the primacy of the Islamic threat (vs. the Jewish persecution issue), let alone any issue.

Melanie is NOT a thinker as such, rather she is a “banger.” She simply bangs on (as they say here) with extremely focused robotic-like wordage her limited set of views where Jewish persecution is the permanent never changing number one on her list. The possibility that any issue can threaten the number one status of the Jewish (and Israeli) persecution issue is well beyond her limited intellectual scope.

LA replies:

Jeff’s view of Melanie is very like my own. Before I received his e-mail, I had it in my head to write a comment saying that Melanie has a sharp intelligence, but it is one-dimensional. She focuses only on the things she is attacking, and never reflects on her own positions and thought processes. Anything that lies outside her limited world view is simply wrong and therefore ignorant.

However, Jeff’s rougher way of putting the same idea makes the point better: she’s not a thinker, she’s a banger.

You can’t help but wonder, how does someone get to her late fifties, a successful writer, and still be so primitive and unthinking in her dealings with people?

LA replies:

However, these reflections on Melanie Phillips’s stunning limitations–she’s not called “Mad Mel” for nothing–also make her less useful as an example of some typical Jewish attitude. She’s too extreme a personality to be typical.

Here begins a repeat of a well-worn Auster pattern. A dollop of heresy about “the jews”, in this case their over-the-top judeo-centrism, followed by some talmudic hair-splitting about the meaning of it all, followed inevitably by a shift in focus to some vaguely defined non-jewish scapegoat – “the liberals”, “the anti-semites”, “the majority”, … Here the pattern unfolds once again when Auster confides his thoughts about “the war against ‘the jews'” and who, ultimately, he, Phillips, and Murdoch hold accountable:

LA replies:

. . .

I would say that the war against the Jews is a very grave problem and a threat not only to Jews but to our civilization., But to say that it is at the fulcrum of the West’s repudiation of its own culture is going too far. The West’s repudiation of its own culture has many motivations and components that have nothing to do with the Jews, and it would be happening even if there were no Jews.

That last sentence is an absurd assertion, and Auster knows it, pointing as he does to an older article where he attacks Pat Buchanan and writes: “If the West abandons Israel to a Second Holocaust at the hands of Islamic extremists, that will be an act of collective moral suicide–the true Death of the West.” In other words, “our” “suicide” hinges on “the jews”. To make the point Auster invokes the very same decades of jew-favoring guilt-tripping and brain-washing Murdoch invokes, which is exactly what’s fueling the “suicide”. Hiding in plain sight. “Go ahead”, the jewish warrior says, “point out that it isn’t suicide, jew-hater.”

To drive home that “the jews” are blameless two days later Auster posted a related entry, An interesting view of the Jewish problem:

John Gay writes from Canada:

With respect, it seems to me that both you and Melanie Phillips are missing the point in your aborted exchange about the Jews.

You ask, “Is cosmic Judeo-centrism good for the Jews?” Many Jews certainly don’t like being the focus of the inordinate historical attention focused on their small nation, and many have been murdered for it. But this is the fate of being a Jew, a carrier, or sign, of a revelation of great historical significance. A “Jew” is not simply whatever he is, as an actual person in daily life. And if one day the enemies of the Jews succeed in killing off all the Jews, they will still have a need for “Jews” and they will find them under one name or another, within one resentful conspiracy theory or another, because their identities depend, at their very core, on having “Jews” to resent.

In other words, what Melanie P. is talking about, it seems to me, is the anthropological and historical significance of anti-Semitism, something that transcends the actual lives of Jews, their DNA, and mundane or selfish interests. The “cosmic” significance of the Jew is the anthropological revelation that a loving God who wishes to allow humanity to discover the creative, nation-defining, “republican,” self-ruling possibilities of covenant must offer the choice first to one particular nation, and not to all humanity at once. Someone has to go first; a universal truth can only be revealed from a particular historical vantage point. But it is just this reality that the anti-Semite resents–that he is second, or third, to “discover” some profound existential truth, such as that one and all are in relationship with the one God of monotheism. The anti-Semite resents the creativity, the “firstness,” on which all productive nation building depends (which is not to say that such creativity is necessarily closed to him, but his resentment will often become trapped in a desire for conformity to some already-established relationship to what we signify as sacred or divine, such as the supposedly eternal, and uncreated, cosmically original, Koran).

So, leaving aside the personal animus, I read Melanie’s response to you thus:

“The war against the Jews is the single biggest and defining issue of our time because (a) it stands at the fulcrum of the West’s repudiation of its own culture.”

– Yes, even if all Jews are killed, the war may continue as long as some Western nation takes up the mantle of “Israel.” But when no one plays “Israel,” the war is truly lost. Again, the war against the Jews is not so much against actual persons, though it certainly threatens first and foremost actual Jews, who are the most obvious “Jews,” as it is against what Israel represents in the Western tradition as the first and exemplary nation.

So let’s review.

Plutocrat media mogul Rupert Murdoch pays obsequious homage to “the jews” while accepting an award from a very real, very powerful jewish organization dedicated to defending and promoting specifically jewish interests. In doing so Murdoch makes the extraordinary implication that Europeans are waging a “war” against “the jews”. Professional jewish bigot Melanie Phillips applauds, clarifies, and extends this idea, asserting that the “war” is essentially the European rejection of the validity of “the jews” as the center, the crux, the “most important” part of “our” culture. Jewish fifth-columnist Lawrence Auster adds White American conservatives and nationalists to the enemies list, but insists that “the jews” have nothing to do with it. The “war” against “the jews” is all about Whites killing ourselves. Whites are so crazy with suicidal “the jew”-hate that we’d mistake eskimos for “the jews” if there weren’t any “actual” cosmic “the jews” to pick on.

One thing that’s clear from all this double-talk is that the very people most obsessed with the interests of “the jews” will not acknowledge that anyone else has any interests. In their minds “the jews” are most important. They aren’t shy about letting everyone know this, or lecturing everyone that we too must at least behave as if we accept it. They fret and exaggerate and generalize. They feel free to babble on about a “war” against “the jews” waged by Whites, and when they really work themselves into a froth it’s the whole world against “the jews”. It’s a dishonest way of excusing the arrogance and aggression directed in the opposite direction. To listen to “the jews” it’s all about what’s good for “us” and “our” interests, at least until the mask comes off and all that nonsense gets overridden by whatever they think is good for “the jews”. Any concern for interests explicitly or even implicitly distinct from “the jews” causes an allergic reaction in “the jews”. The reaction is so universal, so strong, that it grips even those who usually present themselves as defenders of abstract White collectives, whether it’s Britain, America, the West, or “our civilization”. With their own judeo-centric moralizing however these poseurs consistently demonstrate that their very highest loyalty is to the collective they call “the jews”.

For more about Auster on “the jews” see Two “Conservative” Jews, Same “Liberal” Dissembling, The First Law of Jewish Influence, Triangulating From the Right, and Suicide vs. Competition.

Blog

Jeet Heer, Afraid of Nazis

30 Comments

In my recent post about Sobran I linked Jeet Heer’s Joseph Sobran: Far Worse than a Holocaust Skeptic. I left a few critical comments there which were greeted by Heer and his peanut gallery with the usual dehumanizing and intolerant attitude jews and their sympathizers so typically project onto others.

To Heer’s credit, he let my comments stand. Last night I made a lengthy response to another comment and it got stuck in the moderation queue. Six hours later Heer announced that he was tired of letting “nazis” say “nazi” things and therefore, ACHTUNG!, he was closing the comments. I don’t expect Heer will let my last remark through, so I’m posting it here instead. For context I encourage you to first read Heer’s attack on Sobran and the thread of responses that followed.

PuffsPlus writes:

For those of you who don’t know, Tanstaafl is a blogger who wants a white-only ethnostate that excludes anyone with Jewish DNA. That would include his kids, because his wife’s father was a Jewish convert, IIRC. So Tanstaafl’s unreasonable hatred of Jews extends to the point of dreaming of a white-only country that would exclude his own children. Chew on that for a moment.

I realize I’m among enemies here, but I’m still chagrined to find such intellects overlooking the link in my name, and now acting like they’ve unmasked a stealthy boogeyman. Those who want something more than gossip and innuendo can chew on what I’ve actually written and decide for themselves if it’s unreasonable:

Of Whites, by Whites, and for Whites

A Personal Disclosure

It pleasures me to point out to my own kind (passing by or lurking here) the dishonesty of jewish partisans when facing non-jewish partisans. Regarding exclusion, my kids and I are excluded from Israel. Jewish hypocrisy rankles, but the exclusion from Israel not at all. You’d think those alienated by Whites would, of their own volition, not want to live among us. But no, the truth is they panic at the thought of being removed from their host. Claws and fangs come out because they much prefer to neutralize our partisans in order to lord over the rest. It reflects the jewish tendency toward totalitarianism which fully bloomed most recently and catastrophically as bolshevism. More recently it manifests as orwellian language, political correctness, and the criminalization of “hate”, all while they project their own control-freak nature onto “nazis”. As Chomsky put it, 98% control just isn’t enough.

I see the norm here is to make grade school cases that rest on, for example, Sobran being “a fellow traveller to Nazism” and a “white nationalist defense of Sobran is far more damning”. Never mind that Sobran’s “nazism” is no more than the allergic reaction he causes jews, or the chauvinist jewish premise, unspoken and undefended, that Whites must not have what jews have (White nationalism) because it’s bad for jews. The attack on Sobran and response to my counterpoints amounts to the presumption that anyone who will not accept that jewish interests outweigh their own is a heretic. Yes, such heresy is literally unthinkable for most jews, and most would make it unspeakable as well. No so the rest of us. So I ask again Heer, are you a jew, or a useful idiot?

The sad fact is that jew-firsters will have to keep repressing the rest of us, or get far away from us. I think the main reason more diaspora jews don’t opt for the latter (beside not wanting to live among their own kind) is because they suspect when the lid comes off the precedents set by the Nuremberg trials and the later worldwide manhunts may repeat. As David Sachs worries, he and every jew he knows would all be forced (by “anti-semites” of course) to leap to every other jew’s defense. The one thing that is virtually certain, evident in a millenia-long pattern, is that jews will continue to blame whatever goes wrong entirely on everybody else, especially those who reject their authority.

I went to Heer’s latest post, Coren and Conservative Revisionism (wherein he denounces “conservative revisionism” as a defense of “nazism” and “fascism”) and left another comment:

A comment of mine on the Sobran thread has been stuck in the moderation queue since six hours before you declared it closed.

Speaking of fascism, I’m wondering if you’re going to let it through, or delete it.

I then read his post and watched the Michael Coren Show video he linked, to which I made the following comment:

Regarding the video you linked, the earnest disagreement about Vietnam-era US military demographics was interesting. Apparently, in cases like this, it’s acceptable and important to argue about who was overrepresented, even though the whole enterprise is long past. What makes this part of the discussion so interesting is how it is interwoven with a non-debate of jewish overrepresentation in media today. Discussion of that disparity ended almost before it began, caricaturized and dismissed by Gordon as a “standard anti-semitic myth” that’s “boring”, and ultimately transformed by Coren into a red herring about how two jews can be counted on to have three opinions.

The point is that in the current mainstream media environment jews are free to argue out loud and at length about what’s good for jews. Meanwhile, anyone who complains about this, or who tries to discuss what’s good for their group (especially Whites), is pathologized and excluded with terminology such as “kook”, “nazi”, “fascist”, “racist”, “nativist”, “xenophobe”, “anti-semite”, “denier”, “minimizer”, “revisionist”, etc.

Whether this situation arises as a consequence of jewish disparities in ownership, control, employment, or just naive goyim favoritism for jews is really beside the point. The point is that there is a clear double-standard in how Whites and jews are treated – jews and their concerns strongly favored, Whites and our concerns strongly disfavored. This is no myth. Nor is it boring. But it is perfectly understandable why jews and their supporters try to deny or minimize it.

Upon posting this I noticed that my previous comment had been deleted. A few minutes later this last comment disappeared as well.

It’s telling that reasoned and on-topic comments are deleted by someone who so hates “nazism” and “fascism”. It’s not pigeon-holing enemies or squelching dissent that disturbs Heer. He’s a comic fanboy and culture critic. In those very jewish worlds dehumanization and censorship are only crimes when it happens to the nazi-fighting good-guys. Naturally I wonder if Heer is some kind of desi-jew. If not, then I wonder if he’s ever wondered just how steeped in jewish thought he is.

Curiously, Heer has been critical of zionism and neocons, writing things like Israel’s creation: Ethnic cleansing by any other name, The Jewish state and its enablers, and Operation Anglosphere. Perhaps he’s trying to compensate for this by pathologizing other people’s criticism of jews.

In Heer’s Anglosphere piece he attaches significance to where someone is born. Why then his hostility to the notion that an identity conveyed by genes and upbringing can have significance? Is it only jewish identity which is exempt, or exempt from critique? He’s not squeamish about attaching significance to “anti-semitism” and “nazism”. What’s that? Where does it come from? He doesn’t seem to care. He uses the words as if they’re magic.

Maybe he’ll drop by and clear up some of these questions. Based on his lame response to challenges at his own blog, I doubt it.

Blog

Tag Teaming Media Ownership

1 Comment

Newsweek Losses Revealed – The Daily Beast, 3 Aug 2010:

Yesterday’s purchase of a 77-year-old magazine, Newsweek, by a 91-year-old audio magnate, Sidney Harman, had all the makings of a feel-good story, even as editor Jon Meacham announced his departure. A venerable media franchise rescued from an uncertain future by someone who loves the printed word—Harman is the author of two books and has said that writing “enables the process of self-discovery”—and considers Newsweek a “national treasure.”

But make no mistake, Harman’s pocket change purchase of Newsweek—he paid $1, plus the assumption of liabilities for the magazine—has to be a passion play, because it certainly isn’t a financial one. The Daily Beast has obtained a copy of the 66-page sales memorandum that the Newsweek seller, the Washington Post Co., gave to prospective buyers, and it paints a picture of a media property given to someone unequipped to fundamentally change the current trajectory.

As with many weeklies, Newsweek’s financial freefall is jarring. Revenue dropped 38 percent between 2007 and 2009, to $165 million. Newsweek’s negligible operating loss (not including certain pension and early retirement changes) of $3 million in 2007 turned into a bloodbath: the business lost $32 million in 2008 and $39.5 million in 2009. Even after reducing headcount by 33 percent, and slashing the number of issues printed and distributed to readers each week, from 2.6 million to 1.5 million, the 2010 operating loss is still forecast at $20 million.

In fairness to Harman, many moguls, from Si Newhouse (The New Yorker) to David Bradley (The Atlantic) have had the patience to see their money-losing gems all the way into the black. But the print media outlook has never been worse—and even billionaires tire of losing money. For every Newhouse and Bradley, there are currently two Sam Zells, who had employees of the Tribune Company rejoicing about their good fortune in finding a benefactor willing to sustain millions of dollars in losses to protect journalism’s standing as a public trust.

Not unlike Harman, Zell, too, promised minimal layoffs and a commitment to finding a business model that worked, Zell’s tune quickly changed after realizing the realities of today’s printed media world, however, and multiple rounds of layoffs and an eventual bankruptcy proceeding are the legacy his Tribune purchase left behind.

Those are the kind of realities that prompted Fred Drasner, the former CEO of Daily News and US News and World Report who also bid on Newsweek, to sum up Harman’s $1 acquisition this way: “I think he paid a very full price.”

Sidney Harman buys Newsweek – POLITICO.com, 2 Aug 2010:

Graham personally chose Harman from among several well-heeled bidders, in part because he would provide the most continuity for the magazine, according to the sources.

The other two finalists were New Yorkers: Marc Lasry, an influential Democratic donor who heads Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund where Chelsea Clinton worked; and Fred Drasner, former part owner of the Washington Redskins and former co-publisher of the New York Daily News.

Graham felt comfortable with Harman’s centrist politics, and was comforted by the idea of selling to a stalwart of the Washington establishment. Harman is expected to preserve the serious-minded, essentially New-Democratic tone Meacham set for the magazine.

From this friendly spin you’d think all these cold calculators want to own businesses that lose tens of millions annually because they’re soft-headed “philanthropists” who just love “journalism”, not because they’ve coldly calculated that media outlets provide them a political megaphone with which to tell the masses how and what to think.

Democracy is the theory that you have as much power and influence as plutocratic moguls like Harman, Newhouse, Bradley, Zell, Drasner, Lasry, …

The Washington Post Company Agrees to Sell NEWSWEEK to Sidney Harman – Newsweek, 2 Aug 2010:

Asked why he wanted to purchase NEWSWEEK, Harman, in a brief interview, said he saw it as an “opportunity to synthesize all of that experience [in industry, education, and government]. I couldn’t pass it up.”

He added, “I did not and do not think of this in traditional business terms. The purpose of the investment is to provide fuel for the transition of the magazine in its current position into a thriving operation in the print, mobile, and digital worlds … I’ll consider it a victory when it breaks even. Breaking even is a big deal.”

Harman’s wife, Jane Harman, is a member of Congress representing California’s 36th Congressional district in Los Angeles’s South Bay area, since 1993. She is chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence & Terrorism Risk Assessment, and is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where she sits on the Health and Energy & Environment Subcommittees.

CQ Politics | Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Discussing Aid for AIPAC Defendants, 19 April 2009:

Rep. Jane Harman , a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“It’s the deepest kind of corruption,” said one of the sources, a recently retired law enforcement official who was involved in the AIPAC investigation. “It’s a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption.”

Spy Story: Harman, Saban, and AIPAC | The Nation, 20 April 2009:

Who was Harman talking to when she was caught on tape by the NSA? Stein says she was speaking to a suspected “Israeli agent.” The Jewish Telegraph Agency suggests — as did earlier reports, in 2006, when the story first broke — that the person lobbying Harman to intervene in the AIPAC case was Haim Saban, a top Democratic fundraiser:

Similar reports surfaced in October 2006, just prior to the midterm elections. Those reports named the Israeli “agent” as Haim Saban, the Israeli-American entertainment magnate who is a major donor to the Democratic Party and to AIPAC.

Federal prosecutors eventually abandoned the espionage-law case against AIPACers Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. The non-jew involved, Lawrence Franklin, got 12 years.

Who Rules America?