November 14, 2011

Bad Rachel: How neocons really feel

A reader notices that an old acquaintance from decades ago now has her own blog: Bad Rachel. A fairly representative post is here.

Rachel Abrams of the Weekly Standard is the daughter of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, and half-sister of John Podhoretz.

Her husband Elliott Abrams was, according to his biography at the Council of Foreign Relations where he now hangs his hat, "Former senior director for democracy and human rights, senior director for the Near East, and deputy national security adviser handling Middle East affairs in the George W. Bush administration."

In other words, Rachel Abrams is a diplomat's wife. A diplomat assigned, presumably, to bringing peace and reconciliation to the Middle East.

Mrs. Abrams, however, gives us the less diplomatic version of the family feud.

I always wondered about Bush putting Elliott Abrams in charge of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Do you think it was at all possible that people in other countries thought that Mr. Abrams, during his Bush Administration career in charge of Middle Eastern diplomacy, was something less than a completely fair-minded neutral facilitator? Perhaps something Mrs. Abrams said at diplomatic cocktail parties might have given the rest of the world reason to doubt the good faith of Mr. Abrams

Of course, if other diplomats ever did doubt the objectivity of Mr. and Mrs. Abrams, that would just prove they're hateful bigots and probably should get cruise-missiled. (We're looking at you, Luxembourg.)

By the way, a commenter has asserted that Midge Decter is the original for fussbudget Lucy van Pelt in Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts cartoons. Is there any truth to that?

100 comments:

dearieme said...

Oh God, here comes comments full of tedious, stupid, antisemitic crap. I suppose intelligent antisemitism might exist in principle but it doesn't seem to exist in practice.

mesocon said...

She didn't inherit much of Norm's literary ability. I first perceived this semi-intellectual's squawkings during the WP ombudsman dust-up (the identity of the relevant AIPAC yenta who instigated the pseudo-fuss is, I trust, no surprise to anyone) and which presumably is why you're blogrolling Abrams atm, a week after the crossfire died down. Anyway isn't it awfully early on the West Coast for you to be posting on such matters?

George said...

Joe Biden is listed as a contributor. Yikes!

another matt said...

iSteve is a daily must-read for me, but not because of posts like this. What am I supposed to learn or notice? Conventional neo-con lady has a personal blog, says all the things that neo-cons say in print on it, posts a picture of herself being fifty.

I am racking my mind to think of anything less interesting.

Also, LOL at neocons needing somewhere semi-private to "post what they really feel." They've created a cultural situation where their prejudices are the only socially acceptable ones. They can (and do!) publicize everything they feel, anywhere they want.

Black Death said...

If she's as outspoken in person as she is on her blog, it must lead to some interesting family gettogethers.

Anonymous said...

Huh??

Anonymous said...

???

Is the point supposed to be that [by way of comparison with her husband] she's a much less abashed, much less subtle Jewish chauviniste?

???





PS: This blogger/blogspot software [both at your site, and at hers] is becoming almost unusable - it can take upwards of 60 seconds to load and render a basic "homepage" - even on a dualcore processor.

I assume that that's because the good folks at Google are tracking so much of our behavior [and setting and analyzing so many cookie values] that it's overwhelming even their server farm infrastructure.

F*** them.

Anonymous said...

I've gotten the impression that Jews, and perhaps Asians, are relatively underrepresented in OWS. Perhaps they realize that they are over represented in the 1%. Probably they are worried that the 99% will notice and ask why.

Something in common with the Tea Party.
Robert Hume

MQ said...

She is a nasty piece of work.

Lara said...

If Rachel was my ex I'd probably be embarrassed about it. Based on the little I read she seems crazy as well as very weird.

Simon in London said...

She seems like a nice Jewish girl. >:)

SFG said...

Now you know why there's so much intermarriage.

Anonymous said...

"GILAD!!!!!!!!!!

He’s free and he’s home in the bosom of his family and his country.

Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you.

Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose."


appropriately vindictive for a people who worship a jealous god. man creates god in his image, or, the style is in the genes.

Bantam said...

Another fine member of the same clique is nicely portrayed here.

Chicago said...

She expresses her gratitude for the veterans who have served in our recent wars, thousands of whom have been killed and many more thousands who have been blinded, paralyzed, become amputees and mental cases. Neither she nor any member of her family would ever lower themselves to actually taking any risks of their own in that way. They do their fighting in print and on blogs; it's so much safer. Where is the next place that the troops for whom she is so grateful be sent, in her indispensable opinion ?

Anonymous said...

They are all Jews those neoconservatives. They want America to fight wars for Israel's benefit.

Anonymous said...

So basically they are just Israeli nationalists. Nothing surprising there, but this blog makes the neo-con national/racial allegiance all too clear.

Grumpy Old Man said...

The woman's got some literary background and is occasionally witty.

She's also barking mad.

Anonymous said...

The Jewess on the Palestinians:

" the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose. "

May be she means all the goyim?

Anonymous said...

Heavens, she's thanking the troops! Eek! What a monster!

Anonymous said...

Steve, come on.. This is clearly a neo-nazi con job.

Maciano

Matra said...

From Oct 23 on the release of Gilad Shalit following a prisoner exchange she writes:

Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you.

Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.


It's a good thing the neocons purged all those intolerant, knuckle-dragging paleos from the Right otherwise the paleos would've discredited conservatism.

Anonymous said...

Ugh.

Anonymous said...

Rachel Abrams of the Weekly Standard is the daughter of Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter, and half-sister of John Podhoretz. Her husband Elliott Abrams ....


Neoconservatism seems to be a lot like the Ayn Rand movement, which was also "all in the family".

DCThrowback said...

This post is especially abhorrent:

http://badrachel.blogspot.com/2011/10/gilad.html

Ye gods. Well, at least you know where she stands.

Anonymous said...

I think Whiskey just fell in love.

Anonymous said...

I've gotten the impression that Jews, and perhaps Asians, are relatively underrepresented in OWS.

Actually there are lots of Jews in OWS, including many leading figures.

Whiskey said...

Ace of Spades has a post in which 100% of rapes with identified attackers in Oslo are ... Muslim! And the Muslim men caught justify it by ... the Koran.

Muslims are, quite simply, an awful people. One Imam in Pakistan said he had "tears of joy" upon learning a Christian woman in Pakistan had been stoned to death for "blaspheming." Iran plans to (if it has not already done so) to hang a convert to Christianity (they usually also hang the entire family). Islam mandates the death penalty for conversion away from Islam. Muslims forbid dogs, pork, booze, and scantily clad women not just to themselves but everyone everywhere. [Making life not worth living.]

I don't live in Israel, I'm not Jewish (I don't want to see them vanish though, there are not many Jews and far too many Muslims). But Muslims are MY enemy because they wish to dominate me and tell me how to live my own life in my own lands. Muslims object to Christmas -- in this country. Along with everything else. They are an awful people, a threat to Europe, and if anything Rachel is too kind on them.

Muslims have brought nothing good in this world and (because of polygamy, cousin marriage, and jihad) act like a bottle filled with scorpions.

anony-mouse said...

I don't check the blogs of ex-girlfriends I've had even just years ago.

I guess that means I'm weird.

Somehow there's a greek letter I'm thinking of and it sure ain't the first one.

Anonymous said...

Gotta agree with the readers saying "What's the point?" I went through an extended neocon phase after 9-11-01 when I discovered blogs like Little Green Footballs. So this is pretty old hat to me.

SGOTI said...

"I think Whiskey just fell in love."

I think you owe me a new keyboard!

Damn that coffee burned coming out my Scots-Irish nose. LMFAO.

Anonymous said...

Muslims forbid dogs, pork, booze, and scantily clad women not just to themselves but everyone everywhere. [Making life not worth living.]

Booze and scantily clad women were things that many Protestants lived without until relatively recently. Did they live lives not worth living?

Anonymous said...

I suppose intelligent antisemitism might exist in principle but it doesn't seem to exist in practice.


I suppose intelligent anti-antisemitism might exist in principle but it doesn't seem to exist in practice. In practice any and all commentary about Jews, no matter how factual and grounded in reality, is instantly dubbed "anti-Semitic".

Anonymous said...

But Muslims are MY enemy because they wish to dominate me and tell me how to live my own life in my own lands.

What about the neocons? They seem to want to dominate us and tell us how to live and what policies to follow. Does that make them your enemy? Or is it that you're not against domination per se, you just prefer some forms of domination over others, such as neocon domination over Muslim domination? If it's the latter, you should just say so, instead of pretending to be some perfectly neutral, impartial person against all forms of domination.

Anonymous said...

iSteve is a daily must-read for me, but not because of posts like this. What am I supposed to learn or notice? Conventional neo-con lady has a personal blog, says all the things that neo-cons say in print on it, posts a picture of herself being fifty



You're supposed to notice that neoconservatism is less an intellectual movement than a partly inbred family.

I recall reading a description of neoconservatism back in the seventies, when the neocons were just getting started. It said something to the effect that neoconservatism was the sole property of a couple of interrelated Jewish families on the Upper West side of Manhattan.

I don't know about their geographical location but the modern neocons remain a tight-knit tribe.

Anonymous said...

ftr, some of those neo-connettes are teh hawtness [eg pamela geller is welcome to get all hot-n-sweaty with this filthy shegetz].

also enjoy the 'girls of the idf' war pr0n.

Bourbon said...

Steve, I don't get what is the issue here. Obviously, she is just a rambunctious Scotch-Irish lass who is passionate about national security. You need to understand, Steve, that we Scotch-Irish are "Born Fighting" and from time to time our tempers get out of control. If anything, I applaud Rachel for her restraint in assessing the Middle Eastern geopolitical situation, as well as her good looks.

Sometimes the Scotch-Irish blood that flows in my veins like a raging river gets the best of me, too. But that's just because I'm consumed by my deep, consuming love for Israe...er, America!

In any case, Steve, you and your naive, child-like paleocon BETA buddies won't be laughing when the nuclear-armed Iranian speedboat armada lands in the Port of Los Angeles to liberate American women from their BETA husbands. BETA.

(The preceding is a Whiskey parody and not meant to be taken seriously. All inaccuracies are intentional.)

Anonymous said...

This is off-topic for this post, but never really off-topic for this site.

No one should miss today's top story in the student newspaper at Cornell - financial aid + a new admin position for illegal students.

http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2011/11/14/new-aid-policy-may-hurt-undocumented-students

Anonymous said...

You're supposed to notice that neoconservatism is less an intellectual movement than a partly inbred family.

Neoconservatism is basically another word for xenocracy.

Anonymous said...

also enjoy the 'girls of the idf' war pr0n.

Sigh.

There's nothing on God's green earth that is quite like the sight of a chick with a gun.

[Which, Coach Sandusky, is not to be confused with a tranny.]

Anonymous said...

I suppose intelligent antisemitism might exist
"Antisemitism is hating jews more than you have to" HL Menken.

Man De Novo said...

Haha - I for one LOVE that post you linked. Godwin's Law anyone? Still, it pretty well captures my own non-objective feelings about those other Semites, if in a highly exaggerated form. If only her friends and relatives believed in the socially beneficial effects of saying how you really feel - loudly and publicly. I'd like to imagine that world - a world where neocons start to develop some real sympathy for actual American conservatives. Sadly I stopped attending shul a long time ago and can't be relied on to start the trend...

Anonymous said...

So the horrible, skirt-clutching-inducing post of hers that proves neocons are dangerous is where...

...she says terrorists should be killed.

OK, Steve. We get it. You have a huge blind spot about Jews. You're the Bobby Fischer of the blogging world. Can you tag these glimpses of insanity so I can skip them and read stuff about HBD? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I don't care to defend here but I do care to attack the imbecility inherent in those who have a problem (other than grammatical) with her description of those Jordgyptians that Israel released as well as those who kidnapped Gilad in order to gain those prisoners release and those who celebrated their release.

The Palestinian death cult is scarier than whatever you wore for Halloween its devotees are more wantonly murderous than anything you've encountered stateside.

To worry that people with a strong familial identity are too close to the levers of power is a fair (if wildly overblown) concern but, as an earlier commentator noted, Steve does not do that very well and his readers do it even worse.

In Steve's instance it's easy enough to understand, he was abandoned by his real parents and had long held a fantasy that they were Jews (Jews are smart, he's smart - wallah!). This makes his prose less than clear-minded when noting instances of Jews who say nice things about other Jews.

As for his dumber commentators well, stupid is as stupid does.

The smarter commentators however have plenty to answer for. Do they not know that the most pernicious antisemites are Jews? (They do. They read them constantly.) They have had ample opportunity to interact with the world and with the world of information and to come to a saner conclusion about people of Jewish descent. Yet they persist in their jew hatred and see reasons for it available everywhere. Evidence enough of that is all of the outrage over her post about the people who kidnapped Gilad in order to free the wanton murderers of children. 'Did she mean all people who aren't Jewish?' commentators want to know.

Seriously?

Svigor said...

What's a stargazer?

P.S., Whiskey's nuts you know. He really thinks there's a good chance Barack Obama will openly and illegitimately seize power to stay in office when his term's up.

Anonymous said...

To worry that people with a strong familial identity are too close to the levers of power is a fair (if wildly overblown) concern but, as an earlier commentator noted, Steve does not do that very well and his readers do it even worse.


Straight from the Anti-anti-semites playbook. "Of course there is an argument to made that etc etc but the people actually making that argument are still stupid anti-semites".

Larry Auster sometimes has very critical things to say about Jews. But if other people say the things he says, they're still anti-semites. Because whether a statement is anti-semitic or not has nothing to do with the statement as a stand-alone entity and everything to do with who says it, in the eyes of the anti-anti-semites.

Man De Novo said...

One more thing - as an ethnic Ashkenazi, I am not the least bit offended by that Mencken quote. "Antisemitism is hating Jews more than you have to". Nice ring to it! If you're gonna dish it out...

Although I have never used the term "goyishe kopf", I know my Bubby has used it at least once.

On a more serious note, nothing that Jews have ever felt or thought about white Gentiles in the last five centuries comes close to the kinds of feelings that Arab Muslims have about, well, everyone who is not "my brother and my cousin" etcl

Note to all you iSteve readers/WN's who call yourselves "Judeo-critical" (another fine term) - contemporary Arab Muslims are in many ways what you would get if some Iron Age Hebrew tribes were preserved in amber and unfrozen today. Both Semites, you know. And if you think you dislike TODAY's Jews, well!!! Just some food for thought when you are forming your perspective on the realities of the Middle East.

Robert said...

I have been reading iSteve for some time but still don't know what a "neocon" is except "someone Steve and his commenters except Whiskey don't like"

The term is less well defined than "the environment". Which is to say, it is not defined at all.

Anonymous said...

'Did she mean all people who aren't Jewish?' commentators want to know.


Seriously?

No, not seriously. You made that up to give yourself a strawman to beat on.

Anonymous said...

Ok, Whiskey. Muslims are abhorrent people. So why exactly are the Weekly Standard, National Review, Tamar Jacoby, the Washington Post, WSJ, and the rest of the neoconservative media-industrial complex in favor of continued immigration? Why do they go out of their way to demonize Pat Buchanan, paleoconservatives, and immigration restrictionists at every turn?

If these people are so utterly evil, why such a push for open borders? Wasn't David Brooks (NYT) saying we should let anybody from "Israel to Indonesia" come settle in the U.S.?

Seems like the neoconservatives want to pummel them over there when they threaten their homeland, but then "celebrate diversity" in our homeland.

Sad thing is that if Herman Cain or Romney or Perry or Gingrich wins, neoconservatives are back in the driver's seat. If they lose, then Obama for 4 more years.

Oh man. May we live in interesting times.

quelle horreur said...

It was only copy-pasted here a dozen times or so but did anyone see this? "death worshiping devil's spawn subhuman Jawas yatta yatta"--TSK TSK, WHAT WILL THEY PRINT ON THE INTERNET NEXT?

It may well not be in their long-term interest for the Sons of Sam Francis to conduct "shamings" of barely mid-level web bloggers. Isn't there already a well-oiled CAIR/AADC machinery (many Pals being not Muslim and none being American but hey) to wage this tit for tat? No normal person has a dog in this fight, so stop pretending it's Page One. As for Abrams he is one of the few chosen to openly criticize miscegenation which at least makes him forthright and honest by that group's prevailing standard. Posts citing apocryphal GF of Unnamed Reader dimly recall Russ "Mugger" Smith's penchant for Jews In The News diary entries.

dearieme said...

In practice any and all commentary about Jews, no matter how factual and grounded in reality, is instantly dubbed "anti-Semitic".

But not by me.

Still, your point is good.

Anonymous said...

dearieme,

I'm afraid an anti-Semite who can diagram a sentence really is too much to ask.

Second City Cop recently hosted one of its many excellent ghetto-anthropology episodes - this one, as I recall, a video. You can fill in the acronym. One of the sardonic anonymous commenters - very likely an actual policeman - simply wrote:

"Resettlement to the east!"

Apparently our anonymous cop on the same page as "Bad Rachel." Perhaps they've both spent too much quality time with the Book of Samuel? But really, who could possibly disagree? In either case? Especially if you diagram the sentence correctly...

There's a pretty easy way to see what USG's real stance on Palestine is. Imagine if USG ceased to intervene entirely in the region. I can certainly envision a lot of bobbing bodies in the scenic southern Med. I don't see them as Jew bodies, however.

Ergo, USG's intervention is objectively pro-Arab: its absence would result in a worse outcome for America's little brown hook-nosed brothers. All historical reasoning which takes place in actual reality must begin with that fact and not its utterly fictitious converse.

It's embarrassing to see Sailerites falling for this fossilized communist turd, anti-Zionism. Like a hot chick with a loser boyfriend.

Anonymous said...

Good thing we have such judicious and prudent people like the neoconservatives in charge of our foreign policy. If it wasn't for them, wackos like Pat Buchanan might seize control. Then what would happen? Thankyou Bad Rachel Abrams, John Podhoretz, and Tamar Jacoby for saving us from the madness of Pat Buchanan. What would America do if it weren't fighting half a dozen wars at a time in the Middle East? What would America do if we restricted immigration so American jobs could go to American workers?

I'm so glad we spent that $5 trillion (estimated longterm cost) in Iraq. It was really worth it. I can't see any investment that would've generated a higher ROI. Please, neoconservatives, lead us into another war. Preferrably Iran. Take another $5, no $10, trillion. America can afford it. Some idiots in China are spending their government's money on encouraging industrial production and entreprenuership, but not us! When, in the history of the world, has spending money on manufacturing ever benefited anybody?

Please, war in Iran. It'll be a cakewalk.

Anonymous said...

Imagine if USG ceased to intervene entirely in the region. I can certainly envision a lot of bobbing bodies in the scenic southern Med. I don't see them as Jew bodies, however.

Ok. And what if in addition to USG ceasing to intervene entirely in the region, Iran cut a deal with a Russia or China to wipe Israel off the map?

Anonymous said...

Ergo, USG's intervention is objectively pro-Arab: its absence would result in a worse outcome for America's little brown hook-nosed brothers. All historical reasoning which takes place in actual reality must begin with that fact and not its utterly fictitious converse.

You don't seem to get it. Because of your biases, you can only think in terms of whether it's good or bad for Israel and good or bad for the Arabs.

Our view is that our foreign policy is not run by us but by people like those mentioned in the original post above, and that it is not a pro-American policy i.e. it is not good for us.

Anonymous said...

Countries like China and Russia seem to have pretty good relations with Iran and don't seem to have much of a problem with Iran going nuclear. They have their scientists and technicians there working on their nuke program and helping them out. They send materials and stuff over there.

If the US completely refrained from any intervention, and Israel unilaterally attacked the Arabs, Iran and others would likely retaliate. And if Iran has nukes, there isn't much Israel could do. Especially if in addition to nukes Iran has support from countries like China and Russia.

Anonymous said...

But Muslims are MY enemy because they wish to dominate me and tell me how to live my own life in my own lands.

Then its simple, dont let them live in our lands, problem solved.

Anonymous said...

It's embarrassing to see Sailerites falling for this fossilized communist turd, anti-Zionism. Like a hot chick with a loser boyfriend.

A hasbara speaks, oops, so sorry I meant Scots-Irish.

Q said...

I have been reading iSteve for some time but still don't know what a "neocon" is except "someone Steve and his commenters except Whiskey don't like"


The term is less well defined than "the environment". Which is to say, it is not defined at all.


That's a really peculiar thing to say, seeing as how the neoconservatives call themselves neoconservatives!

It seems that they can all themselves neoconsevatives, but nobody else can do so. It's like the other "n" word - they can use it but nobody else can.

This is from Commentary magazines self-description:

"COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards."

Irving Kristol wrote three books with "neoconservative" in the title: Reflections of a Neoconservative, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, and The Neoconservative Persuasion.

And yet none dare call them neoconservatives ....

Anonymous said...

Ok, Whiskey. Muslims are abhorrent people. So why exactly are the Weekly Standard, National Review, Tamar Jacoby, the Washington Post, WSJ, and the rest of the neoconservative media-industrial complex in favor of continued immigration?
at least part of it can be traced to the Jewish pysche - Christian goyim always evil, Jewish golden age was Moorish spain - who cares, of course, if it wasn't so golden for Spanish christians.

Many go as far to trace muslim 'anti semitism' as something 'caught' from contact with the west - David Horowitz, for example roots palestinian 'anti semitism' in contact with 'the nazis'

Abe Fauxman said...

Mr.Sailer, you should be ashamed for publishing such a hateful post; are you unaware that demonizing a nice Jewish girl who merely expresses her candid opinions is beyond the pale in this country.

Free speech is our most sacred right and many hasbar... er, commenters have been quick to convey this idea and dismiss your age-old innuendo.

Tolerating your vile and poorly-written rantings is a testament to our benevolence; even those Kraut monsters, who hardly deserve to live, have recently aknowledged the nobility of our valuable work.

Anonymous said...

"Muslims forbid dogs, pork, booze, and scantily clad women not just to themselves but everyone everywhere. [Making life not worth living.]"

Booze and scantily clad women were things that many Protestants lived without until relatively recently. Did they live lives not worth living?


Maybe, maybe not, but if you take away bacon then civilization will surely collapse.

-KM

The Anti-Gnostic said...

So why exactly are the Weekly Standard, National Review, Tamar Jacoby, the Washington Post, WSJ, and the rest of the neoconservative media-industrial complex in favor of continued immigration? Why do they go out of their way to demonize Pat Buchanan, paleoconservatives, and immigration restrictionists at every turn?

Because, you hateful bigot, if the US actually enforces its borders, the next thing you know the WASPs will be stockpiling Zyklon B and ordering the darkies to load the Jews on to the cattle cars. It can happen here!

I'm calling Homeland Security.

von Bizmarck said...

It's tough to take this post at face value - as if the problem of diplomats' idiot wives weren't baked into the cake long ago in the history of statecraft, and wannabe-bad girl's credentializing comments about the hostage trade truly merit logical examination. The Wash Post had their big "to-do" after the fact and it was a damned unedifying spectacle. Your fallacy is to assume the U.S. is some kind of honest broker in the Holy Land. U.S. is only in it for the headlines. The link was not shocking to anybody a reader of the born-agains at LGF back in 2003 but we are now all jostling in a scandal-production e-medium.

Anonymous said...

The armchair realists above don't seem to remember that the biggest little "I" country has a line to Russia too. Ever hear of the Golan Heights? Try cracking open a real actual printed book some time, guys; expert command of Wikipedia does not make you a commanding expert.

Anonymous said...

The armchair realists above don't seem to remember that the biggest little "I" country has a line to Russia too. Ever hear of the Golan Heights? Try cracking open a real actual printed book some time, guys; expert command of Wikipedia does not make you a commanding expert.

We're talking about hypotheticals here, not history.

Nobody is saying that without US intervention, Russia would automatically back the Arabs to wipe out Israel or something.

The point is that there are various plausible outcomes. The one-sided fantasy of Jewish Nationalists is not the only possible outcome.

And none of the armchair Jewish warriors above would be saying that it'd be better if the US completely refrained from intervention if Iran was armed to the teeth with nukes.

Anonymous said...

"Muslims forbid dogs, pork, booze, and scantily clad women not just to themselves but everyone everywhere. [Making life not worth living.]"

They are not alone, although, for some reason, the MSM stigmatize only Muslims when such chivalrous behaviour is displayed.

Anonymous said...

Our view is that our foreign policy is not run by us but by people like those mentioned in the original post above, and that it is not a pro-American policy i.e. it is not good for us.

Oh, you poor child. Can you name anywhere else on earth that US foreign policy is good for either (a) actual US interests, or (b) the natives?

Bueller? Bueller?

The purpose of US foreign policy - as with pretty much any advanced bureaucracy - is to sustain the US foreign policy establishment. Stick with simple and you'll never go wrong.

Anonymous said...

Ok. And what if in addition to USG ceasing to intervene entirely in the region, Iran cut a deal with a Russia or China to wipe Israel off the map?

Why on earth would they do that?

What if Israel cut a deal with Russia or China to wipe Iran off the map? Seems like much better business to me. I mean, if you're Russia or China. A sane Israel would have been in the Russia-China orbit ages ago.

I think Israel will eventually realize that its so-called alliance with Washington is a pact with death, just like South Africa's. It's only a question of whether it realizes this before it's too late.

Anonymous said...

I read Rachel's blog post. The rhetoric is a bit over the top but what's wrong with the sentiment? Is this supposed to show how Jews hate Palestinians (or all non-Jew, or something)? Really?

Steve's reaction is just like that of the liberal racialists he make fun of.

A thought experiment. Imagine Rachel had written something like this about, say, perpetrators of the Knoxville murders. Liberal racialist's reaction: "She is racist! She hates black people! Not only that, but she hates all non-white people too!"

Anonymous said...

The purpose of US foreign policy - as with pretty much any advanced bureaucracy - is to sustain the US foreign policy establishment. Stick with simple and you'll never go wrong.

Civilization has fundamental structural problems with it that simply cannot be overcome. To wit: Any time you let cities grow up from the countryside’s agricultural production, you create an elite that can defect against the rest of the population. The inevitable result is horizontal transmission with virulence emerging among some populations.

Anonymous said...

The purpose of US foreign policy - as with pretty much any advanced bureaucracy - is to sustain the US foreign policy establishment. Stick with simple and you'll never go wrong.

This is why homogeneity is so important. With greater distance (cultural, ethnic, social, etc.) between any advanced bureaucracy and the population it rules over and claims to represent, you have a greater divergence and conflict of interests.

Anonymous said...

Why on earth would they do that?

Again, we're talking about hypotheticals. What don't you understand about the words "what if"?

What if Israel cut a deal with Russia or China to wipe Iran off the map?

Yeah, and what if they didn't?

Seems like much better business to me. I mean, if you're Russia or China. A sane Israel would have been in the Russia-China orbit ages ago.

Well how do you know? You never know about those Russians - deep down inside they're a bunch of anti-Semitic Cossacks just waiting to come out. And those Chinese are inscrutable. And everything isn't about business, you know. All those evangelicals in the US that support Israel don't do it for business - most of them personally don't benefit monetarily, if anything they lose money by donating to Israel and by paying taxes that go to Israel.

I think Israel will eventually realize that its so-called alliance with Washington is a pact with death, just like South Africa's. It's only a question of whether it realizes this before it's too late.

Sure, they might at some point in the future. The point is that they haven't until now and won't anytime soon.

If Iran announced tomorrow morning that they had enough nukes to wipe out Israel, do you really think Israel would tell the US to not even think about ever intervening, that as long as the US stays out of it, everything will be fine for Israel?

Anonymous said...

I like my Scotch-Irish women hot blooded. Ouch!

Anonymous said...

I think Israel will eventually realize that its so-called alliance with Washington is a pact with death, just like South Africa's. It's only a question of whether it realizes this before it's too late.

You could be right. its all so one-way isnt it. All the things Israel does for the US and really what do they get in return? Nothing.

The money they pay the US every year, the way the US rips off their tech and sells it, all those Israeli troops who have died fighting American wars. The list goes on and on.

Noah172 said...

Man de Novo wrote:

"On a more serious note, nothing that Jews have ever felt or thought about white Gentiles in the last five centuries comes close to the kinds of feelings that Arab Muslims have about, well, everyone who is not 'my brother and my cousin' etcl"

Chew on the feelings, thoughts, and most importantly the DEEDS of these fine Members of the Tribe:

Leon Trotsky, Lazar Kaganovich, Genrikh Yagoda, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigori Sokolnikov, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Matvei Berman, Naftali Frenkel, Mikhail Kaganovich, Lev Inzhir, Yakov Yurovsky, Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, Matyas Rakosi, Gabor Peter, Ana Pauker, Bela Kun, Hilary Minc, Jakub Berman, Roman Romkowski, Józef Różański, Anatol Fejgin, Józef Światło, Adam Humer, Helena Wolińska-Brus, Piotr Śmietański, Mieczysław Mietkowski, Moša Pijade, Aleksandr Orlov, Soloman Morel...

Whew, that is FAR, FAR from an exhaustive list of Jews who have felt, thought, and committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles.

BTW, who wrote, "The white race is the cancer of human history"? What was that person's ethnicity?

Arab Muslims aren't looking so bad.

Mr. Anon said...

"Man De Novo said...

On a more serious note, nothing that Jews have ever felt or thought about white Gentiles in the last five centuries comes close to the kinds of feelings that Arab Muslims have about, well, everyone who is not "my brother and my cousin" etcl."

But historically, and to this day, jews figure prominently in keeping the immigration flood-gates open - the same gates through which muslims now enter this country in unprecedented numbers.

And by the way, most people here have no illusions about arabs or muslims. I don't want them here. I don't want them to form yet another etnic power-block that is hostile to my interests. We goyim are actually quite able to divine what is in our own interest without being told / lectured / scolded by the chosen people.

Mr. Anon said...

"A reader notices that an old acquaintance from decades ago now has her own blog: Bad Rachel."

Because we just don't have enough jewish neo-cons telling us what to think.

Reg Cæsar said...

By the way, a commenter has asserted that Midge Decter is the original for fussbudget Lucy van Pelt in Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts cartoons. Is there any truth to that?

Who said that?

They grew up about five years and six blocks apart, on either side of Macalaster College. (Speaking of Scots-Irish...) Their fathers were small businessmen. But unless little Marjorie accompanied Mr Rosenthal to Carl Schulz's barber shop, I don't see their paths crossing often enough to suggest a close acquaintance.

If Miss Decter is anyone in Peanuts, it would be little Thibault, the only character nastier than Lucy, and whose permanent scowl made him resemble her somewhat.

Did you know that John Smith and Anne Hutchinson came from the same village? Or that John Harvard's mother lived next to the Shakespeares in Stratford?

Hey, that's it-- Katherine Harvard wrote "Hamlet"! And Charles M. Schulz wrote "Liberal Parents, Radical Children"!

Anonymous said...

A thought experiment. Imagine Rachel had written something like this about, say, perpetrators of the Knoxville murders. Liberal racialist's reaction: "She is racist! She hates black people! Not only that, but she hates all non-white people too!"

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "liberal racialist", but are you trying to say that the average neocon is basically the Jewish equivalent of Alex Linder (the guy who publicized the Knoxville murders)? If so, then I don't really disagree.

Reg Cæsar said...

BTW, the van Pelts got their name from friends of the Schulzes, when they were in Colorado Springs, I think. Thibault got his name from Schulz's French hockey coach (sic) in Santa Rosa.

And here's the Stratford link I bungled.

Anonymous said...

Bet the "reader" is Ron Unz. Steve is too close to that guy.

Steve Sailer said...

"Ron Unz"

Nope.

Anonymous said...

The "reader" is Whiskey. Unfortunately, "Bad Rachel" left this Scotch-Irish gentleman for an unemployed Afro-American alpha male gangster rapper.

Anonymous said...

A picture of "Bad Rachel" below. Enjoy gentlemen.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/abrams_rachel

Difference Maker said...

I don't care to defend here but I do care to attack the imbecility inherent in those who have a problem (other than grammatical) with her description of those Jordgyptians that Israel released as well as those who kidnapped Gilad in order to gain those prisoners release and those who celebrated their release.

The Palestinian death cult is scarier than whatever you wore for Halloween its devotees are more wantonly murderous than anything you've encountered stateside.

To worry that people with a strong familial identity are too close to the levers of power is a fair (if wildly overblown) concern but, as an earlier commentator noted, Steve does not do that very well and his readers do it even worse.

In Steve's instance it's easy enough to understand, he was abandoned by his real parents and had long held a fantasy that they were Jews (Jews are smart, he's smart - wallah!). This makes his prose less than clear-minded when noting instances of Jews who say nice things about other Jews.

As for his dumber commentators well, stupid is as stupid does.

The smarter commentators however have plenty to answer for. Do they not know that the most pernicious antisemites are Jews? (They do. They read them constantly.) They have had ample opportunity to interact with the world and with the world of information and to come to a saner conclusion about people of Jewish descent. Yet they persist in their jew hatred and see reasons for it available everywhere. Evidence enough of that is all of the outrage over her post about the people who kidnapped Gilad in order to free the wanton murderers of children. 'Did she mean all people who aren't Jewish?' commentators want to know.

Seriously?



What have you in your heart for the Gentiles?

David said...

>No normal person has a dog in this fight, so stop pretending it's Page One.<

Veterans and citizens are not normal people, then. Quelle Horror, an appropriate name. By the way, the high-handed commands of the digital Lesser Sanhedrin ("so stop pretending") can go right in the garbage.

NOTA said...

I read a few of her posts, and like another commenter above, I can't figure out what I'm supposed to be learning from them, other than I'm glad I don't have to associate with her.

MQ said...

Wow, the crazy anti-semite factor is getting more and more prominent on this blog. It's unfortunate that genuine examples of collective Jewish influence like the pro-Israel lobby don't get the scrutiny they deserve because they can hide behind the obvious irrationality of the anti-semites.

Whew, that is FAR, FAR from an exhaustive list of Jews who have felt, thought, and committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles.

However long the list you are able to come with of Jews who have committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles, it is going to be much, much, much shorter than the list of white gentiles who have committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles. There's a lesson there, one that you're running away from with the fantasy of a devil race that is responsible for all your problems.

Anonymous said...

@MQ

It strikes me that people who go on about 'anti-semites' use rhetoric that's almost identical to feminists, just with a few words substituted.

Anonymous said...

There's a lesson there, one that you're running away from with the fantasy of a devil race that is responsible for all your problems.

All crimes aren't equal. Who, whom matters. In-group vs. out-group dynamics matter.

Abe Fauxman said...

There's a lesson there, one that you're running away from with the fantasy of a devil race that is responsible for all your problems.

So true, MQ; in our 24/7/365 worldwide kvetching, our proud co-religionists hardly need to summon a *devil race* as responsible for our eternal problems.

Despite my phenomenal knowledge, I am at loss to conjure such an instance.

Those irrational anti-semites should obviously grow some skin.

RKU said...

Well, for all those who've sometimes wondered just what sort of unusual personality or psychological factors lay behind the extermination of 20 or 30 million Slavic Christians in the first few decades of the Twentieth Century...you need wonder no more!

rob said...

There's a pretty easy way to see what USG's real stance on Palestine is. Imagine if USG ceased to intervene entirely in the region. I can certainly envision a lot of bobbing bodies in the scenic southern Med. I don't see them as Jew bodies, however.

Ergo, USG's intervention is objectively pro-Arab: its absence would result in a worse outcome for America's little brown hook-nosed brothers.


tl:dr *fantasizes about the jews exterminating the "hook noses" (you must be some sort of anti-Semite, to characterize Semites so) once the US stops holding 'em back. *Decides US is pro-Arab, hates America from stopping one group of Semites from exterminating another group.*

Couplah things: if the US is preventing another hook-nose Holocaust, then that is a point in favor of the US policy, and kinda makes ya wonder about how many other Holocausts Jews would have done if they had had the means.
Second, you think the US is the only thing keeping the genocidal Jewish state from mass, mass murder? I'm not sure I've ever heard an "anti-Semite" claim that America's leash is the only thing keeping the vicious Jews from Final Solutioning rivals for their Lebensraum. Seems one has to be a pro-Semite to think Jews are that horrible. Any other populations you think the Jews would slaughter if only they had the power?

On the off chance that the anon isn't flying a false flag, there is a big chunk of conservatives who root for Israel like they're watching a football game. I wonder about the psychology behind it.

rob said...

Do they not know that the most pernicious antisemites are Jews? (They do. They read them constantly.)

Why on earth are so many Jews pretending to be be Gentile anti-Semites? Moby now, Moby 4LIFE.

Anonymous said...

"By the way, a commenter has asserted that Midge Decter is the original for fussbudget Lucy van Pelt in Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts cartoons. Is there any truth to that?"

The only webpage connecting Midge Decter and Lucy Van Pelt that Google suggests is this post, so I'm going with "no." Decter and Schulz could conceivably have known each other in St. Paul, and it's quite possible Schulz could have drawn the inspiration for his Peanuts kids from people younger than himself. But apparently neither Schulz nor anyone close to him ever cited Decter as an inspiration. Your "commenter" needs to cite a source.

Anonymous said...

I heartily endorse her sentiments on the Pali-wogs. They and their ilk are why Jews gave the States the bomb all those years ago.

I don't really see how perceptions of Abrams's views would make any difference to the outcome of diplomatic negotiations- it's not like the man is one of the professional State Department types who specialize in tedious talking.

David said...

When did it become "conservative" to underwrite the genocidal sentiments of one pack of Semites fighting another? A pox on both their houses.

Mr. Anon said...

MQ said...

It's unfortunate that genuine examples of collective Jewish influence like the pro-Israel lobby don't get the scrutiny they deserve because they can hide behind the obvious irrationality of the anti-semites."

So it is legitimate - according to you - to be discussing the pro-Israel lobby. What do you think this women and her husband are, if not members of the pro-Israel lobby?

Whew, that is FAR, FAR from an exhaustive list of Jews who have felt, thought, and committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles.

"However long the list you are able to come with of Jews who have committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles, it is going to be much, much, much shorter than the list of white gentiles who have committed unimaginable cruelty against white gentiles."

Says who? And to whom?